Trump Withdraws From Iran Nuclear Deal

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Jux:
At this point I think I'd be happier if it was the US getting sanctioned by everyone else.

Give Trump time to put his tariffs in place.

CM156:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't part of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty oblige the major nuclear powers (the ones with legal nukes) to work on reducing their stockpile?

Basically, yes. Although with no defined timescales or processes, that's a can that can indefinitely be kicked down the road.

I wish we were in a position where we could do so without it being taken as a sign we are weak. We have enough to destroy the world several times over.

Yes, it's ludicrous. Landing 10 decent-size strategic nukes could cripple even a large country for a generation. Hell, you'd only need two to render the USA dysfunctional for years: hit Washington DC and New York. It's not the raw casualties and real estate, it's the loss of key personnel in key industries (their accumulated knowledge, skills), data, institutions, organisations etc. Blow up New York, the US financial system blows up with it, and where does that leave the US (& global) economy?

Even assuming 10 nukes fired to land one on target (which I suspect is pessimistic), 100 nukes should be enough to dissuade anyone. Maybe double or triple (possibly mothballed) for contigencies, multiple enemies, etc. Even that's an order of magnitude less than the USA and Russia are still sitting on.

Agema:
Yes, it's ludicrous. Landing 10 decent-size strategic nukes could cripple even a large country for a generation. Hell, you'd only need two to render the USA dysfunctional for years: hit Washington DC and New York. It's not the raw casualties and real estate, it's the loss of key personnel in key industries (their accumulated knowledge, skills), data, institutions, organisations etc. Blow up New York, the US financial system blows up with it, and where does that leave the US (& global) economy?

Even assuming 10 nukes fired to land one on target (which I suspect is pessimistic), 100 nukes should be enough to dissuade anyone. Maybe double or triple (possibly mothballed) for contigencies, multiple enemies, etc. Even that's an order of magnitude less than the USA and Russia are still sitting on.

Yes and no. One tactical nuclear device in a major US city would make enough of a mess (and panic) to crash the US economy. And, to an extent, society.

However, it would leave the US military almost entirely intact, short term at least, and that is not desirable from an attacker's point of view. You need a lot more devices to stop the enemy doing the same to you. Of course, with second strike capabilities such as SSBNs, that's going to happen anyway.

More on topic: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/poll-iran-agreement/

This is good, long overdue news. The deal as it as was was a disaster of monumental proportions and John Kerry and Obama made the worst cock-up with it. The Iranians were laughing their asses off at getting everything they wanted and giving nothing in return. Oh, we get a nuclear bomb in 10 years AND all these tens of billions in frozen assets and trade? Win! Think of all the Islamic terror we can fund with this.

Iran is a totalitarian theocracy ruled by hard line Islamic law, the origin or most (but not all) Islamic terror and the thought of them having a nuclear weapon should scare any right minded people. Iran is the reason that Saudi is considering formal relations with Israel, since in Iran they have a common enemy. Trump did absolutely the right thing in tearing that worthless deal up and f**k John Kerry for the gigantic moron he is.

Thaluikhain:

However, it would leave the US military almost entirely intact, short term at least, and that is not desirable from an attacker's point of view. You need a lot more devices to stop the enemy doing the same to you. Of course, with second strike capabilities such as SSBNs, that's going to happen anyway.

Everyone gets nuked (MAD), so the continued (short term) functioning of the military is, broadly, neither here nor there. War's over, everyone's going to be too busy tending to their own irradiated wasteland to bother occupying someone else's irradiated wasteland.

Agema:

Thaluikhain:

However, it would leave the US military almost entirely intact, short term at least, and that is not desirable from an attacker's point of view. You need a lot more devices to stop the enemy doing the same to you. Of course, with second strike capabilities such as SSBNs, that's going to happen anyway.

Everyone gets nuked (MAD), so the continued (short term) functioning of the military is, broadly, neither here nor there. War's over, everyone's going to be too busy tending to their own irradiated wasteland to bother occupying someone else's irradiated wasteland.

Well, I was thinking primarily of the US's nuclear forces when I said "military" there. In any case, at least according to the Soviets, that wasn't the thinking, you had to make sure the enemy (or anyone else) didn't invade what used to be your country by destroying theirs when yours goes up in flames.

Agema:

Everyone gets nuked (MAD), so the continued (short term) functioning of the military is, broadly, neither here nor there. War's over, everyone's going to be too busy tending to their own irradiated wasteland to bother occupying someone else's irradiated wasteland.

Technically true? But you have to remember the Soviets built massive protected shelters all over the Soviet Union for the explicit purpose of protecting a good sized number of military detachments and materiel for the express purpose of surviving the unthinkable. And total annihilation was far more realistic a threat in the 60s and 70s than it is now. Of course the Russian Federation's armed forces are a shadow of the Soviet Union's, so arguably its capacity to maintain a feasible detachment from their survivors of their divisions is questionable.

And moreover the change in nuclear strategy is no longer high yield nuclear munitions.

image

And compare the changing nuclear strategy in terms of total number of nukes...

image

Targeting capacity has radically increased at least in terms of Russia and the U.S. ... meaning you no longer need that 20MT fuck you device.

So maybe the U.S., Russia, and Europe might be an irradiated shithole ... but arguably not the rest of the planet.

