Iran to breach uranium enrichment limit.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I don't approve of them building a nuclear arsenal, but that doesn't change the fact that Iran doesn't have to follow the terms of a deal that is no longer in effect.
It's not a breach of contract to stop showing up for work if your boss declared that he wouldn't pay you anymore.

[Fartsniffage]

I mean, yes, he was.

He had his problems, but bad is not the word for him.

Sure it is...

[Senkaku]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48661843

Iran has announced it intends to breech the uranium enrichment limit on the 27th June, claiming it is in response to European failure to protect them from the reinstatement of American sanctions. This includes restarting a heavy water plant that could produce weapons grade plutonium.

The UK, France and Germany have warned Iran not to violate the 2015 deal, and that they will reinstate their sanctions if Iran doesn’t change its course.

This shows that Iran was never serious about limiting its nuclear program,

What? No it doesn't.

and obviously wants to repair the damage done to its economy,

It can't do that if it's building nukes-- the US has just taken away any assurances that we won't destroy their economy anyways even if they don't, so they're saying "fuck it."

then create its nuclear weapons from a position of strength.

I have no idea how you arrived at this bizarre mirror-dimension conclusion.

Allowing Iran to obtain a bomb would turn the Middle East into a nuclear powder keg that would make Indian subcontinent look Antarctic in comparison, and put Europe in range of both nuclear weapons and radioactive fallout.

Well, maybe the Europeans should step up and protect them from sanctions, then, since Iran didn't break the deal, the United States did.

They held up their end of the deal and we bailed. They said they'd gut it out anyways if the Europeans could help them, which is more than they could've done. If the Iranians were desperate for the bomb, they'd've immediately started work-- but they're not, they just want their economy to be okay again.

The United States has made a serious error here, much like we did in Libya, and it makes things harder for us in North Korea and around the world. If countries have no reason to believe that the United States will uphold its end of a deal, then deterrence or negotiations break down-- after all, if we're going to try and implement regime change no matter what they do, they have no reason to try and offer us concessions or come to an arrangement. This is most directly applicable to the question of North Korean denuclearization, but also applies to our relations with China, Russia, Venezuela, et cetera.

[Kannap]

The United States left the deal so I don't see what the fuss is about Iran leaving the deal. If one party - the most important party, at that - is freely allowed to leave then all parties are allowed to leave.

[Chestaan]

They would trigger a nuclear war ... if their existence was threatened ... if they were under the threat of collapse ... They might be dictators but they still understand balance of power and deterrence, they are not just going to throw nukes at Saudi Arabia or the ROK. Maybe NK wants to control the ROK, but have they tried nuking them for the sake of conquest? They haven't.

Dictatorships like Iran may collapse because of a civil war. If NK was to have a civil war in the future, they'd have no reason not to kill who knows how many Koreans in both NK and SK with chemical weapons. In theory, they could steamroll the entire peninsula in the event of a civil conflict.

Assad had no problem killing his own people with chemical weapons when they rebelled. Who says the same won't happen with Iran and who can guarantee that it won't trigger a bigger global conflict?

And who's to say that a civil war in the US or the UK or any other nuclear power wouldn't result in those countries using their nukes? If the US and it's allies weren't constantly threatening Iran then they wouldn't want or need nuclear weapons. In any case I wouldn't trust the US with MWDs anymore than I would trust NK or Iran,.especially with Trump at the helm promising fire and blood.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Trump made the choice to withdraw from the deal, so the US has no place to complain if Iran makes their choice to withdraw from it as well. You reap what you sow.

[Hexapus]

Sounds like Uncle Sam failed to honor his commitments, and Iran is just taking remedies into their own hands. Like a builder destroying the shed he built 'cause the owner won't pay.

[Ecradia]

Because those facilities aren't barried under mountains, and launching missiles at them totally wouldn't result in them retaliating by closing the strait via there own missiles or mines.

Because we totally need the straight. Yes. That vitally important waterway, and cannot possibly bomb them into the stone age from half a world away.

If only we had some manner of flying machine. Woe is us, oh backwards America, and our lack of ingenious machines that would enable us to murder people from a distance.

It's not about the military aspect. If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, they cut off a large portion of the world's oil. Unless you propose we transport it overland, which is a fool's errand.

[Gormwood]

Trump made the choice to withdraw from the deal, so the US has to place to complain if Iran makes their choice to withdraw from it as well. You reap what you sow.

And all because he had a manbaby tantrum and wanted to tell Obama to suck it.

