Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

 

So then you guys see the dilemma.

Talks, sanctions, plans (e.g. The Obama and to a lesser extent the Biden way) doesn't work because Iran is disingenous.

Threats and Sabre-Rattling (e.g. The Trump way) doesn't work, it incentives and speeds up development (which is already sped up over years past due to advancements)

Nothing works, so we will fight over them or with them.

Is there a seperate ledge for nuclear war / WWIII or is it shared with the Fall of the American Republic ledge?

You say Iran is disingenuous, and I'd agree with you.

But I'd argue everyone is disingenuous. The United States certainly is on all sorts of things. Sometimes purposefully, and sometimes by making promises they end up not having the political will to fulfill. 

How important is having possession of nuclear weapons for state sovereignty? What are the consequences to a ruling regime compared to the benefits? Why would we ever expect a nation state that has embarked on possessing nuclear weapons to genuinely give up that pursuit?

If one doesn't want nuclear proliferation to occur then the only way to slow it down is to make the consequence for pursuing it so painful that it's unthinkable to do so. Since what I mean by that is abhorrent, we're left with a world where more people will have access to nuclear weapons. It would also be helpful if we'd do a better job of guaranteeing the sovereignty of countries that do give up possession of nuclear weapons. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

It would also be helpful if we'd do a better job of guaranteeing the sovereignty of countries that do give up possession of nuclear weapons. 

Which was very successfully done by the US with it's political stability on protecting foreign allies for decades. We managed to be a part of convincing Ukraine to cease it's nuclear weapons pursuit, and look what that got them. 

Donald Trump and Republicans turning their backs on allies signals the US is no longer reliable as an ally, and it has single handedly erased decades of US diplomacy by Republican and Democrat presidents alike. It's now a global arms race to ensure you're a country with a dead man's switch to keep other countries like the US, China,  and Russia from invading you. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

You got a source for this?

From Semafor (below) that confirms that when unofficial negotiations between Biden’s team and Iran collapsed, U.S. officials cited Iran’s refusal to cooperate on UN nuclear inspections. Specifically, Iran resisted addressing uranium traces found at undeclared sites and blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. This lack of transparency led Western nations to pass a censure resolution against Iran at the IAEA.

https://www.semafor.com/article/06/05/2024/iran-west-tensions-nuclear-transparency-uranium-inspections

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

How important is having possession of nuclear weapons for state sovereignty? ... Why would we ever expect a nation state that has embarked on possessing nuclear weapons to genuinely give up that pursuit?

See Ukraine....

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

You say Iran is disingenuous, and I'd agree with you.

But I'd argue everyone is disingenuous. The United States certainly is on all sorts of things. Sometimes purposefully, and sometimes by making promises they end up not having the political will to fulfill. 

How important is having possession of nuclear weapons for state sovereignty? What are the consequences to a ruling regime compared to the benefits? Why would we ever expect a nation state that has embarked on possessing nuclear weapons to genuinely give up that pursuit?

If one doesn't want nuclear proliferation to occur then the only way to slow it down is to make the consequence for pursuing it so painful that it's unthinkable to do so. Since what I mean by that is abhorrent, we're left with a world where more people will have access to nuclear weapons. It would also be helpful if we'd do a better job of guaranteeing the sovereignty of countries that do give up possession of nuclear weapons. 

I agree with you 100%.

In general we are seeing (in my view) the natural end result of when human civilization and societies come together for a tenuously held and sued-by-the-threat-of-force peace golden era.

History is littered with the ebbs and flows of such periods and it's generally great for mankind when we can prolong it, due to all the advancements and qualities we can focus on versus when societal growth grinds to a halt for the tactical-- armament, re-armament, having babies to repopulate the young men slaughtered in wars, replacing slain kings/leaders, fighting against internal infighting that undermines military and political strength, etc.

We seem to be plummeting towards the end of a great era. I'm so on the ledge you can call me Heath Ledger

Posted
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

You got a source for this?

i'm going to laugh so hard when he says it is from an email newsletter he gets and still claims to not be animaltobacco.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hermanator said:

Which was very successfully done by the US with it's political stability on protecting foreign allies for decades. We managed to be a part of convincing Ukraine to cease it's nuclear weapons pursuit, and look what that got them. 

