4 ms·

I don't know how you got to "Iran probably wasn't following the treaty", when their adhereance to the JCPOA was certified by the U.S. (twice by the Trump admini

I don't know how you got to "Iran probably wasn't following the treaty", when their adhereance to the JCPOA was certified by the U.S. (twice by the Trump administration [0][1]), until Trump wanted to renogiate, withdrawing and re-imposing sanctions in 2018. Everything I found says that the Iranians followed the treaty until they withdrew in 2021. You mentioned military sites... I wondered if the IAEA ever requested access to military sites? They were entitled to do so, under the JCPOA. I couldn't find anything in a quick search I just did. In your response above, you seem to imply that the Iranians may have already sneaked nuclear matarial to military sites. But the The IAEA found no evidence of that, at least as of 2025, well after the treaty, as per this summary report: > Iran held enriched uranium at all three main nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan. There are no indications that Iran moved stocks outside of these three sites [2] Once again, do you have sources for what you are saying, that the Iranians weren't following the treaty while it was in effect, or that there were military sites where they were hiding nuclear research? I'm not finding any. Or is this just an opinion, or a guess? I would say that one must be careful, those who profit in some way from war always exaggerate the enemy. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-administration-approves-agreement-but-review-looms https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/iran-nuclear-d... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-recertify.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nu... [2] https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-report-may-2025 https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-v...

ericmay 22d ago
I'll have to dig up some sources later, if I don't then consider the point conceded I guess as a way of holding me to it. The other problem of course if the fundamental "need" to have a JCPOA in the first place. Iran can just stop trying to build nuclear weapons and then we don't need these kinds of agreements. They also enriched uranium: "Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency." [1] why were they even doing that? When I read things like that it's like who even cares if they were supposedly following the JCPOA? I'm not trying to change the subject or move the goalposts, but just pointing out how it's interesting that they have all this enriched material. Why do they even have it? Someone said they were following the agreement, why do they need to have this agreement to not enrich uranium? Just don't do it? [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/securing-irans-enriched-uranium-by-force-would-be-risky-and-complex-experts-say https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/securing-irans-enriched-u...
- mikem170 22d ago
  The IAEA also said: "In its May 2025 report, the IAEA noted Iran’s enrichment to 60% purity—beyond JCPOA limits but not prohibited under the NPT itself" [0] Apparently the Iranians started enriching to that 60% level, and self reporting, in 2021, as leverage in the unsuccessful negotions to bring the JCPOA back into effect to get sanctions dropped. International politics is what it is - power and self interest. There are those who don't want Iran to have a nuke. Iran has its reasons for wanting that capability. Throw in the crusades and ongoing holy wars, colonialism, oil, authoritarian regimes, propaganda, alliances, greed, etc - it's no wonder this is still a problem. One of many problems in that part of the world. Ironic that the U.S. got the iranian nucear program started, eh? [1] [0] https://nuclearwatch.net/2025-09-11/enrichment-under-the-npt-jcpoa-and-unsr2231-a-legal-and-political-reassessment-in-light-of-recent-developments/ https://nuclearwatch.net/2025-09-11/enrichment-under-the-npt... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Origins_under_the_Shah_(1950s%E2%80%931970s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Origin...
  - ericmay 22d ago
    > Throw in the crusades and ongoing holy wars, colonialism, oil, authoritarian regimes, propaganda, alliances, greed, etc - it's no wonder this is still a problem. One of many problems in that part of the world. Are you serious lol. Ok let’s go back to the Persians invading the Greeks!
    - mikem170 22d ago
      Yes, I'm serious. The Persians are a proud culture and know their history. Just like a lot of other people. You don't think religion still motivates people? There have been Sunni vs Shia and Christian vs Muslim conflicts for about a thousand years, more on than off. Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites. So much back and forth - the Muslim conquest, the crusades, the Ottomans, Napolean, the Shah of Iran, 9/11, etc. Are you saying that those in the Middle East don't know the history of all that, or don't notice that they have been imposed upon lately by foreign powers? Are you saying that there's not a large loud group of people in the U.S. who have been saying that Islam is evil? They aren't like us. They want to kill us all. They'll never stop. Etc. They're going to nuke Boston if we don't attack. I know a lot of religious people looking at current events as end-of-times bliblical - New Jerusalem, second coming, etc. These people have been very politically influental. Even now Vance is very publically calling a muslim senate candidate evil. Those in power use religion to radicalize people. Are you saying this isn't happening and hasn't been happening for hundreds of years? I'm into history, so maybe I'm coming from a different angle. You've posted quite a bit in this thread and repeated a number of things that appear to be factually incorrect. Are you sure that you are well informed and not making biased assumptions?