I think the biggest threat from radiation is destroyed spent fuel rod nuclear waste dump sites. The Northern Hemisphere is rife with nuclear powerplants and nuclear waste dump sites. Fortunately, most of them inland. But then again, irradiation is probably the least of your concerns. The possible 4 year nuclear autumn/winter event from effectively entire continents burning means farming anywhere too far from a coastline is going to be problematic.

Just like we saw with the Little Ice Age, the combined drop in temperature as well as solar acitivity meant the growing altitude for grain was reduced extensively. Which means many places where you could once grow food during the Medieval Warm Period were no longer viable agricultural centers.

And that's more a 'Northern Hemisphere' problem.

The combined nuclear arsenal of viable warheads is about 8000 nukes with change across the world. And only a handful are high yield devices over 1.5MT. Gone are the days of the 'city killers'. In fact the largest yield singularly launched nuclear device the U.S. has is a 1.15MT bomb. And despite the numbers of them the U.S. has, it's questionable how many can actually be delivered to targets in a strategic exchange event.

In total, the world is still very fucked even in a limited exchange event. But Fallout levels bad? Well, perhaps only in the U.S. and Russia.

The key targets of Russian actions would still be focussed on Europe and North America. It's questionable whether the mainstay of their devices could even hit places like Australia, given actual means to hit places with ICBMs is not merely distance. You have to factor in angular momentum and rotation of the Earth.

KingsGambit:
Iran is a totalitarian theocracy ruled by hard line Islamic law, the origin or most (but not all) Islamic terror and the thought of them having a nuclear weapon should scare any right minded people.

I'll give you a pass and simply assume that you're not aware of the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam.

Because yeah, "Iran is the origin of most Islamic terror" is a laughably wrong statement. Most Islamic terror is committed by Wahhabis and Salafis, you know, Islamic movements that are extremely opposed to the Iranian Shiite theocracy and that actually come from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which I'll remind you are """steadfast allies of the West""".

KingsGambit:
The Iranians were laughing their asses off at getting everything they wanted and giving nothing in return.

Well, except 95% of enriched uranium, the decommissioning of most of their centrifuges, the flooding of the Arak nuclear reactor core with concrete... given that the primary obstacle for the creation of a nuclear weaponry arsenal is the production of enough enriched uranium and plutonium, this hugely reduced their capability to do so.

It was independently verified that they complied with the above 10 times over.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Technically true? But you have to remember the Soviets built massive protected shelters all over the Soviet Union for the explicit purpose of protecting a good sized number of military detachments and materiel for the express purpose of surviving the unthinkable. And total annihilation was far more realistic a threat in the 60s and 70s than it is now.

Yes. But total annihilation was a near-absurdity of a concept. Somewhat more understandable perhaps in a traumatised world that had experienced a nation attempt a mass extermination. Maybe.

Ultimately, pretty much all that was ever required was to knock out enough major cities. That's the end of that nation as major power for a l-o-n-g time to come. It is almost hilarious to imagine two nations wipe out virtually all of each other's major population centres and most of the coutryside - agriculture, manufacturing, infrastructure, etc. - and for anyone to think there's anything that meaningful left worth defending by a military. I mean, imagine the West and USSR wiped each other out... China's going to own whatever it feels like of Siberia in a few years anyway. The USSR can save a large chunk of its military, but that military is going to have to be repurposed even just to rebuild enough to sustain a military. One way or another, it's rapidly going to become an ineffective military. Half of them would probably just desert to a place where there's a future.

Perhaps the intention really was to flatten the whole world, in the sense of "if I can't have my patch of tundra, no-one can own anything EVERYONE DIES!!!" Which again is borderline insanity. Botswana never bothered you? Nuke it anyway, just in case 20 years after the northern hemisphere wipes itself out, some Botswanan might dare to have a camping holiday in the ruins of Florida.

KingsGambit:
This is good, long overdue news. The deal as it as was was a disaster of monumental proportions and John Kerry and Obama made the worst cock-up with it. The Iranians were laughing their asses off at getting everything they wanted and giving nothing in return. Oh, we get a nuclear bomb in 10 years AND all these tens of billions in frozen assets and trade? Win! Think of all the Islamic terror we can fund with this.

You could have just come out and said "I have no idea what the deal does, but I hate it because the libcucks like it!" That's much simpler and conveys the exact same point as your entire paragraph. Even the most basic of actual research would expose what you've written as complete nonsense.

1. The deal was not a disaster according to every other signatory country and anyone in the US not aboard the "everything liberals do is bad" train.
2. The deal was praised by experienced diplomats, the UN, and nuclear regulatory agencies across the globe.
3. Yes... The Iranians definitely wanted to have to give up 95% of their nuclear material stockpiles, have mandatory inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency of all nuclear sites, and have sanctions automatically snap back into enforcement if even one infraction is noticed.
4. Iran doesn't "get a bomb in 10 years." You've truly gone off the deep end here mate. The deal is in place for 10 years. After that, a new one could be negotiated or sanctions could be put back into place. When the deal expired, everything would be in the exact same situation as no deal existing except, you know, the Iranians having lost 95% of their stockpile and been under close inspections for a decade.
5. The largest state sponsors of Islamic terrorism are the US's "allies" Saudi Arabia at the top followed by Egypt (as @Somni said further up).
6. The US breaking agreements such as this one are only going to further reinforce Iran's drive to develop nuclear weapons.