Donald Trump and Republicans turning their backs on allies signals the US is no longer reliable as an ally, and it has single handedly erased decades of US diplomacy by Republican and Democrat presidents alike. It's now a global arms race to ensure you're a country with a dead man's switch to keep other countries like the US, China,  and Russia from invading you. 

It wasn't very successfully done. After the US, the former Soviet Union, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and South Africa developed nuclear weapons. South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine gave them up after possessing them. 

I'm saying countries have a lot of incentives to develop a nuclear weapon, and the disincentives are wholly inadequate. But adequate discincentives are likely horrifying. 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I agree with you 100%.

In general we are seeing (in my view) the natural end result of when human civilization and societies come together for a tenuously held and sued-by-the-threat-of-force peace golden era.

History is littered with the ebbs and flows of such periods and it's generally great for mankind when we can prolong it, due to all the advancements and qualities we can focus on versus when societal growth grinds to a halt for the tactical-- armament, re-armament, having babies to repopulate the young men slaughtered in wars, replacing slain kings/leaders, fighting against internal infighting that undermines military and political strength, etc.

We seem to be plummeting towards the end of a great era. I'm so on the ledge you can call me Heath Ledger

While I certainly agree with you, I'm also reminded of all the times throughout human history when contemporaries felt like they were living in the end times, and it turned out not to be that way. Of course, sometimes it really was, at least from their perspective. 

It's inherently impossible to have genuine historical perspective on the times you're currently living in. Nonetheless, we can all see trends, and the trends do not feel very good right now. I think my biggest fear is we seem to be collectively leaning into the basest aspects of our humanity - especially in the United States - and I'm not sure what arrests that other than really negative outcomes. On a selfish level, I don't particularly want to live through those really negative outcomes. 

I hope for a George Washington/Thomas Jefferson/Abraham Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt/FDR/Reagan type. I voted Republican all my life (for presidential elections) until 2016. Given where the party has gone, I don't see how someone like that wins the Republican nomination in the future, much less a general election. 

Honestly, at the foundational level my biggest fear is that in the near future our votes aren't going to matter any more. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, sidis said:

i'm going to laugh so hard when he says it is from an email newsletter he gets and still claims to not be animaltobacco.

Quote

 

From Semafor (below) that confirms that when unofficial negotiations between Biden’s team and Iran collapsed, U.S. officials cited Iran’s refusal to cooperate on UN nuclear inspections. Specifically, Iran resisted addressing uranium traces found at undeclared sites and blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. This lack of transparency led Western nations to pass a censure resolution against Iran at the IAEA.

https://www.semafor.com/article/06/05/2024/iran-west-tensions-nuclear-transparency-uranium-inspections

 

 

Get a life, nerd.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, sidis said:

go spend $2,000 on chickfila this month.

wtf are you talking about? Is this AI hallucinating?

Posted
4 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Which was very successfully done by the US with it's political stability on protecting foreign allies for decades. We managed to be a part of convincing Ukraine to cease it's nuclear weapons pursuit, and look what that got them. 

Donald Trump and Republicans turning their backs on allies signals the US is no longer reliable as an ally, and it has single handedly erased decades of US diplomacy by Republican and Democrat presidents alike. It's now a global arms race to ensure you're a country with a dead man's switch to keep other countries like the US, China,  and Russia from invading you. 

 

4 hours ago, Tonesky said:

See Ukraine....

We all got it guys

Posted
24 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Seems like the Air Force is practicing bombing runs on the roads in and around Shreveport/Bossier City. 

20250401_164147~2.jpg

Bombing Louisiana?  If Senator Kennedy is back in state ...

mmm-ill-allow-it.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
Seems like the Air Force is practicing bombing runs on the roads in and around Shreveport/Bossier City. 
20250401_1641472.thumb.jpg.53de4555b7c8acadacd333c1b36b79a0.jpg

Tell me you don’t know where the B-52s are stationed without telling me you don’t know where the B-52s are stationed.