ericmay 22d ago

I'll have to dig up some sources later, if I don't then consider the point conceded I guess as a way of holding me to it. The other problem of course if the fundamental "need" to have a JCPOA in the first place. Iran can just stop trying to build nuclear weapons and then we don't need these kinds of agreements. They also enriched uranium: "Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency." [1] why were they even doing that? When I read things like that it's like who even cares if they were supposedly following the JCPOA? I'm not trying to change the subject or move the goalposts, but just pointing out how it's interesting that they have all this enriched material. Why do they even have it? Someone said they were following the agreement, why do they need to have this agreement to not enrich uranium? Just don't do it? [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/securing-irans-enriched-uranium-by-force-would-be-risky-and-complex-experts-say https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/securing-irans-enriched-u...

mikem170 22d ago
The IAEA also said: "In its May 2025 report, the IAEA noted Iran’s enrichment to 60% purity—beyond JCPOA limits but not prohibited under the NPT itself" [0] Apparently the Iranians started enriching to that 60% level, and self reporting, in 2021, as leverage in the unsuccessful negotions to bring the JCPOA back into effect to get sanctions dropped. International politics is what it is - power and self interest. There are those who don't want Iran to have a nuke. Iran has its reasons for wanting that capability. Throw in the crusades and ongoing holy wars, colonialism, oil, authoritarian regimes, propaganda, alliances, greed, etc - it's no wonder this is still a problem. One of many problems in that part of the world. Ironic that the U.S. got the iranian nucear program started, eh? [1] [0] https://nuclearwatch.net/2025-09-11/enrichment-under-the-npt-jcpoa-and-unsr2231-a-legal-and-political-reassessment-in-light-of-recent-developments/ https://nuclearwatch.net/2025-09-11/enrichment-under-the-npt... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Origins_under_the_Shah_(1950s%E2%80%931970s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Origin...
- ericmay 22d ago
  > Throw in the crusades and ongoing holy wars, colonialism, oil, authoritarian regimes, propaganda, alliances, greed, etc - it's no wonder this is still a problem. One of many problems in that part of the world. Are you serious lol. Ok let’s go back to the Persians invading the Greeks!
  - mikem170 22d ago
    Yes, I'm serious. The Persians are a proud culture and know their history. Just like a lot of other people. You don't think religion still motivates people? There have been Sunni vs Shia and Christian vs Muslim conflicts for about a thousand years, more on than off. Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites. So much back and forth - the Muslim conquest, the crusades, the Ottomans, Napolean, the Shah of Iran, 9/11, etc. Are you saying that those in the Middle East don't know the history of all that, or don't notice that they have been imposed upon lately by foreign powers? Are you saying that there's not a large loud group of people in the U.S. who have been saying that Islam is evil? They aren't like us. They want to kill us all. They'll never stop. Etc. They're going to nuke Boston if we don't attack. I know a lot of religious people looking at current events as end-of-times bliblical - New Jerusalem, second coming, etc. These people have been very politically influental. Even now Vance is very publically calling a muslim senate candidate evil. Those in power use religion to radicalize people. Are you saying this isn't happening and hasn't been happening for hundreds of years? I'm into history, so maybe I'm coming from a different angle. You've posted quite a bit in this thread and repeated a number of things that appear to be factually incorrect. Are you sure that you are well informed and not making biased assumptions?