Try to be logical for a second and put yourself in the place of the Iranian government. If the US was making talk of attacking your country possibly including an invasion or coup attempts and had shown they don't care what agreements they sign with you and other international partners, possessing nuclear weapons to secure your country would be your number one priority. It's the same reasoning why Israel and North Korea developed nuclear weapons; no one fucks with countries in the special nuclear weapons club.

Agema:

Yes. But total annihilation was a near-absurdity of a concept. Somewhat more understandable perhaps in a traumatised world that had experienced a nation attempt a mass extermination. Maybe.

Ultimately, pretty much all that was ever required was to knock out enough major cities. That's the end of that nation as major power for a l-o-n-g time to come. It is almost hilarious to imagine two nations wipe out virtually all of each other's major population centres and most of the coutryside - agriculture, manufacturing, infrastructure, etc. - and for anyone to think there's anything that meaningful left worth defending by a military. I mean, imagine the West and USSR wiped each other out... China's going to own whatever it feels like of Siberia in a few years anyway. The USSR can save a large chunk of its military, but that military is going to have to be repurposed even just to rebuild enough to sustain a military. One way or another, it's rapidly going to become an ineffective military. Half of them would probably just desert to a place where there's a future.

Perhaps the intention really was to flatten the whole world, in the sense of "if I can't have my patch of tundra, no-one can own anything EVERYONE DIES!!!" Which again is borderline insanity. Botswana never bothered you? Nuke it anyway, just in case 20 years after the northern hemisphere wipes itself out, some Botswanan might dare to have a camping holiday in the ruins of Florida.

Maybe? Russia is a big place. And the Soviets spent a metric fuckton on infrastructure and railway development that is still somewhat serviceable, as well as numerous subterranean facilities. To put it mildly, the mainstay of any reprisal will be U.S. lead as it stands. And yes, the destruction of a city is traumatic, but the Soviets lived that experience. They lost 9% of their population in 3 years. And yet it only took them 4 more years to rebuild the Soviet Union, have nuclear strike capabilities, and a space program.

So Russians have been through the meat grinder, and the simple fact of that history is probably an advantage the rest of Europe or the U.S. does not have barring perhaps Poland and Germany. True enough, nearly everyone who went through that horror is no longer alive ... but their children are, and their children.

And the Russians still have their capacities to give as much as they'll take assuming they actively accommodate for U.S. defensive technologies. And when you take it on face value ... Europe + Continental U.S.A together is still not as big as Russia. The thing is the Western world is also going to need to attack China... because China will launch their nukes if theysee birds flying, because as if they're going to take it on word the West will leave them unscathed.

Which is impossible even if honest and eventual.

China is also fucking massive.

Together, China and Russia represent over a sixth of the entire contiguous land mass of Earth.

It is ridiculous just how big Russia is.

That is a hell of a lot of places you need to attack that Soviet era engineers spent a lot of time scattering about bunkers, dockyards, and air bases about.

There is also the megadeath capacity ... where arguably the West will simply lose more regardless of what it does given the total destruction in comparison to total landmass that will inevitably be far higher (assuming U.S. defensive measures are checked) ... And you have to remember, there's nowhere else for the Russians to go ... or the Chinese. The rest of the world will be fucked one way or another whether it is hit or not.

Australia, despite its size, is incredibly urbanized. 16 MIRV delivered 400-odd KT airburst munitions across Sydney and the expanded metro, 7 million dead, dying or displaced during a work day. About 5-6 million dead or displaced if an attack at night.

That's a third of the population.

So while Australia as a country will be relatively untouched... as a population where Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane may be targeted ... you're looking at about two thirds of the population dead or displaced. And the situation is far bleaker in Japan, the UK, and Continental Europe in general.

Now, to be fair, that is a ridiculous payload to dedicate to a middling Pacific power. But if it guarantees a Pacific power that might have threatened them in the post-War period is removed, it's a viable target.

Silvanus:

KingsGambit:
The Iranians were laughing their asses off at getting everything they wanted and giving nothing in return.

Well, except 95% of enriched uranium, the decommissioning of most of their centrifuges, the flooding of the Arak nuclear reactor core with concrete... given that the primary obstacle for the creation of a nuclear weaponry arsenal is the production of enough enriched uranium and plutonium, this hugely reduced their capability to do so.

It was independently verified that they complied with the above 10 times over.

If you believe any of that, that Iran is not pursuing nuclear arms, you are as naive as John Kerry was. And irrespective of whatever they did during the 10 year period, the deal was such that after the 10 years were up, they could run unchecked and without restriction. The deal was a disaster because it guaranteed Iran could be nuclear after a decade. It's very easy for them to show inspectors cherry picked empty room where they can demonstrate "compliance" whilst enriching uranium elsewhere.

The deal was a a disaster, John Kerry was a moron, Iran are working on nuclear bombs and you'd be crazy to think they weren't. They fund most of the world's islamic terror, live in a theocratic dictatorship and prop up Assad's brutal regime in Syria. Trump did absolutely the right thing and I hope he starves them of funds.

KingsGambit:

Silvanus:

KingsGambit:
The Iranians were laughing their asses off at getting everything they wanted and giving nothing in return.

Well, except 95% of enriched uranium, the decommissioning of most of their centrifuges, the flooding of the Arak nuclear reactor core with concrete... given that the primary obstacle for the creation of a nuclear weaponry arsenal is the production of enough enriched uranium and plutonium, this hugely reduced their capability to do so.

It was independently verified that they complied with the above 10 times over.