I’m old enough to remember seeing this same sight- a BUFF on final in its unique nose down attitude- all the time in Fort Worth.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:


Tell me you don’t know where the B-52s are stationed without telling me you don’t know where the B-52s are stationed.

The Love Shack? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Posted

With this administration, we're probably going to see orders to make a bombing run sent by WhatsApp, with a fat-fingered typo, and just like that....we'll bomb this place:

iraan_texas.jpg

...and Rankin will take its rightful place as the big dog of one of the most desolates stretches of W. Texas.

  • Haha 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Huh, interdasting. Still fuck Mike Waltz though. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/trump-israel-iran-nuclear.html

 

Trump Waved Off Israeli Strike After Divisions Emerged in His Administration

Israel developed plans for attacking Iranian nuclear facilities that would have required U.S. assistance. But some administration officials had doubts.

Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

...

Initially, at the behest of Mr. Netanyahu, senior Israeli officials updated their American counterparts on a plan that would have combined an Israeli commando raid on underground nuclear sites with a bombing campaign, an effort that the Israelis hoped would involve American aircraft.

But Israeli military officials said the commando operation would not be ready until October. Mr. Netanyahu wanted it carried out more quickly. Israeli officials began shifting to a proposal for an extended bombing campaign that would have also required American assistance, according to officials briefed on the plan.

Some American officials were at least initially more open to considering the Israeli plans. Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, both discussed how the United States could potentially support an Israeli attack, if Mr. Trump backed the plan, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

Image

The aircraft carrier Carl Vinson was repositioned from the Pacific to the Arabian Sea for operations against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, but also to potentially support an Israeli strike on Iran.Credit...Linh Pham/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

With the United States intensifying its war against the Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen, General Kurilla, with the blessing of the White House, began moving military equipment to the Middle East. A second aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, is now in the Arabian Sea, joining the carrier Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea.

The United States also moved two Patriot missile batteries and a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, known as a THAAD, to the Middle East.

Around a half-dozen B-2 bombers capable of carrying 30,000-pound bombs essential to destroying Iran’s underground nuclear program were dispatched to Diego Garcia, an island base in the Indian Ocean.

Moving additional fighter aircraft to the region, potentially to a base in Israel, was also considered.

All of the equipment could be used for strikes against the Houthis — whom the United States has been attacking since March 15 in an effort to halt their strikes against shipping vessels in the Red Sea. But U.S. officials said privately that the weaponry was also part of the planning for potentially supporting Israel in a conflict with Iran.

Even if the United States decided not to authorize the aircraft to take part in a strike on Iran, Israel would know that the American fighters were available to defend against attacks by an Iranian ally.

There were signs that Mr. Trump was open to U.S. support for Israeli military action against Iran. The United States has long accused Iran of giving the Houthis weapons and intelligence, and of exercising at least a degree of control over the group. On March 17, as Mr. Trump warned the Houthis in Yemen to stop their attacks, he also called out Iran, saying that it was in control of the Houthis.

...

There were many reasons that Israeli officials expected Mr. Trump to take an aggressive line on Iran. In 2020, he ordered the killing of Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the commander of Iran’s most elite military unit. And Iran sought to hire hit men to assassinate Mr. Trump during last year’s presidential campaign, according to a Justice Department indictment.

But inside the Trump administration, some officials were becoming skeptical of the Israeli plan.

In a meeting this month — one of several discussions about the Israeli plan — Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, presented a new intelligence assessment that said the buildup of American weaponry could potentially spark a wider conflict with Iran that the United States did not want.

A range of officials echoed Ms. Gabbard’s concerns in the various meetings. Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; and Vice President JD Vance all voiced doubts about the attack.

Even Mr. Waltz, frequently one of the most hawkish voices on Iran, was skeptical that Israel’s plan could succeed without substantial American assistance.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

 Iran’s 60% enrichment is too close to nuclear weapons capability for comfort. The Trump administration has called it a red line and hopes to get Russia and China on board with keeping Iran non-nuclear. The alternative? Trump's been clear: military strikes are on the table.

