Iran to breach uranium enrichment limit.

[Gormwood]

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.

"Black Man BAD!"

[American Pere Housh]

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.

Why would you want China to be the dominant power?

[Vykel]

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.

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.

[-Ocelot-]

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.

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?

[Loben The 2nd]

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

"Black Man BAD!"

I actually liked him in his first term. Really bought his message.

[Infected Mushroom]

Is Iran an ally of China and Russia?

[Dooom35796821595]

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.

Unless the Revolutionary Guard goes rogue, or a nuke gets into the hands of terrorists, or like -Ocelot- said a civil war or coup starts.

The fewer nations with nuclear weapons the safer the world is. Ideally it’d be limited to the UNSC.

[-Ocelot-]

Is Iran an ally of China and Russia?

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

[Infected Mushroom]

Is Iran an ally of China and Russia?

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

Cool

So Russia can issue orders and Iran obeys?

[Nakena]

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

Cool

So Russia can issue orders and Iran obeys?

No they are fairly independent just loosely allied. Assad depends very much on Russia at this point.

[North German Realm]

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

Cool

So Russia can issue orders and Iran obeys?

It is debatable if they can, but it is unlikely that Russia will "issue" orders the way you are insinuating. Thus far, Russia's been more interested in taking literal honest-to-god 19th-century-concessions rather than order anyone around (and of course, they aren't really willing to stick with Iran, given how Trump's leaving Barjam economically benefits them to the point of hilarity)

[Risottia]

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.

[American Pere Housh]

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.

The US didn't violate the deal. They withdrew because they weren't getting any thing out of the deal plus the deal was never ratified by the US Senate since this was technically a treaty involving multiple countries.

[Myrensis]

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.

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.

[Nakena]

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.

Neoconism and Wilsonism aren't exactly popular as of lately.

[Dooom35796821595]

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.

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.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

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.

Actually the US violated the deal by imposing sanctions while UN inspectors and every other nation confirmed Iran was abiding it. That was a year or two ago.

[Mojave Confederation]

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.

fixed it for you

[Farnhamia]

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

Hi there. Do not quote people's posts and change them without showing the original text with strike-through or in a different color. I'll give you a break because you're new but you would do well to read the Rules and follow them.

[Telconi]

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

"Black Man BAD!"

I mean, yes, he was.

[Gravlen]

The fault lies with the Trump administration, after they decided to withdraw from the deal while at the same time signalling that having nuclear weapons is sufficient to get you a seat at the table, negotiating directly with the US president.

[Arlenton]

Just hit their facilities with ballistic missiles.

[Spirit of Hope]

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.

[The Emerald Legion]

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.

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.

[Kowani]

"Black Man BAD!"

I mean, yes, he was.

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