If you believe any of that, that Iran is not pursuing nuclear arms, you are as naive as John Kerry was. And irrespective of whatever they did during the 10 year period, the deal was such that after the 10 years were up, they could run unchecked and without restriction. The deal was a disaster because it guaranteed Iran could be nuclear after a decade. It's very easy for them to show inspectors cherry picked empty room where they can demonstrate "compliance" whilst enriching uranium elsewhere.

The deal was a a disaster, John Kerry was a moron, Iran are working on nuclear bombs and you'd be crazy to think they weren't. They fund most of the world's islamic terror, live in a theocratic dictatorship and prop up Assad's brutal regime in Syria. Trump did absolutely the right thing and I hope he starves them of funds.

If you truly believe Israel's "proof" of Iran developing nuclear weapon, then there's no helping you, you've drank the radical Zionist/Sunni extremist anti-Iran Kool-Aid.

Because of course Israel is more unbiased and objective as a source than literally any other observer that claim that Iran upheld the conditions of the deal.

Also, yet again, Iran is not the number one source of Islamic terror in the world, the Saudi and Egyptian Wahhabbis and Salafis are, stop spread that BS non-sense.

KingsGambit:
If you believe any of that, that Iran is not pursuing nuclear arms, you are as naive as John Kerry was. And irrespective of whatever they did during the 10 year period, the deal was such that after the 10 years were up, they could run unchecked and without restriction. The deal was a disaster because it guaranteed Iran could be nuclear after a decade. It's very easy for them to show inspectors cherry picked empty room where they can demonstrate "compliance" whilst enriching uranium elsewhere.

If Iran wants nukes, it will get them irrespective of anything we do.

We couldn't stop NK getting nukes despite it being pretty much the most sanctioned country on the planet. How do we stop a county with far more resources developing nukes using the same tactics of sanctions? And aren't we just reinforcing their perception of needing nukes for their own self-defence? Don't sanctions (and the like) nearly always end up cementing the power of autocrats by creating external enemies to disctract attention?

The deal was a a disaster, John Kerry was a moron, Iran are working on nuclear bombs and you'd be crazy to think they weren't. They fund most of the world's islamic terror, live in a theocratic dictatorship and prop up Assad's brutal regime in Syria. Trump did absolutely the right thing and I hope he starves them of funds.

Iran doesn't even back most of the Islamic world's terrorism. Iran is Shia. Al-Qaida, Islamic State etc. - the guys who've been rampant the last 20 years - are Sunni extremists who want to exterminate Shias (who they view as heretics) just as much as they do the West. Iran, via Syria, does however back Hezbollah and probably to at least some degree Hamas.

No-one's pretending Iran is a remotely nice regime or that it has a pleasant foreign policy. On balance, however, its citizens are more free and it causes less havoc than (say) Saudi Arabia. Let's bear in mind that Al-Qaida and IS grew out of the Salafi movement which Saudi Arabia aggressively exported, and that most of their funding came from Saudi Arabia (albeit not the government). We could consider the Iraq-Iran war, which is where Saudi Arabia funded Saddam Hussain to buy huge quantities of arms (sold by the USA/UK) to invade Iran. That resulted in an estimated 300,000 Iranian casualties. If we're talking "totalitarian dictatorship", let's not forget that the USA (at the request of the UK) destroyed Iran's democracy in the 1950s, propped up a totalitarian monarch who violently repressed democrats and liberals for over 20 years, so when the people finally rose up, the clerics were the only social power left. So if we want to know why it's theocracy, it's basically our fault.

Yes, none of this changes the fact Iran is in many ways reprehensible. But actually, why is it any worse than Saudi Arabia? And frankly, given our own countries have made colossally unpleasant clusterfuck decisions (e.g. Iraq invasion), how clean are our countries' hands? What do we really care about Iran / Saudi Arabia's Middle Eastern power rivalry and why do we pick sides as if one is "okay" and the other not? I just can't see any reason why Iran should be our "enemy" any more than dozens of other objectionable countries we deal with regularly.

KingsGambit:

Silvanus:

KingsGambit:
The Iranians were laughing their asses off at getting everything they wanted and giving nothing in return.

Well, except 95% of enriched uranium, the decommissioning of most of their centrifuges, the flooding of the Arak nuclear reactor core with concrete... given that the primary obstacle for the creation of a nuclear weaponry arsenal is the production of enough enriched uranium and plutonium, this hugely reduced their capability to do so.

It was independently verified that they complied with the above 10 times over.

If you believe any of that, that Iran is not pursuing nuclear arms, you are as naive as John Kerry was. And irrespective of whatever they did during the 10 year period, the deal was such that after the 10 years were up, they could run unchecked and without restriction. The deal was a disaster because it guaranteed Iran could be nuclear after a decade. It's very easy for them to show inspectors cherry picked empty room where they can demonstrate "compliance" whilst enriching uranium elsewhere.

The deal was a a disaster, John Kerry was a moron, Iran are working on nuclear bombs and you'd be crazy to think they weren't. They fund most of the world's islamic terror, live in a theocratic dictatorship and prop up Assad's brutal regime in Syria. Trump did absolutely the right thing and I hope he starves them of funds.