[The Emerald Legion]

Because we totally need the straight. Yes. That vitally important waterway, and cannot possibly bomb them into the stone age from half a world away.

If only we had some manner of flying machine. Woe is us, oh backwards America, and our lack of ingenious machines that would enable us to murder people from a distance.

It's not about the military aspect. If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, they cut off a large portion of the world's oil. Unless you propose we transport it overland, which is a fool's errand.

Because they can totally close the straight when being invaded and bombed everywhere else.

[Purpelia]

The only people who have a problem with Iran or any other country for that matter having atomic weapons are those that wish to see those countries subjugated and turned into colonies of the great powers. Enough said.

[Estanglia]

The only people who have a problem with Iran or any other country for that matter having atomic weapons are those that wish to see those countries subjugated and turned into colonies of the great powers. Enough said.

Because not wanting countries to own devastating Weapons of Mass Destruction totally equals wanting to colonise them. It's not like there's any incorrect logic here. Nope, not at all.

/s.

[Spirit of Hope]

It's not about the military aspect. If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, they cut off a large portion of the world's oil. Unless you propose we transport it overland, which is a fool's errand.

Because they can totally close the straight when being invaded and bombed everywhere else.

Yes they could, placing mines in the strait would close it rather quickly. This would require the US, or another nation, to bring in dedicated mine hunting ships, which would be vulnerable to attack from Iran. To suppress those, the US would have to dedicate a large number of aircraft to hunting mobile missile launchers (which isn't easy) along with other aircraft to defeat Iranian air defenses and aircraft. This would likely require a large build up of forces, all the while the strait is closed and the majority of the world is going without oil.

This doesn't include trying to hunt for Irans submarines in a relatively shallow, enclosed area, where they would have a great time hunting civilian and military shipping while themselves being very hard to detect and destroy.

Could the United States stop Iran from closing the strait? Yes, however it would likely take weeks (if not months), would almost certainly cost american service members and international civilians their lives.

Plus once you are in this situation Iran would continue to be a danger for shipping, likely until there is a forced regime change. Which in turn would require the US to carry out an ground invasion, and occupy another nation in the Middle East.

All of this, and until the ground invasion and occupation of the facilities enriching the Uranium and you probably wouldn't have actually stopped their progress towards a nuclear weapon. Why? Because they aren't idiots and have placed their production facilities under ground so that a direct strike is unlikely to do any substantial damage.

[Hexapus]

The only people who have a problem with Iran or any other country for that matter having atomic weapons are those that wish to see those countries subjugated and turned into colonies of the great powers. Enough said.

Yup, there's no reason that the Great Powers are objectively more trustworthy with nukes than other states. And Iran isn't really a rogue state, at least compared to America and China.

[The Emerald Legion]

Because they can totally close the straight when being invaded and bombed everywhere else.

Yes they could, placing mines in the strait would close it rather quickly. This would require the US, or another nation, to bring in dedicated mine hunting ships, which would be vulnerable to attack from Iran. To suppress those, the US would have to dedicate a large number of aircraft to hunting mobile missile launchers (which isn't easy) along with other aircraft to defeat Iranian air defenses and aircraft. This would likely require a large build up of forces, all the while the strait is closed and the majority of the world is going without oil.

This doesn't include trying to hunt for Irans submarines in a relatively shallow, enclosed area, where they would have a great time hunting civilian and military shipping while themselves being very hard to detect and destroy.

Could the United States stop Iran from closing the strait? Yes, however it would likely take weeks (if not months), would almost certainly cost american service members and international civilians their lives.

Plus once you are in this situation Iran would continue to be a danger for shipping, likely until there is a forced regime change. Which in turn would require the US to carry out an ground invasion, and occupy another nation in the Middle East.

All of this, and until the ground invasion and occupation of the facilities enriching the Uranium and you probably wouldn't have actually stopped their progress towards a nuclear weapon. Why? Because they aren't idiots and have placed their production facilities under ground so that a direct strike is unlikely to do any substantial damage.

And they can mine the straight when their boats are ashes how?

But production facilities tend to require people Manning them. People tend to require food. Bomb local agriculture to dust. Then blockade the country to prevent food from getting in, except along US controlled channels.

They can then choose to get food from us, and surrender, or starve.

[Aclion]

The only people who have a problem with Iran or any other country for that matter having atomic weapons are those that wish to see those countries subjugated and turned into colonies of the great powers. Enough said.