But this is the interesting part:

Posted
4 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

 Iran’s 60% enrichment is too close to nuclear weapons capability for comfort. The Trump administration has called it a red line and hopes to get Russia and China on board with keeping Iran non-nuclear. The alternative? Trump's been clear: military strikes are on the table.

But this is the interesting part:

And they’ve already folded on that red line, btw.

Posted
43 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No they haven't. They are pushing for the regional oversight consortium that will allow them to enrich uranium but well below weapons grade %'s (the red-line). Talks are on-going and from what I have read up to today (your article was 3 days ago) are positive and creative in trying to find a solution (the ayatollah's unhinged tweets from yesterday notwithstanding, but nobody takes the ayatollah seriously anymore). 

Trump was telling Israel to back off Iran because talks were actually progressing-- so no folding of that red line.

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

No they haven't. They are pushing for the regional oversight consortium that will allow them to enrich uranium but well below weapons grade %'s (the red-line).

lol OK

 

41 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Talks are on-going and from what I have read up to today (your article was 3 days ago) are positive and creative in trying to find a solution (the ayatollah's unhinged tweets from yesterday notwithstanding, but nobody takes the ayatollah seriously anymore). 

Imagine looking at what we are doing and seeing progress or saying “these are the serious people.”

 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
57 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

No they haven't. They are pushing for the regional oversight consortium that will allow them to enrich uranium but well below weapons grade %'s (the red-line). Talks are on-going and from what I have read up to today (your article was 3 days ago) are positive and creative in trying to find a solution (the ayatollah's unhinged tweets from yesterday notwithstanding, but nobody takes the ayatollah seriously anymore). 

Trump was telling Israel to back off Iran because talks were actually progressing-- so no folding of that red line.

Wow. What a gullible rube. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

lol OK

 

Imagine looking at what we are doing and seeing progress or saying “these are the serious people.”

 

 

9 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Wow. What a gullible rube. 

What am I missing? How are we folding? The reality is it's a hard ask for any country to not enrich uranium voluntarily. We have put military strikes on the table if they keep it up. Do you think that is folding?

Further, our Spcial Envoy Steve Witkoff is working with Iran’s negotiators ::checks notes:: fifth round of talks and Iran is desperate to do a deal before UN/Sanctions rubberband back on them. Reports are they are having rolling black outs and the common folks are getting antsy.

The lastest is as quoted below-- seems like a proper use of diplomacy if this is in any way accurate.

Quote

 

A "regional enrichment consortium" (potentially including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Turkey) to monitor Iran’s uranium enrichment for civilian purposes

Iran must drop enrichment from the current 60% level to 3% — that's from one step below weapons-grade to civilian reactor levels

Iran must shut down its underground enrichment facilities

And it can only develop nuclear materials for civilian purposes

Iran's response: At first, Iranian officials seemed open to the consortium idea as long as it was based in Iran and apparently discussed the proposal with neighbouring countries.

It could be a creative solution to a difficult problem with added long-term upside: instead of Iran enriching uranium alone (which scares everyone) or giving it up entirely (which Iran refuses to do), a regional consortium could help thread the needle and even improve regional cooperation.

 

 

Posted

Good thing we got rid of the JCPOA that took a decade to negotiate and was, by all accounts, working.  But I'm sure this crack squad of savvy personnel will come up with something just as good.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Good thing we got rid of the JCPOA that took a decade to negotiate and was, by all accounts, working.  But I'm sure this crack squad of savvy personnel will come up with something just as good.

Wut? By all accounts was working? I'm pretty sure on this thread a few pages back everyone agreed it was FUBAR'ed with Iran openly flouting the agreement. This is one of the few bipartisan agreements and issues that both D's and R's seem to agree on the general problem (Iran).

But yes, to your point, nobody in the Trump administration will ever be confused with being diplomatic giants, but luckily enough other countries (and even Arab states) have an interest in keeping Iran in check as well.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
7 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

 

What am I missing? How are we folding? The reality is it's a hard ask for any country to not enrich uranium voluntarily. We have put military strikes on the table if they keep it up. Do you think that is folding?

