Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 at 02:21:32 pm EDT (Viewed 587 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 at 04:57:34 pm EDT (Viewed 743 times)

    So there is at least one confidential side deal covering at least one military site. What good is an agreement for full access to testing when there is a side deal excluding specific military sites where we believe the Iran nuclear program existed? It's like telling the police "You can search for dead bodies anywhere you want, except for inside this closet".

As per Rueters (

But the Western diplomats told Reuters that while Iranians would be allowed to take the samples themselves, the agency’s inspectors would be physically present and would have full access to their activity.

“There was a compromise so the Iranians could save face and the IAEA could ensure it carried out its inspections according to their strict requirements,” said one of the diplomats. Inspections at the Parchin site, which is about 30 km (19 miles) southeast of Tehran, would by carried out by mixed IAEA and Iranian teams coupled with cameras overlooking and recording the process, the other diplomat said.

“The IAEA will be present when the Iranians take the samples (at Parchin). This approach to managed access is something that’s fairly standard in the IAEA toolbox. Nothing to worry about really,” the diplomat said.

“Unfortunately there have been distortions and inaccuracies in the media that made it look like Iran would simply inspect itself. That’s not how it works,” the diplomat added.

    You can classify it as "minor" if you'd like, but they were infractions of the deal. Which means Trump’s withdrawal is not unilateral.

It is. Trump is the only one doing it.


      You are aware that some Sunni and Shia countries have immense hatred toward each other and have been jostling for power in the region for decades, right? UAE and Saudi Arabia are two such Sunni countries, and while Bahrain has a Shia majority, it's been a monarchy run by Sunnis forever and they are directly threatened by Iran's Shias fomenting Bahrain's own Shias to rebel. Likewise, Israel feels highly threatened by Iran. Any deal that makes Iran closer to the world's greatest powers, all of whom were involved in the deal, these countries would hate.
    But it's not that these other nations hate Iran being close to western nations. It's that Iran is using its economic abilities from the release of the sanctions to fund terrorism and further cause unrest in the region. Iran has billions more money to cause problems.

This is just semantics trying to say they are different things when they are the same thing. Iran's removal of sanctions by and having stronger ties to China, Russia, UK, France, Germany, and the United States is an economic boon to Iran. The point of the deal wasn't to keep Iran from prospering economically but to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands, and it was doing that just fine. If you want to punish someone from causing unrest, why not start with Saudi Arabia and their spread of Wahhabism? They were responsible for 9/11, far worse than anything Iranians have done to the U.S. You know Iranians have good reason to distrust the United States, right? The CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953.


      Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for a long time now. If it hasn't started a nuclear arms race before now, there's no reason to think it will do so now. Also, if Iran prefers the lack of sanctions to nuclear weapons now, there's little reason to believe they would continue the deal after the 10-15 years in order not to have the sanctions reimposed.
    I don't believe sanctions automatically are re-imposed as part of the sunset clauses. As I've said, I haven't read the deal itself, but you're going to have to prove that's the case.

The sanctions wouldn't have to automatically snap back. They can be freely reimposed at which point Iran would still have to make a decision between getting a nuclear weapon or profiting economically. The whole point of the 15-year deal is that by 2030, most of the hardliners who were involved in the 1979 Iranian revolution would have died out or no longer be in power making diplomacy much easier with the rising population of Iranian moderates.

    Rather than deal with a weak deal now that has allowed Iran infractions with no consequences, secret side deals providing areas where inspectors can't inspect, and hoping that Iran will become a good actor in 10-15 years, I prefer slapping sanctions on again and pressuring Iran into a better deal for the rest of the world. We disagree on preference here, not sure what else more there is to discuss.

Well, we knew where your stance was going to be even if it's based on incorrect information and contradicted by a strong majority of nuclear proliferation experts. Ending the deal gives Iranian hardliners more power and they don't want a deal, so good luck getting a better one.

How to make an entrance:
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software