Yup, there's no reason that the Great Powers are objectively more trustworthy with nukes than other states. And Iran isn't really a rogue state, at least compared to America and China.

the great powers are a lot more stable and can achieve their aims without the us of nukes as a leverage, which isn't true of Iran.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yes they could, placing mines in the strait would close it rather quickly. This would require the US, or another nation, to bring in dedicated mine hunting ships, which would be vulnerable to attack from Iran. To suppress those, the US would have to dedicate a large number of aircraft to hunting mobile missile launchers (which isn't easy) along with other aircraft to defeat Iranian air defenses and aircraft. This would likely require a large build up of forces, all the while the strait is closed and the majority of the world is going without oil.

This doesn't include trying to hunt for Irans submarines in a relatively shallow, enclosed area, where they would have a great time hunting civilian and military shipping while themselves being very hard to detect and destroy.

Could the United States stop Iran from closing the strait? Yes, however it would likely take weeks (if not months), would almost certainly cost american service members and international civilians their lives.

Plus once you are in this situation Iran would continue to be a danger for shipping, likely until there is a forced regime change. Which in turn would require the US to carry out an ground invasion, and occupy another nation in the Middle East.

All of this, and until the ground invasion and occupation of the facilities enriching the Uranium and you probably wouldn't have actually stopped their progress towards a nuclear weapon. Why? Because they aren't idiots and have placed their production facilities under ground so that a direct strike is unlikely to do any substantial damage.

And they can mine the straight when their boats are ashes how?

But production facilities tend to require people Manning them. People tend to require food. Bomb local agriculture to dust. Then blockade the country to prevent food from getting in, except along US controlled channels.

They can then choose to get food from us, and surrender, or starve.

They simply drop the mines into the strait, they do border it after all. Or release it from there submarines. Plus it wouldn't be that easy to destroy their boats, and would likely require a build up of forces in the area, and result in American casualties as Iran used their air defenses.

If you seriously just argued to destroy their food production, you are basically calling for a war crime. It would be unlikely that the US people, our allies, or the international community would be willing to go along with such a strategy.

Any attempt to strike the production facilities, directly or indirectly, by military means poses a great threat of starting a war. Such a war would be devastating to the world economy, probably devastating to the US economy, and further damage our standing with our allies. The war would not be quick or easy.

All to get ride of a nuclear weapons program we neutered years ago, with a deal this administration got ride of for no good reason. President Trump is trying to have his cake and eat it to.

[The Black Forrest]

"Black Man BAD!"

I mean, yes, he was.

Hmmm? Still better then the orange man.

[Loben The 2nd]

Just hit their facilities with ballistic missiles.

Because those facilities aren't barried under mountains, and launching missiles at them totally wouldn't result in them retaliating by closing the strait via there own missiles or mines.

MOABs, bunker busters, maybe a minuteman.

[Infected Mushroom]

I’m okay with Iran getting nukes.

This way, the USA and other nations can’t invade. Iran would be more protected.

[Kowani]

I’m okay with Iran getting nukes.

This way, the USA and other nations can’t invade. Iran would be more protected.

Yes. Authoritarian rulers having nukes never goes bad-Oh hi, Kim Jong-Un!

[North German Realm]

I’m okay with Iran getting nukes.

This way, the USA and other nations can’t invade. Iran would be more protected.

Yes. Authoritarian rulers have nukes never goes bad-Oh hi, Kim Jong-Un!

He probably supports The Kims' ownership of nukes as well. In all seriousness, one can never trust a government with nukes that was, from the very first day, built around wishing death to another nation and its people (and The Islamic Republic, unlike almost every other Iranian government before it, was built around "Marg Bar Esraeil" [Death to Israel] from the start).

[Gormwood]

I’m okay with Iran getting nukes.

This way, the USA and other nations can’t invade. Iran would be more protected.

Yes. Authoritarian rulers having nukes never goes bad-Oh hi, Kim Jong-Un!

Kim is using nukes as an immunity token, not a blank check to invade the South.

[Kowani]

Yes. Authoritarian rulers having nukes never goes bad-Oh hi, Kim Jong-Un!

Kim is using nukes as an immunity token, not a blank check to invade the South.

Yet. But Iran’s isn’t invading anyone either, so I’m not really sure what your point is here…

[Gormwood]

Kim is using nukes as an immunity token, not a blank check to invade the South.

Yet. But Iran’s isn’t invading anyone either, so I’m not really sure what your point is here…

Rebutting your insistence that Kim having nukes is going to result in some Bond villain shenanigans.