Further, our Spcial Envoy Steve Witkoff is working with Iran’s negotiators ::checks notes:: fifth round of talks and Iran is desperate to do a deal before UN/Sanctions rubberband back on them. Reports are they are having rolling black outs and the common folks are getting antsy.

The lastest is as quoted below-- seems like a proper use of diplomacy if this is in any way accurate.

 

You understand that for Shia Iran those countries monitoring anything is capitulation.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

You understand that for Shia Iran those countries monitoring anything is capitulation.

Not sure what you mean, but it's been credibly reported that Saudi told Iran to take a deal. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-warned-iran-reach-nuclear-deal-with-trump-or-risk-israeli-strike-2025-05-30/

Quote

 

Saudi’s defense minister was blunt during his April visit to Tehran—the first by a Saudi royal in decades—telling Iran to take Trump's offer seriously because the alternative is Israeli attacks that could engulf the whole region.

For now, every country (perhaps excluding Israel) wants to keep talking. Saudi Arabia "fully supports" the talks, Oman is playing mediator, and Trump is proudly announcing that he told Netanyahu not to bomb Iran as it risked derailing the “very good discussions we’re having with them.”

 

 

Posted
Just now, Vegas64 said:

Not sure what you mean, but it's been credibly reported that Saudi told Iran to take a deal. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-warned-iran-reach-nuclear-deal-with-trump-or-risk-israeli-strike-2025-05-30/

 

Cuz the Saudis do not want a nuke armed Iran. Ever hear of the Sunni-Shia split? The Iranian take over of Mecca?

Telling the Imams to do one thing, them doing it, are very different.

2 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Not sure what you mean, but it's been credibly reported that Saudi told Iran to take a deal. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-warned-iran-reach-nuclear-deal-with-trump-or-risk-israeli-strike-2025-05-30/

 

And I am referencing this.

 

A "regional enrichment consortium" (potentially including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Turkey) to monitor Iran’s uranium enrichment for civilian purposes

Iran must drop enrichment from the current 60% level to 3% — that's from one step below weapons-grade to civilian reactor levels

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, InkaUtexas said:

Cuz the Saudis do not want a nuke armed Iran. Ever hear of the Sunni-Shia split? The Iranian take over of Mecca?

Telling the Imams to do one thing, them doing it, are very different.

Okay right-- of course and sure-- I couldn't tell due to how it was worded if you were offering anything deeper than a nod to the historical.

At the end of the day the only real way to keep a country for becoming a nuclear state when you don't want them to be one is to strike militarily. And in this climate I think everyone is looking around and seeing that those countries who went rogue and developed nukes are probably better off in a "might is right" world we currently inhabit than those who took the Western's paternal offer of protection in exchange for giving up a nuclear program (e.g. Ukraine).

Posted

We will literally fund islamist terrorist organizations if we whiff geopolitical alignment in the moment and try to act like we actually understand how the dynamics play out in the long run. Just total absurdity that we rinse and repeat. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

And I am referencing this.

 

A "regional enrichment consortium" (potentially including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Turkey) to monitor Iran’s uranium enrichment for civilian purposes

Iran must drop enrichment from the current 60% level to 3% — that's from one step below weapons-grade to civilian reactor levels

 

Maybe ultimately it's all bluster and comes to nothing and Iran just acts antaganostic as always, but at least it smells like a hint of progress. The alternatives we've seen are either a) JCPOA which according to satellite images and readings Iran was openly flaunting and blowing through civilian grade restrictions to nuclear level uranium enrichment and b) Iran not accepting any foreign oversite.

The problem here is Iran not the myriad of countries in a global society trying to come together and be creative in their thinking to police them.

Posted
57 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Wut? By all accounts was working? I'm pretty sure on this thread a few pages back everyone agreed it was FUBAR'ed with Iran openly flouting the agreement. This is one of the few bipartisan agreements and issues that both D's and R's seem to agree on the general problem (Iran).

But yes, to your point, nobody in the Trump administration will ever be confused with being diplomatic giants, but luckily enough other countries (and even Arab states) have an interest in keeping Iran in check as well.

