I suspect that shortly after Iran gets nukes KSA will buy the same from Pakistan. Not sure how you stop Iran from getting nukes at this point short of war or internal overthrow. What would you suggest?
the heavy water reactor was never to be dismantled. They were allowed to continue construction under the agreement but were supposed to modify the design such that it could not produce weapons grade uranium. Of course, the modifications are so slight that it could easily be converted to be able to produce weapons grade uranium. they were taking down old, inefficient centrifuges and replacing them with newer, much faster centrifuges. Total number of units was going down, total capacity to produce was going up. Bad deal, cut by a neophyte politician in way over his head that was sent to Paris to negotiate with the mullahs, in a rush to get a deal done for O and Hillary. Iran nuclear deal: What it all means - BBC News Under the JCPOA, Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor existed. Iran must also not build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water until 2031.
Though not strictly responsive, I would add that the last administration ratcheted up again with secondary sanctions on European allies for trading with them, even after we abrogated the agreement. I continue to think that was wrong and will do long-term damage. But I did think the regime is likely to fall due to the economic pressure. The fact that they have not I think is a test of that while sanctions can be a very very effective foreign-policy tool cut off their nuclear program, they're not going to cause regime change. Unfortunately, most of those against the deal feel like that is the only acceptable outcome for any foreign-policy towards Iran. Merely cutting off the nuclear program is insufficient. I continue to steadfastly disagree, but practically and in a larger sense for our long-term interests
I honestly don't have one. I'm a bit torn when it comes to the ME. In all other cases, I would say we need to stay the hell out of their foreign affairs. However, Israel's position (and the ME in general) is simply too strategic a powder keg for the world in general to ignore. When GWB was in charge, I agreed with going into Afghanistan post-9/11 because that's where all the intelligence said OBL was based out of. However, Iraq was none of our business and in fact kept Iran in check (one crazy kept the other crazy from doing anything too crazy). I'd almost have argued that Saddam was one reason that Iran didn't aggressively pursue nukes because it would've forced Iraq to do the same. Add in that the slimeball Saudis play both sides of the fence and you get what we have right now.
the true economic pressure (no bank access, no insurance on ships carrying oil) were not in place very long. I still believe that if they were supported by the EU that there would ahve been regime change. The population is young, unemployed, and unhappy with their situation. It is a recipe for upheavel.
We can thank the Anglo-Iranian oil company, Brits, Churchill, Eisenhower and Kermit for overthrowing a Democratically elected Mossadegh and installing the Shah. 68 years of instability because the Brits believed in their outmoded colonial conqueror mind set that Iran’s oil belonged to them. Toss in a bit of Soviet commie intrigue and US buffoonery and we are reaping what we sow.
Isn't this making the point that sanctions alone do not work? After the agreement was dropped and more sanctions added, the Iranians are now very close to a nuclear bomb. What money Iran is bringing in, they are using it disproportionately to build a bomb.
No, current sanctions are insignificant. When access to banks and shipping insurance was denied by the west (US, Britain, EU) etc (nov 2012), Iran came to the table. They got a great deal so 0 could claim a victory. Current US sanctions do not carry nearly same punch as 2012
How so? They get sanctions lifted, allowed to advance construction of nuclear reactor, get access to frozen funds, get to continue their long range missile program, get to install advanced tech centrifuges. They agreed to monitoring and a cap on their known stockpile of low grade enriched product and allow monitoring with a 8 year(?) sunset. They spend 6 - 8 years building out the infrastructure, including defenses, and perfecting delivery missile program and then wait for sunset or terminate inspection and complete the work to be ready to complete the development process. Am I missing something?
The Trump administration itself verified that the deal was working twice in 2017. Then Trump wanted to negotiate a better deal, so he could claim a victory by doing away with anything that Obama was credited for, but left office not having fulfilled that. He also did not have any concrete plans to negotiate with Iran and just threw more sanctions on. Your position isn't supported by the present situation - when the deal was dropped Iran accelerated despite Trump's sanctions. Edit: Additional data on how Trump realized he blew it, From Wiki: "In 2020, the Trump administration asserted that the U.S. remained a "participant" in the Iran Deal, despite having formally withdrawn in 2018, to persuade the United Nations Security Council to reimpose pre-agreement sanctions on Iran for its breaches of the deal after the U.S. withdrawal. The agreement provided for a resolution process among signatories in the event of a breach, but that process had not yet played out. The Security Council voted on the administration's proposal in August, with only the Dominican Republic joining the U.S. to vote in favor."
It was not a perfect deal by any stretch, it was quite narrow in scope. But we unilaterally terminated, basically against the advice of every other partner nation except Israel. The deal was terminated with zero plan b. Zero coordination with allies. This makes the U.S. seem unstable/unreliable, esp with the GOP being what it is. For all Trumps talk, he was incredibly shitty at actually doing deals. Even if the deal was the absolute worst, we already gave stuff up to make it happen. Trump ripped it up and got NOTHING favorable in return. There was no cost to keeping the arrangement in place.
I don't question that but the deal was crap, never should have been agreed to. Continuiing to consume that crap wasn't a good plan either
Today, even the Israeli military and Mossad believe they were better off with the agreement than without it. From the former head of Mossad, Tamir Pardo, at the time of the 2015 agreement: Israeli Security Officials Are Divided Over Iran Nuclear Deal The agreement was difficult to reach, and had it been 'crap' then it should have been easy for Trump to create a better agreement. He couldn't and tried to reenter the US into the agreement.
you can't create a better agreement without leverage that economic hardship brings. no trump fan but the whole Iran nuclear issue has been mishandled with the exception of the successes of digital sabotage from the beginning.
"Lying" is a very emotionally loaded term. No, I don't believe the IAEA was lying. I believe they reported the facts as they were allowed to see them in the areas they were permitted to inspect, which -- as you're probably aware -- only included the sites we know about and none of the IRGC facilities. I also don't believe the Iranian general government was necessarily "lying." I think the civilian government as a rule believed the deal was in its economic interest (except to the extent that the IRGC just used the economic relief to buy more weapons instead of helping the people). The IRCG, of course, was never "lying." In its view, the general government might have given its word, but the IRGC was never bound by it and finds it mildly amusing that the general government was frustrated it could not make guarantees on behalf of the IRGC. I don't even think Jake Sullivan is "lying." Yes, he has seen all of the same intelligence that the Obama and Trump Administrations have that indicated the IRGC was playing everyone false and never intended to do anything else. But one can always selectively interpret intelligence. Note that he never says no such intelligence exists; he just says something vague about how different organizations interpret data differently. So the real question is, are Israel, Saudi Arabia et al "lying"? Are our own intelligence services, military and civilian, "lying"? I can understand the motivation for Israel, but not the others.