1. Nothing Trump will do would improve that deal. It's the best deal anyone could have got. Far more than I expected. I can't imagine the US letting any inspectors into their country for a similar deal. 2. Getting rid of the deal means that Iran can get weapons in weeks rather than years. 3. They have a legitimate complaint that the US reneged on deals and will circumvent Trump in the future. This pits everyone against the US.. 4. Good luck Trump, try to make everyone follow your embargo after pissing on them. 5. All that Israel wants is a war, as can be seen by the missle strikes against Irani forces only a few hours ago. Israel wants war and it got the go ahead from the US.

I'm not going to pretend it was the best deal. It's the best anyone could have hoped for. Sure, maybe it was kicking the can down the road but at least we would have up to date intelligence on Iran. Now it will lead to possible invasion, Iran going nuclear and tjreatening everyone and the US being sidlined for the foreseeable future. If you want to improve deals, you don't go cancelling them. Pissimg people off might work in the business world but it probably won't here.

KingsGambit:
And irrespective of whatever they did during the 10 year period, the deal was such that after the 10 years were up, they could run unchecked and without restriction. The deal was a disaster because it guaranteed Iran could be nuclear after a decade.

I don't understand this particular assertion.

From what I can gather, the JCPOA permanently prevented Iran from building nuclear weapons, dismantled the facilities that they would need to produce the material for a nuclear weapon on short notice, and imposed sunset provisions limiting the centrifuges that they could use to enrich uranium and the total percentage amount they could enrich uranium to.

Those sunset provisions wear off in ten to twenty-five years time, but if Iran then decided to build a nuclear weapon as soon as they wore off, the rest of the deal would be tanked and the sanctions would go back on. In other words, we'd be exactly where we are now that Trump has tanked the deal. Except he's made that happen ten to twenty-five years ahead of schedule, at a time when his administration is preoccupied preparing for a summit with Kim Jong-un - a summit intended to produce a sanctions-for-denuclearisation exchange that will likely look identical to the JCPOA.

Like, I don't get how this deal "guaranteed" that Iran would be nuclear after a decade. If Iran went nuclear a decade from now, they would have violated the deal. You're basically just saying that there was no point making a deal in the first place, in which case...do you want to go to war with Iran? That's the alternative. Does Trump want to go to war with Iran? Does he think that the US can somehow negotiate a better deal alone than Obama did with the entire UNSC on his side? If he does, why would he try and do that simultaneously with his negotiation of a similar deal with North Korea? He's just putting more work on his plate than he can handle.

You want my frank opinion? Trump doesn't know what the deal does or did, he doesn't have an alternative in place, he has no plans to either renegotiate the deal or to invade Iran, and his entire decision was prompted by bullshit he heard from Republican chickenhawks like Bolton combined with his reflexive, egotistical need to try and undo everything Obama did.

bastardofmelbourne:

You want my frank opinion? Trump doesn't know what the deal does or did, he doesn't have an alternative in place, he has no plans to either renegotiate the deal or to invade Iran, and his entire decision was prompted by bullshit he heard from Republican chickenhawks like Bolton combined with his reflexive, egotistical need to try and undo everything Obama did.

And/or, quite simply, there's political hay to be made by creating external enemies.

Iran poses no threat to the USA, and the USA gets relatively little benefit from good relations with it. It has an established history of enmity with the USA. Therefore, it's easy to make oneself come across as tough to voters by sounding aggressive against such an easy target, irrespective if the policy is actually any use.

KingsGambit:
If you believe any of that, that Iran is not pursuing nuclear arms, you are as naive as John Kerry was. And irrespective of whatever they did during the 10 year period, the deal was such that after the 10 years were up, they could run unchecked and without restriction. The deal was a disaster because it guaranteed Iran could be nuclear after a decade. It's very easy for them to show inspectors cherry picked empty room where they can demonstrate "compliance" whilst enriching uranium elsewhere.

Full access to the core of the Arak reactor was guaranteed by the deal. Access to the centrifuges themselves was guaranteed by the deal. The independent, internationally-recognised inspectors attested that they were given access to those areas-- the relevant areas-- and that the terms of the deal were kept.

This is not true scepticism. This is just pure assumption, to the contrary of all available evidence, checked by internationally-recognised bodies ten times over.

COMaestro:
Thank you for fulfilling my "bullshit-quota" for the week. Saves me the time going around looking for it elsewhere.

Hell, this is so juicy, it might last through next week as well.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that Iran is a peace loving nation that isn't pursuing nuclear arms, propping up a brutal Syrian dictator or funding hezbollah, hamas and countless other terrorist islamic groups?

Well, news flash, Trump knows the score, hence pulling out of the dumbest deal Obama's administration could make. And what is the first thing Iran does after the announcement? This. Maybe you can be the second most naive person alive after John Kerry.

KingsGambit:
And what is the first thing Iran does after the announcement? This.

Oh my God, you're saying that the first thing Iran did after Trump unilaterally tore up the agreement limiting its nuclear program was to ramp up its nuclear program? Who would have ever thought they could possible respond with such a logical move.

It's almost like this was exactly what people who argued for keeping the agreement were saying would occur.....

Also, I've noticed that you haven't posted a single damn source for the nonsense you've spewed in this thread (other than the one above proving that breaking the agreement was stupid, of course).

KingsGambit:
Well, news flash, Trump knows the score, hence pulling out of the dumbest deal Obama's administration could make. And what is the first thing Iran does after the announcement? This. Maybe you can be the second most naive person alive after John Kerry.