I have not read that. Can you give me a link?

Here’s a non-partisan overview. 
 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

 

Heres one from an organization whose top editor is a conservative and former Fox News contributor. 
 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-nuclear-deal/

Quote

As of May, 2018, the deal was working and considered (by most) to be a great success.

Then President Trump unilaterally left the deal, calling it a “horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.” And now we are in a much worse place. 

Quote

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos   is the Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute. Previously, she served as Executive Editor of The American Conservative magazine, where she had been reporting and publishing regular articles on national security, civil liberties, foreign policy, veterans, and Washington politics since 2007. From 2013 to 2017, Vlahos served as director of social media and online editor at WTOP News in Washington, D.C. She also spent 15 years as an online political reporter for Fox News at the channel’s Washington D.C. bureau, as well as Washington correspondent for Homeland Security Today magazine.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I have not read that. Can you give me a link?

Here’s a non-partisan overview. 
 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

 

Heres one from an organization whose top editor is a conservative and former Fox News contributor. 
 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-nuclear-deal/

 

From Semafor (below) that confirms that when unofficial negotiations between Biden’s team and Iran collapsed, U.S. officials cited Iran’s refusal to cooperate on UN nuclear inspections. Specifically, Iran resisted addressing uranium traces found at undeclared sites and blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. This lack of transparency led Western nations to pass a censure resolution against Iran at the IAEA.

https://www.semafor.com/article/06/05/2024/iran-west-tensions-nuclear-transparency-uranium-inspections

So yea, I guess if you turn a blind eye to someone not honoring the deal you can pretend the deal is a great success. It's like your wife cheating on you and pretending like you don't know about it so you can say you have a healthy marriage to others.

By the way, life comes at you fast and progress enables speed. What took a year in Obama's day to enrich the uranimum and make a nuke, they can now do in days and since Trump's election they've gone from enriching 16 lbs of uranium per month to 75 lbs (and apparently for civilian use you only need a fraction of that, so clearly they are building)

Posted
10 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

From Semafor (below) that confirms that when unofficial negotiations between Biden’s team and Iran collapsed, U.S. officials cited Iran’s refusal to cooperate on UN nuclear inspections. Specifically, Iran resisted addressing uranium traces found at undeclared sites and blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. This lack of transparency led Western nations to pass a censure resolution against Iran at the IAEA.

https://www.semafor.com/article/06/05/2024/iran-west-tensions-nuclear-transparency-uranium-inspections

So yea, I guess if you turn a blind eye to someone not honoring the deal you can pretend the deal is a great success. It's like your wife cheating on you and pretending like you don't know about it so you can say you have a healthy marriage to others.

By the way, life comes at you fast and progress enables speed. What took a year in Obama's day to enrich the uranimum and make a nuke, they can now do in days and since Trump's election they've gone from enriching 16 lbs of uranium per month to 75 lbs (and apparently for civilian use you only need a fraction of that, so clearly they are building)

That’s all well and good, but we are talking about two different timelines here. Of course Biden’s admin had difficulty with any sort of Iran deal after the previous admin completely and arbitrarily tore up the JCPOA. Why would Iran want to enter into another agreement that could (and almost assuredly would) have met the same fate?  I’m not defending Iran, because they certainly have shown to be bad actors in many ways, but the point is that if dipshit McGee wasn’t a complete and total failure of a president, the JCPOA might very well have had its intended impact and we wouldn’t be in this situation now. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

Talked to my Trump apologist Iranian dad about Dotard working a new deal with Iran. 

What went from "Trump is gonna help liberate Iran" has turned into "it doesn't matter who's President, the Iranian people will need to overthrow the government".   🙄  Typical. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That’s all well and good, but we are talking about two different timelines here. Of course Biden’s admin had difficulty with any sort of Iran deal after the previous admin completely and arbitrarily tore up the JCPOA. Why would Iran want to enter into another agreement that could (and almost assuredly would) have met the same fate?  I’m not defending Iran, because they certainly have shown to be bad actors in many ways, but the point is that if dipshit McGee wasn’t a complete and total failure of a president, the JCPOA might very well have had its intended impact and we wouldn’t be in this situation now. 

