| ▲ | tristanj 15 hours ago |
| JCPOA only had temporary enrichment limits, which would end in 2030, after which Iran could enrich freely. It did not permanently stop enrichment. If JCPOA was followed by both Iran and the US to the letter, we would face a similar crisis to the one seen today, except around 2031-2035. |
|
| ▲ | defrost 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Unless agreements are renegotiated and extended, of course. What matters is ongoing engagement and monitoring, it's a far more tractable position than standoffs with zero knowledge or interaction. |
| |
| ▲ | tristanj 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | The core reason those sunset dates exist is because Iranian officials stated that a sunset on enrichment limits was a non-negotiable. They would not sign a deal without them. Claiming "agreements are renegotiated and extended" is hypothetical. What incentive does Iran have to agree to enrichment caps post-2030? Why would Iran give up its strongest negotiating card, its nuclear program? | | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For the same reasons it temporarily gave it up before? | | |
| ▲ | tristanj 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Under JCPOA, Iran capped its nuclear program for 15 years in exchange for: * Global sanctions relief * $100-150 billion in frozen assets * Access to the global oil market Iran in 2030 under JCPOA already has access to all three. The US already played its best cards to get Iran to agree to JCPOA. The US has little new to offer, other than resumed sanctions. | | |
| ▲ | no-name-here 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Under a JCPOA extension, why would items like access to the global oil markets (in addition to sanctions) not be part of the negotiations? And with JCPOA and its possible continuation, that was a joint agreement among a number of countries - in the current situation, it’s just the U.S./Israel (+ them trying to impose their will on other countries to go along with any carrots/sticks). | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well yes, exactly. Would sanctions not be an incentive in 2030? | |
| ▲ | drnick1 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The US has little new to offer, other than resumed sanctions. Not turning the country into a parking lot is a rather generous offer. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kelnos 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Claiming "agreements are renegotiated and extended" is hypothetical. What's not hypothetical is that, under the deal, they agreed to not enrich until 2030. What's not hypothetical is that Trump abandoned the deal, with nothing to replace it, allowing them to start enriching in 2017 instead. And if you're going to claim that renegotiation is hypothetical, then you also have to agree that any other possible future outcome, including one in which Iran develops a functional nuclear weapon, is also hypothetical. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | drbojingle 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| and lord knows a new deal would not be possible by that time... |
|
| ▲ | kelnos 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Ok, so Trump gave them 13 years of enrichment that they wouldn't otherwise have had. And those 13 years would have been plenty of time to extend or renegotiate that agreement. |
