7 ms·

Someone should really investigate what happened to the 15-year Iran nuclear agreement that set limits on stockpile size and enrichment levels, and allowed inter

Someone should really investigate what happened to the 15-year Iran nuclear agreement that set limits on stockpile size and enrichment levels, and allowed international inspector verification.

TiredOfLife 1y ago
You mean the one Iran was constantly breaking and refusing access to inspectors?
- jraby3 1y ago
  I really thought Iran was breaking the deal too. Just did a google search and found articles from politico and AP fact checking and it seemed that Iran was complying with the deal. Do you have any links or relevant sources to show that they weren't?
  - stickfigure 1y ago
    Here's a good timeline: https://chatgpt.com/share/6859c708-e53c-8002-bbdb-14150cb4d038 https://chatgpt.com/share/6859c708-e53c-8002-bbdb-14150cb4d0... The upshot is that the US terminated the deal in 2019 and then the Iranians started "racing" for a bomb. Before you think the nuclear deal was good, I have to ask: Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"? It seems a bit like holding the world hostage. There are other ways to stop the bomb program, as we have now seen. The diplomatic solution grants Iran permission to destabilize the region by funding Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. I'm pretty ok bombing hostile religious fanatics trying to develop nuclear weapons. It doesn't feel good but sometimes we have to do things that don't feel good.
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      > Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb" Lots of nations are "bad actors" in lots of ways. And sanctions come in many different shapes and sizes. So yes, it is absolutely OK to sanction a country more because they are building a nuclear bomb, and then remove those extra sanctions if they stop. Sanctions aren't all-or-nothing. The whole idea is that the more you go along with international norms, the less you're sanctioned. Otherwise they wouldn't work to change behavior, because change is always a matter of degrees. Iran isn't going to become Switzerland overnight. That's not how countries work.
    - unethical_ban 1y ago
      >Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"? As Morpheus said, "Welcome to the real world." I'm pretty okay bribing nations to verifiably not build nuclear weapons. It doesn't feel good but sometimes we have to do things that don't feel good.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        According to these absolute la-la-land real politickers, states are supposed to just not build nuclear weapons — tools that are empirically required to have a seat at the international table since 1945 — because you ask politely. Obviously you have to fucking bribe them! Bribing is infinitely better than bombing, where each marginal bombing increases the imperative for every other state to develop their own nukes by reaffirming they are permanently at the mercy of nuclear states!
        edanm 1y ago
        > tools that are empirically required to have a seat at the international table since 1945 — because you ask politely. Umm, what? There are plenty of countries that "have a seat at the table" without nuclear weapons. Depending on what you mean by "seat at the table", of course, but I'm not sure there's any way to define it that excludes 95% of countries.
        f33d5173 1y ago
        Maybe if defined as "permanent member of the un security council".
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        When push comes to shove, 100% of those states are either victims or vassals of a nuclear state.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - jraby3 1y ago
      I personally think that it's not ok that Iran has sewed so much discord in the Middle East by arming Hez, Hamas and the Houthis. I'm very happy the US got involved and destroyed their enrichment sites. I'm also happy Israel didn't wait around for Iran to destroy them, which they've actively been trying to do in this war.
      - mandmandam 1y ago
        > Iran has sewed so much discord in the Middle East by arming Hez, Hamas and the Houthis. Have you seen Israeli leaders plans for 'Greater Israel'? > I'm very happy the US got involved and destroyed their enrichment sites. A - Did they though? B - Cheering on huge breaches of international law, spurring nations to develop their own nuclear weapons and ignore peace talks, seems rather short-sighted. > I'm also happy Israel didn't wait around for Iran to destroy them, which they've actively been trying to do in this war. ... That's quite the cherry on a remarkably ahistorical cake. Countries generally respond to people genociding and invading their neighbours, assassinating their negotiators and scientists, etc.
- zzzeek 1y ago
  only after Trump ruined the agreement by pulling the US out of it in 2018. Before then, Iran was complying.
deepsun 1y ago
I remember the fate of Iraq's WMD (chemical) -- they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years. It was all way too suspicious, but their biggest trick was that when UN approved a military intervention, no WMDs were actually found. That put US in a very bad position because they couldn't prove WMDs existense. Who knows, maybe there were really no WMDs (or just hidden well). However, unlike chemical substances, radiation is easily detectable even in minuscule quantities. Just transporting radioactive materials leave a detectable trace, so I bet they won't be lost for long. The only way to actually hide them is to contaminate the whole area with the same materials.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  We're so back. Another quagmire war in the middle east. Exactly what we needed. For whatever you feel about WMDs or the justification for the Iraq war, the facts are we spent almost two decades in the first go round, found no WMDs, killed a dictator we installed, blew up a shit ton of infrastructure, rebuild a shit ton of it, killed probably millions of innocent people, absolutely blew up the Taliban and later ISIS's recruitment numbers, made ourselves look fucking stupid on the global stage, then pulled out, leaving billions in military materiel to be claimed by the people we were ostensibly there to stop. An utter fucking farce, and we have learned absolutely nothing. Time to send more young men to die.
  - stickfigure 1y ago
    Why do you assume the US will invade?
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      Because we've all been here before. This time we are led in by someone who is just as stupid, but with several times more malicious intent.
      - stickfigure 1y ago
        We've also bombed places without invading. I share your opinion of Trump, but even a stopped clock...
trhway 1y ago
even if Iran was honestly complying, it seems that 60% level left them enough wiggle room for "accidental enrichment" Ooopps : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/20/iran-denies-enriching-uranium-to-84-percent-purity-amid-iaea-row https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/20/iran-denies-enrichi... " Iran has denied that it has intentionally enriched uranium to a purity of 84 percent ... US-based financial news agency Bloomberg reported on Sunday that inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had found uranium enriched to a purity of 84 percent — just below the 90 percent required for a bomb — and are trying to determine if it was produced intentionally." Peaceful energy requires well under 10%. Enriching any noticeable amount (i.e. >> research/medical quantities) beyond that level has only one purpose - weapons (and you can make a weapon even with slightly sub-90%, and 84% does sound there, it is just a bit more technically complex and yield may be less, yet who measures ...)
- themgt 1y ago
  The JCPOA limit was 3.67%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
  - trhway 1y ago
    So, if 3.67% was enough for them (like for anybody else doing peaceful nuclear energy), why they have produced so much of 60%? Edit: judging by the answers the word "why" happened to be misunderstood in my question. I'll restate it - what purpose Iran has been enriching uranium to 60% for? So far the only plausible answer has been - weapons. So, Iran: - claimed intention of destruction of Israel and US, - started the actual, not by proxy, war with Israel by missile attack on October 2024, - and made all the practical steps toward obtaining nuclear weapons (and does have ballistic missiles to carry them) I.e. Iran presented credible existential threat to Israel and US, and thus is getting bombed in response.
    - themgt 1y ago
      This is like asking why your employee stopped showing up for work after you fired them.

