NationStates

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:We had a deal in place, and we bear part of the responsibility for this because of our decision to arbitrarily withdraw.

A bad deal but hey, so long as it padded a certain former presidents resume to the pantheon of liberalism.

Luziyca wrote:

Zrhajan wrote:Oh yeah. I have a hard time believing that Iranian hardliners, who already protested massively over the original deal, will be any more charitable to a revised deal. In point of fact, I rather doubt that at this point Iran will make any new deals on their atomic program, because the US has very conclusively shown that they can't be trusted to keep a deal.

Agreed.

The way things are going, the only way Iran will probably agree to another deal barring any sort of American invasion is after a few decades when the scars from this betrayal have passed, and I sincerely hope by that point that China becomes the dominant power instead of the US.

-Ocelot- wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Like the, uhm, Samson option?



Most nations in the middle east have a stockpile of chemical weapons. Israel likely too. Assad isn't the only one, but he and Hussein were the only ones insane and ruthless enough to actually use them.

The Samson option, yes. Would you really trust nations like Iran or NK with handling such WMDs? They would 100% trigger a global nuclear war if they were under the threat of collapse and these are nations that are aggressive and expansionist, so it's not like you can just leave them be. Iran wants to destroy Saudi Arabia and NK wants to control South Korea. Things are stable now but this might not be the case in the future, for whatever reason.

Vykel wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:
The Samson option, yes. Would you really trust nations like Iran or NK with handling such WMDs? They would 100% trigger a global nuclear war if they were under the threat of collapse and these are nations that are aggressive and expansionist, so it's not like you can just leave them be. Iran wants to destroy Saudi Arabia and NK wants to control South Korea. Things are stable now but this might not be the case in the future, for whatever reason.

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.

Gormwood wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:
A bad deal but hey, so long as it padded a certain former presidents resume to the pantheon of liberalism.

"Black Man BAD!"

Vykel wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:
The Samson option, yes. Would you really trust nations like Iran or NK with handling such WMDs? They would 100% trigger a global nuclear war if they were under the threat of collapse and these are nations that are aggressive and expansionist, so it's not like you can just leave them be. Iran wants to destroy Saudi Arabia and NK wants to control South Korea. Things are stable now but this might not be the case in the future, for whatever reason.

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.

Infected Mushroom wrote:Is Iran an ally of China and Russia?

-Ocelot- wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:Is Iran an ally of China and Russia?

Iran is a Russian subordinate, more or less. Just like Assad's Syria.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:
Iran is a Russian subordinate, more or less. Just like Assad's Syria.

Cool

So Russia can issue orders and Iran obeys?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:
Iran is a Russian subordinate, more or less. Just like Assad's Syria.

Cool

So Russia can issue orders and Iran obeys?

Dooom35796821595 wrote: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

Risottia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote: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

Excuse me? The US killed the treaty by violating it and this shows something about IRAN'S intentions?
Jingoism at its finest.

Risottia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote: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

Excuse me? The US killed the treaty by violating it and this shows something about IRAN'S intentions?
Jingoism at its finest.

Myrensis wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Excuse me? The US killed the treaty by violating it and this shows something about IRAN'S intentions?
Jingoism at its finest.

You have to remember it's part of the bedrock of conservative foreign policy that as long as we (supposedly) have good intentions, everything America does happens in a vacuum and nobody is ever allowed to criticize us or suggest that we bear any responsbility for obvious negative consequences.

Which is super convenient, because that means anyone who does criticize us or engage in negative behavior in response to our actions is clearly motivated purely by EVIL and HATRED FOR OUR FREEDUMBS! Making us the innocent victims and champions of goodness and light forever and always.

Risottia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote: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

Excuse me? The US killed the treaty by violating it and this shows something about IRAN'S intentions?
Jingoism at its finest.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Excuse me? The US killed the treaty by violating it and this shows something about IRAN'S intentions?
Jingoism at its finest.

The US was one of several nations who signed the deal, and Iran is the one violating the deal. If it had the commitment to remain compliant then a future president may get it past the US senate, and it would encourage future trust and cooperation.

And I don’t condone Trumps childish tantrum, but Iran isn’t doing itself any favours by following their example.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Excuse me? The US killed the treaty by violating it and this shows something about IRAN'S intentions?
Jingoism at its finest.

The US was one of several nations who signed the deal, and US is the one violating the deal. If it had the commitment to remain compliant then Iran would still be compliant with the deal too, and it would encourage future trust and cooperation.

And I don’t condone Trumps childish tantrum, but US isn’t doing itself any favours by throwing hissy fit that a country quit themselves from a deal after the other party completely and blatantly throw it all apart.

Mojave Confederation wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
The US was one of several nations who signed the deal, and US is the one violating the deal. If it had the commitment to remain compliant then Iran would still be compliant with the deal too, and it would encourage future trust and cooperation.

And I don’t condone Trumps childish tantrum, but US isn’t doing itself any favours by throwing hissy fit that a country quit themselves from a deal after the other party completely and blatantly throw it all apart.

fixed it for you

Gormwood wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:
A bad deal but hey, so long as it padded a certain former presidents resume to the pantheon of liberalism.

"Black Man BAD!"

Arlenton wrote:Just hit their facilities with ballistic missiles.

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Arlenton wrote: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.

Telconi wrote:

Gormwood wrote:"Black Man BAD!"

I mean, yes, he was.