I just don't get this argument.
"We don't want Iran developing nuclear weapons, so we're pulling out of the deal preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons!"
And now that the agreement has been broken(by the US), Iran has once more begun developing nuclear technology.
Well done? Shot yourself in the foot there, did you?

KingsGambit:

COMaestro:
Thank you for fulfilling my "bullshit-quota" for the week. Saves me the time going around looking for it elsewhere.

Hell, this is so juicy, it might last through next week as well.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that Iran is a peace loving nation that isn't pursuing nuclear arms, propping up a brutal Syrian dictator or funding hezbollah, hamas and countless other terrorist islamic groups?

Well, news flash, Trump knows the score, hence pulling out of the dumbest deal Obama's administration could make. And what is the first thing Iran does after the announcement? This. Maybe you can be the second most naive person alive after John Kerry.

Okay, real quick, this is how the basic passage of time works; if the U.S. pulls out of a nuke deal, and THEN Iran starts preparations to ramp up their nuclear capability, you can't say the U.S. pulled out of the deal BECAUSE Iran started preparations to ramp up their nuclear capability. If I smack someone in the head with a beer bottle, and they retaliate by punching me in the nose, I can't claim I was only defending myself, because I hit first. Jesus, you even said Iran did this after the announcement.

Also, you're insisting that the deal didn't work, and yet have apparently linked us indications that with the deal gone, Iran will ramp up its nuclear proliferation. Almost as if they weren't getting nukes before now because of... well, the deal? At this point the only way they're going to not get nukes is if the rest of the countries can collectively clean up Trump's mess and keep this deal alive, which will be immensely difficult given the U.S. will doubtless do everything they can to sabotage it further.

Had the deal reached its expected expiry point, it wouldn't have been so difficult for the U.S. to convince its allies to put the pressure back on a second time to extend it. But because the U.S. has operated in such bad faith and violated the spirit of their own agreement, without any evidence that Iran had violated its terms across multiple inspections, that isn't likely to happen again. The European Union is reportedly already looking into 'blocking regulations' that would free up European countries to operate in Iran, completely ignoring American sanctions and shielding them from American penalties. Forget 'a better deal' as Trump repeatedly insists whenever he burns something down, the U.S. will be lucky to get ANY deal at this point, especially given it'd be hard to convince Iran that the U.S. will honor any new agreement they make.

And that's the kicker. The biggest obstacle to any kind of deal right now isn't that Iran can't be trusted to keep its word, it's that the United States can't be trusted to keep its word.

For someone who keeps accusing others of being naive, what exactly are you bringing to the table besides a gut feeling? You've already been corrected numerous times on your mistakes, missteps, and general miscalculations, and yet you're still charging ahead based on, it would appear, little more than the fact that you feel super strongly about the situation.

SeventhSigil:
For someone who keeps accusing others of being naive, what exactly are you bringing to the table besides a gut feeling? You've already been corrected numerous times on your mistakes, missteps, and general miscalculations, and yet you're still charging ahead based on, it would appear, little more than the fact that you feel super strongly about the situation.

What you are failing to understand is that the deal did not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and in fact it guaranteed the bomb. You can say "corrected numerous times" but the truth is those were mistakes, not corrections on the assumption that Iran was a peace loving nation with no nuclear ambitions beyond power (hint: that's a lie).

Iran has been after the bomb for years, Kerry signed a deal that guaranteed it after a decade, along with billions of dollars in unfrozen assets (funding islamic terror around the world), and Trump, quite possibly a crazy, orange person, is one of few people who saw how bad the deal was. The iranians were celebrating how fucking stupid John Kerry was to give them literally everything and take nothing in return. The US made a mistake, and now it's being corrected, wisely. Iran with nuclear weapons is probably the largest threat to world peace imaginable. The arab gulf countries and Israel (Iran has many times said it wants to "wipe Israel from the map") are all concerned at the possibility and none are likely to let it happen.

Now with the deal gone, sanctions can go back in place and it wouldn't surprise me if in years to come, there were missile attacks to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Read the actual deal if you still fail to understand just how monumentally badly John Kerry and Obama screwed up. I'm not a fan of Trump by any stretch but he's on the right track here. Obama was an unmitigated disaster for the middle east (Arab spring, Egypt uprising, Yemen civil war, ISIS, Syria), so now his betters need to pick up the wreckage. The deal never stopped them enriching uranium, didn't take away their centrifuges and after a number of years all restrictions would be gone. How you or anyone could look at that and be anything other than shocked at Kerry's stupidity is beyond me. Far from preventing them from getting the bomb, it guaranteed the bomb.

And the US President agrees with me.

KingsGambit:
funding islamic terror around the world

I think you're thinking of Saudi Arabia.

And the US President agrees with me.

The US president is a fucking retard.

CheetoDust:

KingsGambit:
funding islamic terror around the world

I think you're thinking of Saudi Arabia.

Yes and no.

Iran funds a considerable amount of terrorism (mostly indirectly via Syria). These days it's nothing like the global terrorism of ISIS, Al-Qaida, etc. but it has been responsible for a lot of major atrocities in the past.

Iran is no friend to the West, and it's not going to become one any time soon. It is run by a horrible regime. It abuses its own citizens, and spreads death and destruction beyond its borders. Let's not ever think of Iran as some sort of innocent, and it's not trustworthy. Let's not pretend it isn't after nukes and it'll exploit every loophole in the treaty to do so. The Obama-era deal is not beyond criticism by any means, and certainly no panacea for Iran getting the bomb.