Someone should really investigate what happened to the 15-year Iran nuclear agreement that set limits on stockpile size and enrichment levels, and allowed international inspector verification.

TiredOfLife 1y ago

You mean the one Iran was constantly breaking and refusing access to inspectors?

jraby3 1y ago
I really thought Iran was breaking the deal too. Just did a google search and found articles from politico and AP fact checking and it seemed that Iran was complying with the deal. Do you have any links or relevant sources to show that they weren't?
- stickfigure 1y ago
  Here's a good timeline: https://chatgpt.com/share/6859c708-e53c-8002-bbdb-14150cb4d038 https://chatgpt.com/share/6859c708-e53c-8002-bbdb-14150cb4d0... The upshot is that the US terminated the deal in 2019 and then the Iranians started "racing" for a bomb. Before you think the nuclear deal was good, I have to ask: Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"? It seems a bit like holding the world hostage. There are other ways to stop the bomb program, as we have now seen. The diplomatic solution grants Iran permission to destabilize the region by funding Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. I'm pretty ok bombing hostile religious fanatics trying to develop nuclear weapons. It doesn't feel good but sometimes we have to do things that don't feel good.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    > Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb" Lots of nations are "bad actors" in lots of ways. And sanctions come in many different shapes and sizes. So yes, it is absolutely OK to sanction a country more because they are building a nuclear bomb, and then remove those extra sanctions if they stop. Sanctions aren't all-or-nothing. The whole idea is that the more you go along with international norms, the less you're sanctioned. Otherwise they wouldn't work to change behavior, because change is always a matter of degrees. Iran isn't going to become Switzerland overnight. That's not how countries work.
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    >Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"? As Morpheus said, "Welcome to the real world." I'm pretty okay bribing nations to verifiably not build nuclear weapons. It doesn't feel good but sometimes we have to do things that don't feel good.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      According to these absolute la-la-land real politickers, states are supposed to just not build nuclear weapons — tools that are empirically required to have a seat at the international table since 1945 — because you ask politely. Obviously you have to fucking bribe them! Bribing is infinitely better than bombing, where each marginal bombing increases the imperative for every other state to develop their own nukes by reaffirming they are permanently at the mercy of nuclear states!
      - edanm 1y ago
        > tools that are empirically required to have a seat at the international table since 1945 — because you ask politely. Umm, what? There are plenty of countries that "have a seat at the table" without nuclear weapons. Depending on what you mean by "seat at the table", of course, but I'm not sure there's any way to define it that excludes 95% of countries.
        f33d5173 1y ago
        Maybe if defined as "permanent member of the un security council".
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        When push comes to shove, 100% of those states are either victims or vassals of a nuclear state.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - jraby3 1y ago
    I personally think that it's not ok that Iran has sewed so much discord in the Middle East by arming Hez, Hamas and the Houthis. I'm very happy the US got involved and destroyed their enrichment sites. I'm also happy Israel didn't wait around for Iran to destroy them, which they've actively been trying to do in this war.
    - mandmandam 1y ago
      > Iran has sewed so much discord in the Middle East by arming Hez, Hamas and the Houthis. Have you seen Israeli leaders plans for 'Greater Israel'? > I'm very happy the US got involved and destroyed their enrichment sites. A - Did they though? B - Cheering on huge breaches of international law, spurring nations to develop their own nuclear weapons and ignore peace talks, seems rather short-sighted. > I'm also happy Israel didn't wait around for Iran to destroy them, which they've actively been trying to do in this war. ... That's quite the cherry on a remarkably ahistorical cake. Countries generally respond to people genociding and invading their neighbours, assassinating their negotiators and scientists, etc.
zzzeek 1y ago
only after Trump ruined the agreement by pulling the US out of it in 2018. Before then, Iran was complying.

