5 ms·

> Nor does it have a nuclear program If only there was some international agency that could have people on the ground that could walk into any place in Iran un

> Nor does it have a nuclear program If only there was some international agency that could have people on the ground that could walk into any place in Iran under any suspicion that they might be enriching uranium beyond the levels needed for nuclear power plants, overriding basically any local laws that might prevent them access. We could call it International Atomic Energy Agency or something. Now seriously, this was in the deal that the US pulled out of, as well as an agreement that Iran will not enrich uranium beyond like 4% (enough for nuclear power plants, not bombs), reducing their stockpiles of uranium by 97% and much, much more. Now just days ago Iran let IAEA know that they're going to enrich it up to 20%.

yyyk 6y ago
Yea. It would be tough for Iran to develop weapons under those conditions, if they existed in reality. What would a smart leadership do to make it easier? If only there was a deal that wrote down that the international agency needed to ask permission from Iran in advance for inspections of 'military sites'. Also explicitly allow Iran to keep researching enrichment so breakout time would be small. And make that any extra restrictions are temporary. After all, there was that deal with North Korea, and we see how it worked so well - for North Korea.
- input_sh 6y ago
  It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of days. Not to mention 24/7 video surveillance, satellite images, and that IAEA released quarterly reports and every one of them until over a year after US withdrew from the agreement said the same: Iran complied. Hell, even a year after Iran let IAEA know that they're gonna exceed their limits. Here's the entire timeline for those interested: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-D... Nothing like the situation was with North Korea, where North Korea was uncooperative with the IAEA, mostly disagreeing on which parts of the plants IAEA can access. Not to mention IAEA had 20 years in between to improve their methods. US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    >It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of days. The problem here is that Iran was allowed to not tell all on previous existing program. Lets pretend they cheat and IAEA finds out traces of Uranium. What happens when they argue that the Uranium signature is pre-2015 and not from a new installation? There's not enough time passed to prove either way. > US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it. US had to look for improvements, even if Clinton had been elected, since the agreement was designed to be temporary. The tactics involved are a different matter. I guess Trump could have been more devious and unofficially sanction Iran while officially staying part of the deal. Would that have been better? Hmm.. difficult to say.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      >>What happens when they argue that the Uranium signature is pre-2015 and not from a new installation? Is this even possible? Doesn't the half-life of the enriched uranium reveal when it was enriched? >>The tactics involved are a different matter. I guess Trump could have been more devious and unofficially sanction Iran while officially staying part of the deal. Would that have been better? Hmm.. difficult to say. The US could have stayed party to the nuclear deal and coordinated any new negotiations with its European allies, and that would have been substantially better than reneging on an important nuclear arms control deal.
      - yyyk 6y ago
        >Is this even possible? Doesn't the half-life of the enriched uranium reveal when it was enriched? I am not an expert, but I believe Carbon dating is based on similar principles. Yet archeologists always give +-100 years variation in their estimates. Could IAEA really get to +-10 years or better? None of this would matter normally, except for the particular structure of the deal. >The US could have stayed party to the nuclear deal and coordinated any new negotiations with its European allies Support from the EU isn't the real question. We see the US can enforce unilaterally. Nor would Iran act differently if the EU had fully joined the pressure, or if the EU would also have torn up the deal. The question was whether to fix from inside or tear it up. Either way it would have to involve pressure.

yyyk 6y ago

Yea. It would be tough for Iran to develop weapons under those conditions, if they existed in reality. What would a smart leadership do to make it easier? If only there was a deal that wrote down that the international agency needed to ask permission from Iran in advance for inspections of 'military sites'. Also explicitly allow Iran to keep researching enrichment so breakout time would be small. And make that any extra restrictions are temporary. After all, there was that deal with North Korea, and we see how it worked so well - for North Korea.

input_sh 6y ago
It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of days. Not to mention 24/7 video surveillance, satellite images, and that IAEA released quarterly reports and every one of them until over a year after US withdrew from the agreement said the same: Iran complied. Hell, even a year after Iran let IAEA know that they're gonna exceed their limits. Here's the entire timeline for those interested: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-D... Nothing like the situation was with North Korea, where North Korea was uncooperative with the IAEA, mostly disagreeing on which parts of the plants IAEA can access. Not to mention IAEA had 20 years in between to improve their methods. US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it.
- yyyk 6y ago
  >It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of days. The problem here is that Iran was allowed to not tell all on previous existing program. Lets pretend they cheat and IAEA finds out traces of Uranium. What happens when they argue that the Uranium signature is pre-2015 and not from a new installation? There's not enough time passed to prove either way. > US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it. US had to look for improvements, even if Clinton had been elected, since the agreement was designed to be temporary. The tactics involved are a different matter. I guess Trump could have been more devious and unofficially sanction Iran while officially staying part of the deal. Would that have been better? Hmm.. difficult to say.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >>What happens when they argue that the Uranium signature is pre-2015 and not from a new installation? Is this even possible? Doesn't the half-life of the enriched uranium reveal when it was enriched? >>The tactics involved are a different matter. I guess Trump could have been more devious and unofficially sanction Iran while officially staying part of the deal. Would that have been better? Hmm.. difficult to say. The US could have stayed party to the nuclear deal and coordinated any new negotiations with its European allies, and that would have been substantially better than reneging on an important nuclear arms control deal.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      >Is this even possible? Doesn't the half-life of the enriched uranium reveal when it was enriched? I am not an expert, but I believe Carbon dating is based on similar principles. Yet archeologists always give +-100 years variation in their estimates. Could IAEA really get to +-10 years or better? None of this would matter normally, except for the particular structure of the deal. >The US could have stayed party to the nuclear deal and coordinated any new negotiations with its European allies Support from the EU isn't the real question. We see the US can enforce unilaterally. Nor would Iran act differently if the EU had fully joined the pressure, or if the EU would also have torn up the deal. The question was whether to fix from inside or tear it up. Either way it would have to involve pressure.