Nevertheless, scrapping it is an even bigger clusterfuck. Without the agreement of the EU, it probably cannot be meaningfully enforced. It has caused yet more schism between the USA and EU. Perhaps most problematically, it now paints the USA as fundamentally untrustworthy - which hugely limits the ability the USA to deal with any nation thereafter (especially Iran). I mean, shit, Trump is about to go off and speak to NK's Kim, and NK has just observed the US president abruptly blow up a major nuclear treaty on pretty feeble grounds. Way to go into a negotiation, telling your opposite you don't honour your deals.

Finally, if the USA and Israel want to do anything about Iran now the it's going to be bombs, which will have all the arms companies and warmongers wanking themselves into ecstacy. I'm sure Russia is also thrilled by the prospect of selling anti-air defences to Iran to see how good they are at downing Western planes.

KingsGambit:

SeventhSigil:
For someone who keeps accusing others of being naive, what exactly are you bringing to the table besides a gut feeling? You've already been corrected numerous times on your mistakes, missteps, and general miscalculations, and yet you're still charging ahead based on, it would appear, little more than the fact that you feel super strongly about the situation.

What you are failing to understand is that the deal did not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and in fact it guaranteed the bomb. You can say "corrected numerous times" but the truth is those were mistakes, not corrections on the assumption that Iran was a peace loving nation with no nuclear ambitions beyond power (hint: that's a lie).

Iran has been after the bomb for years, Kerry signed a deal that guaranteed it after a decade, along with billions of dollars in unfrozen assets (funding islamic terror around the world), and Trump, quite possibly a crazy, orange person, is one of few people who saw how bad the deal was. The iranians were celebrating how fucking stupid John Kerry was to give them literally everything and take nothing in return. The US made a mistake, and now it's being corrected, wisely. Iran with nuclear weapons is probably the largest threat to world peace imaginable. The arab gulf countries and Israel (Iran has many times said it wants to "wipe Israel from the map") are all concerned at the possibility and none are likely to let it happen.

Now with the deal gone, sanctions can go back in place and it wouldn't surprise me if in years to come, there were missile attacks to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Read the actual deal if you still fail to understand just how monumentally badly John Kerry and Obama screwed up. I'm not a fan of Trump by any stretch but he's on the right track here. Obama was an unmitigated disaster for the middle east (Arab spring, Egypt uprising, Yemen civil war, ISIS, Syria), so now his betters need to pick up the wreckage. The deal never stopped them enriching uranium, didn't take away their centrifuges and after a number of years all restrictions would be gone. How you or anyone could look at that and be anything other than shocked at Kerry's stupidity is beyond me. Far from preventing them from getting the bomb, it guaranteed the bomb.

And the US President agrees with me.

So... basically the U.S. is going to invade Iran much like Iraq, for the same stated reason, i.e. 'finding WMDs.'

I know, you're probably confused at my sudden swerve, but let me explain, because I'm pretty sure I know where this mess is going.

The first article you linked seems to hinge on the idea that 'Iran is full of hiding places, so they'd probably super violate the agreement in secret hidden facilities.' To quote;

'The Islamic Republic will most likely not build a bomb in one of its declared facilities, for such a move would expose it to immediate military retribution. More likely, Iran will sneak out by covertly enrichling uranium at a hidden, undisclosed facility- after all, they've done it before. .....Iran is a vast country, and should the clerical oligarchs choose to litter their territory with numerous such small installations, they can effectively conceal their activities from prying inspectors.'

The problem is that argument torpedos pretty much any solution, including the article's own proposed solution to dealing with Iran which is denying them the right to R&D, and your notion of bombing them. Deny Iran the technology or ability to research it? How can we know they wouldn't continue their research in secret hidden facilities? Bomb the nuclear facilities in a few years? Well how can we know we got them all when they've got secret hidden facilities? This argument relies so heavily on nebulous 'You can't find evidence but you can't say with 100% certainty it isn't out there somewheeeere' finger-waggling mystique it can work with any situation because rather than trying to meet a burden of proof, it instead tosses out; 'We haven't found proof YET, but it's probably out there!'

And if anyone would be motivated to find proof, it'd have been the U.S. over the past year, even if just to find something, anything concrete the Iranians had done that they could point to as justification for withdrawing from the deal. After all, finding any indication that Iran is pursuing its program in a clandestine fashion would rally everyone right back into shutting down the Iranian economy. As things now stand, the U.S. withdrawing is a half measure, as unlike last time they will likely lack the support of the UN and EU, and that's actually pretty important. Iran's economy was crippled so severely because pretty much every nation who could have brought in business and prosperity was staying out, an international endeavor that brought them to the bargaining table. The U.S. imposing sanctions alone will hurt Iran, yes, but it won't damage them nearly as badly, especially if companies from other nations step in to fill the void this time.

But anyway, since you linked that article as support for your assertion, you must believe the premise that Iran has the ability and will to create and maintain a clandestine nuclear weapons program under the nose of the international community even while under threat of having their economy crippled again. With that in mind, it only stands to reason that they could easily hide the nuclear weapons produced by what would now be a mostly public nuclear weapons program, correct? So how exactly does bombing the facilities the U.S. knows about fix anything?