deepsun 1y ago

I remember the fate of Iraq's WMD (chemical) -- they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years. It was all way too suspicious, but their biggest trick was that when UN approved a military intervention, no WMDs were actually found. That put US in a very bad position because they couldn't prove WMDs existense. Who knows, maybe there were really no WMDs (or just hidden well). However, unlike chemical substances, radiation is easily detectable even in minuscule quantities. Just transporting radioactive materials leave a detectable trace, so I bet they won't be lost for long. The only way to actually hide them is to contaminate the whole area with the same materials.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
We're so back. Another quagmire war in the middle east. Exactly what we needed. For whatever you feel about WMDs or the justification for the Iraq war, the facts are we spent almost two decades in the first go round, found no WMDs, killed a dictator we installed, blew up a shit ton of infrastructure, rebuild a shit ton of it, killed probably millions of innocent people, absolutely blew up the Taliban and later ISIS's recruitment numbers, made ourselves look fucking stupid on the global stage, then pulled out, leaving billions in military materiel to be claimed by the people we were ostensibly there to stop. An utter fucking farce, and we have learned absolutely nothing. Time to send more young men to die.
- stickfigure 1y ago
  Why do you assume the US will invade?
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    Because we've all been here before. This time we are led in by someone who is just as stupid, but with several times more malicious intent.
    - stickfigure 1y ago
      We've also bombed places without invading. I share your opinion of Trump, but even a stopped clock...

trhway 1y ago

even if Iran was honestly complying, it seems that 60% level left them enough wiggle room for "accidental enrichment" Ooopps : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/20/iran-denies-enriching-uranium-to-84-percent-purity-amid-iaea-row https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/20/iran-denies-enrichi... " Iran has denied that it has intentionally enriched uranium to a purity of 84 percent ... US-based financial news agency Bloomberg reported on Sunday that inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had found uranium enriched to a purity of 84 percent — just below the 90 percent required for a bomb — and are trying to determine if it was produced intentionally." Peaceful energy requires well under 10%. Enriching any noticeable amount (i.e. >> research/medical quantities) beyond that level has only one purpose - weapons (and you can make a weapon even with slightly sub-90%, and 84% does sound there, it is just a bit more technically complex and yield may be less, yet who measures ...)

themgt 1y ago
The JCPOA limit was 3.67%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
- trhway 1y ago
  So, if 3.67% was enough for them (like for anybody else doing peaceful nuclear energy), why they have produced so much of 60%? Edit: judging by the answers the word "why" happened to be misunderstood in my question. I'll restate it - what purpose Iran has been enriching uranium to 60% for? So far the only plausible answer has been - weapons. So, Iran: - claimed intention of destruction of Israel and US, - started the actual, not by proxy, war with Israel by missile attack on October 2024, - and made all the practical steps toward obtaining nuclear weapons (and does have ballistic missiles to carry them) I.e. Iran presented credible existential threat to Israel and US, and thus is getting bombed in response.
  - themgt 1y ago
    This is like asking why your employee stopped showing up for work after you fired them.