I follow you now. 

I agree the-- whipsaw or roughshod, I guess I'll call it-- way that Trump went about it was not helpful, but I think most who were paying attention saw the JCPOA as an imperfect deal with a bad actor who was doing the bare minimum in optics to keep sanctions off their back.

Quote

Finally, critics noted that even if Iran abided by the agreement (which itself was in doubt), the original JCPOA wasn't a permanent limitation of the Iranian nuclear program, but a pause. The agreement included a sunset clause that meant that key parts of the agreement constraining Iran's enrichment capacity were set to expire in 10 to 15 years. Though the JCPOA required Iran to adhere to the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and not pursue a nuclear weapon, Iran had also made and withdrawn  that commitment before. Critics argued that once the JCPOA expired, Iran would be able to drop the Additional Protocol and sprint to develop a nuclear weapon. Consequently, the agreement was not a lasting solution but simply kicked the can down the road.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/05/the-revenge-of-the-jcpoa.html

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Talked to my Trump apologist Iranian dad about Dotard working a new deal with Iran. 

What went from "Trump is gonna help liberate Iran" has turned into "it doesn't matter who's President, the Iranian people will need to overthrow the government".   🙄  Typical. 

Hank you are Persian. Would have never guessed. You and that other guy who posts here related?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I follow you now. 

I agree the-- whipsaw or roughshod, I guess I'll call it-- way that Trump went about it was not helpful, but I think most who were paying attention saw the JCPOA as an imperfect deal with a bad actor who was doing the bare minimum in optics to keep sanctions off their back.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/05/the-revenge-of-the-jcpoa.html

Hank you are Persian. Would have never guessed. You and that other guy who posts here related?

The part about being just a pause is true, and one of the things I never understood about the deal. 

Posted
12 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Wut? By all accounts was working? I'm pretty sure on this thread a few pages back everyone agreed it was FUBAR'ed with Iran openly flouting the agreement. This is one of the few bipartisan agreements and issues that both D's and R's seem to agree on the general problem (Iran).

But yes, to your point, nobody in the Trump administration will ever be confused with being diplomatic giants, but luckily enough other countries (and even Arab states) have an interest in keeping Iran in check as well.

Oh yeah? Shouldn't be hard for you to quote some examples of this then, huh?

Posted
2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

From Semafor (below) that confirms that when unofficial negotiations between Biden’s team and Iran collapsed, U.S. officials cited Iran’s refusal to cooperate on UN nuclear inspections. Specifically, Iran resisted addressing uranium traces found at undeclared sites and blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. This lack of transparency led Western nations to pass a censure resolution against Iran at the IAEA.

https://www.semafor.com/article/06/05/2024/iran-west-tensions-nuclear-transparency-uranium-inspections

So yea, I guess if you turn a blind eye to someone not honoring the deal you can pretend the deal is a great success. It's like your wife cheating on you and pretending like you don't know about it so you can say you have a healthy marriage to others.

By the way, life comes at you fast and progress enables speed. What took a year in Obama's day to enrich the uranimum and make a nuke, they can now do in days and since Trump's election they've gone from enriching 16 lbs of uranium per month to 75 lbs (and apparently for civilian use you only need a fraction of that, so clearly they are building)

Oh my god man. Are you fucking seriously trying to pretend that 2024 and 2018 are the same time?

Posted
13 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Wut? By all accounts was working?

Yes. It was working. Then Trump tore it up. Your link to articles from 2024, long after Trump pulled us out of the deal, are completely irrelevant. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

they've gone from enriching 16 lbs of uranium per month to 75 lbs (and apparently for civilian use you only need a fraction of that

This might indeed be true, but I see claims like this get repeated in the media unchallenged and I don’t get it.  The Iranians* have both a history of lying and it’s in their interest to exaggerate their enrichment totals.  
 

Why do we presume this is true?


*you know who else has an interest in exaggerating the enrichment totals?  Israel.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...