If we are to assume that your premise is correct- super secret nuclear facilities, etc, etc- then ironically the only way to actually know FOR SURE that the Iranians' nuclear capability has been dismantled would not be to bomb a few spots here and there, it'd be to invade en masse and knock down all their doors. Now, personally I think an argument that tries to weasel out of burden of proof with the fallacy of 'It's theoretically possible' is kind of ridiculous, but I definitely think it's something a government would pull as justification for occupation. -_- 'Well how can we be sure we got all the nukes?! Let's send in our entire army to go poke around!'

KingsGambit:
The iranians were celebrating how fucking stupid John Kerry was to give them literally everything and take nothing in return.

Except, again, 95% of enriched uranium, decommissioning of most centrifuges, and destruction of the heavy water reactor core.

KingsGambit:
The deal never stopped them enriching uranium, didn't take away their centrifuges [...]

This is demonstrably, patently false.

It decommissioned over two thirds of centrifuges. This was attested by the inspectors ten times, who had direct access to the centrifuges in question. Not just specific rooms; complete access was guaranteed by the deal, and the inspectors attested it was given them.

This nonsensical myth that nothing was given gains traction through repetition, but it's based on mere assumption and conspiracy theory.

Agema:
Blow up New York, the US financial system blows up with it, and where does that leave the US (& global) economy?

Better off, arguably. Eroding our notions of "these bits of land and other objects belong to some far-off investor" could be very good.

KingsGambit:
What you are failing to understand is that the deal did not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and in fact it guaranteed the bomb.

So I read the article.

The author seems to be making two points. Firstly: that the dismantling or mothballing of centrifuges used for enriching uranium by Iran as part of the JCPOA is misleading, because the centrifuges they mothballed were old and outdated, and Iran is planning to replace them with newer and more efficient models. And secondly, as a corollary to the first, the inspection mechanisms used to ensure Iran is complying with the JCPOA and the NPT are flawed because with these more efficient centrifuges, Iran will be able to enrich more uranium with less total centrifuges, and could theoretically have hundreds of them (instead of the tens of thousands) squirreled away across the country in caves and warehouses, quietly producing enriched uranium to be used in making a nuclear bomb.

The first question that pops into my head, about the centrifuges, is that if Iran was planning to buy these more efficient centrifuges regardless of the JCPOA, what difference did the JCPOA make? It puts a shine of international legality onto their atomic energy program, but Iran is still prohibited from building a bomb under the NPT, so it doesn't legalise an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The second question that pops into my head, about how these newer centrifuges would hypothetically allow Iran to produce uranium secretly under the nose of inspectors through a decentralised production network, is...well, where does the uranium go? It is possible that Iran may have hundreds of centrifuges enriching uranium in spots all around the country, but the enriched uranium that they produce has to go somewhere. And wherever it goes, it has to be stored properly; it's weapons-grade radioactive material. Those are criteria that make it difficult to hide from inspectors, who will just start looking for any government depots that could store all that uranium until they find some of that uranium. And if it gets found, this hypothetical stockpile of weapons-grade enriched uranium, then Iran would have breached the JCPOA, because they aren't allowed to enrich uranium to the percentage necessary to make a bomb out of it.

And my third question, which is the really big important one, is...what's the alternative? A better deal would be nice, sure, but is Trump planning to negotiate a better deal? If that was his goal, why didn't he try and get the rest of the P5 on board with his planned amendments (say, a long-term ban on weapons-grade enriched uranium, or an embargo on advanced centrifuges) so that he could negotiate from a position of strength? He didn't do that; he just tore up the existing deal, even the parts that were working.

That seems pretty dumb to me! It seems like the worst possible way to address the problem. Everyone is back at square one, except Iran has the unfrozen assets they were promised, they still have trade with the rest of the P5, and they also have the moral high ground. (Yes, that's right; Iran has the moral high ground here. The US signed onto a deal and bailed on it four years later without evidence that Iran wasn't meeting their end of the bargain.)

KingsGambit:
And the US President agrees with me.

Sure, but the US President is a colossal fucking idiot, so that's not exactly a plus in your column.

It was never a treaty, why do news groups keep lying and call it a treaty? It never made it past congress and as such was nothing more then an executive decision.

kiri3tsubasa:
It was never a treaty, why do news groups keep lying and call it a treaty? It never made it past congress and as such was nothing more then an executive decision.

The USA has a domestic, technical legally defined difference between a "treaty" and an "executive agreement". However, not necessarily anyone else does. In casual usage, and potentially in many legal systems, treaty is synonymous with [international] agreement and numerous other terms.

In other words, they may call it a treaty because in their own vernacular, it is one. And they don't need to give a damn about US legal technicalities.

KingsGambit:

And the US President agrees with me.

I'm almost certain it's you agreeing with him.

We are, to be fair, talking about a man who said "Your Second Amendment rights are under siege, but they will never, ever be under siege as long as I'm your president" while he was president.

Baffle2:
I'm almost certain it's you agreeing with him.

Nah, I knew the deal was a disaster at the time. John Kerry may well be one of the worst statesmen in US history and certainly one of history's greatest fools.

For everyone's amusement, here are the people y'all seem to believe could be trusted in any deal:

Here are Iran's politicians...their "elected" officials:


The Ayatollah agreed 3 years ago at the time of the talks:

I wonder what Iranians in the street are chanting:

But it's the same thing they were chanting 10 years ago:

Yes, they can totally be trusted with a nuclear bomb.

Silvanus:
It decommissioned over two thirds of centrifuges.

Thanks for confirming the point I was making. I appreciate you backing up my argument.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here