Do you agree with Trump cancelling Iran's nuclear deal?

Scroll to see replies

A great deal of your arguments seem to be predicated on 'what if'. I'm afraid that standard of proof may suffice for an illegal invasion of Iraq, but it doesn't cut it in international law or in a debate where everyone can see the weakness of your arguments (if they can be termed as such).

Standard of proof, as if that meant anything at all... So you don't see the need for any deal of any type at all, like Trump perhaps? There is no evidence of nuclear ambitions on their part, we should just leave them alone. That is your position.

ps, you ought to read or watch something on Stuxnet to better understand what it was.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 21

username2950448

Original post by zhog

Standard of proof, as if that meant anything at all...

Clearly not to you or your ilk, no.

So you don't see the need for any deal of any type at all, like Trump perhaps?

Trump wants a 'renegotiated' deal, so no, my position is not in line with Trump at all.

There is no evidence of nuclear ambitions on their part, we should just leave them alone. That is your position.

Essentially, yes. The US's selective outrage on this issue is, predictably, drawn on political lines: if you support the US, you can have nuclear weapons, if you don't, you can't and we will sanction you.

What we should be pursuing is a WMD-free world.

There are scientific and historical nuances to this issue, but you clearly lack any knowledge of these. I'd advise you educate yourself on the JCPOA by reading what actual arms control/nuclear energy experts have to say on the matter, rather than Trump, whose own military/political/intelligence staff disagree with his impulsive stupidity on the issue.

Reply 22

username1738683

Original post by Palmyra

Trump wants a 'renegotiated'deal, so no, my position is not in line with Trump at all

Indeed, I misrepresented his position. However, I was right on yours: there is no need for a deal of any type.

Actually, that may be Trump's stance. Iran will never accept his and it's all a waste of time to him.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 23

username2950448

Original post by Hatter_2

I notice that on a previous thread of yours, also concerning the JCPOA, you say:

the current deal... lifts all sanctions eventually

This is incorrect and exposes your total lack of understanding of the JCPOA and of the issue as a whole.

For anyone who is interested, the JCPOA lifted UNSC sanctions on Iran that related to its nuclear programme, but these can be 'snapped back' if Iran is found in violation of its obligations under the deal (the US is already in violation of its obligations under the deal, but that's another story). The JCPOA does not affect non-nuclear sanctions on Iran, either in the US, EU or UN. For instance, sanctions on Iran for alleged human rights abuses or its ballistic missile programme are not affected by the JCPOA.

It is very interesting that those most against the JCPOA seem to know the least about it.

Reply 24

username2950448

Original post by zhog

However, I was right on yours: there is no need for a deal of any type.

I support the JCPOA because it is a way of confidence-building regarding Iran's nuclear programme to ensure it remains exclusively peaceful permanently. I don't support any country developing nuclear weapons and don't believe Iran ever would have, but the JCPOA is an effective way of ensuring this.

I would like to see North Korea reach a similar agreement, but with Trump destroying the US's credibility it seems that this is somewhat unlikely.

Actually, that may be Trump's stance. Iran will never accept his.

The EU, Russia, China and Trump's own military officials (e.g. James Dunford and James Mattis) don't 'accept' Trump's position on this. America has never been more isolated on this issue, with the EU affirming that they will stick to the deal regardless of what Trump does.

Reply 25

username2950448

Original post by zhog

ps, you ought to read or watch something on Stuxnet to better understand what it was.

Ignoring the irony of you alleging my ignorance on the matter, what exactly about stuxnet do you think I don't know?

The stuxnet attack was relatively unsuccessful:
1) It spread beyond Iran, with only around 50% of the infected devices ultimately being in Iran
2) The attack affected approx 10% of Iran's existing centrifuges, and Iran very quickly replaced those and continued to increase their number of operating centrifuges
3) The attack provided great impetus for Iran's own cyber-warfare capabilities, and Iran now possesses one of the most sophisticated cyber-warfare abilities in the world

But do go on, please inform me of what you think I don't know about the attack.

Reply 26

username2950448

Original post by AstronomicaI

(((They))) don't want Iran to get nukes, Trump is one of (((them))).

This is clearly an anti-Semitic trope aimed at "Jews", but it is worth noting that a majority of American Jews support the JCPOA. In addition, most of Israel's intelligence and military apparatus also support the JCPOA. It is predominantly the right-wing potlicial elements of Israel (and NeoCons in the US) that don't.

Reply 27

username2950448

Original post by AstronomicaI

Israel fears the Iranian Aryan warrior.

According to the ADL's annual survey, Iran is consistently the least anti-Semitic country in the region, so keep your anti-Semitism to yourself.

Reply 28

Tawheed

Iran never wanted. As a shia muslim, making and even using nuclear weapons by religious scholarly ruling has been decreed as forbidden. If iran even used a weapon that led to the bloodshed of thousands of innocent people in a nuclear attack [and more the way these weapons work] it would essentially be chaos. It is inconceivable.

D J Trump has shown his absolute incompetence. I disliked Hillary for being part of the establishment, but Trump has shown he has a lack of understanding for diplomacy.

In the Nuclear deal, Iran has made clear it never wanted Nuclear Weapons, but it signed the deal as a gesture of good will which put many restrictions on it. Oil is now becoming less of a valuable commodity when we look to the future, people need to branch to more renewable energy sources, Nuclear energy being a massive player.

[video="youtube;WUMnvVzUNkw"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUMnvVzUNkw[/video]

Reply 29

username2950448

Original post by Tawheed

Iran never wanted. As a shia muslim, making and even using nuclear weapons by religious scholarly ruling has been decreed as forbidden. If iran even used a weapon that led to the bloodshed of thousands of innocent people in a nuclear attack [and more the way these weapons work] it would essentially be chaos. It is inconceivable.
Indeed, as I noted in a previous response on this thread, even when faced with chemical attacks by Saddam in the 80s, Iran had the means of retaliating in kind but opted not to.

I hate the Iranian regime, but it is for that reason that I support the JCPOA: it empowers moderate forces within Iran and contributes to Iran's economic development. Trump is playing into the hands of Iranian hardliners who argued all along that any form of rapprochement with the US was futile because the US can't be trusted.

Reply 30

Nebuchadnezzaṛ

Original post by Tawheed

Spoiler

Reply 31

username3548838

You're a mind-reader too, impressive! No doubt this will prove a futile question, but... Any evidence for that (I won't get my hopes up)?

Yes, they are openly hostile; kidnapping US sailors; threating the US by saying their missiles are in range within the last week.

It only delays them acquiring weapons, most of the limits will expire. Obviously I was referring to all nuclear-related sanctions since that is the issue.

If you think having a username or avatar related to the middle east gives you some kind of authority clearly you are failing.

Reply 32

Nebuchadnezzaṛ

Original post by Hatter_2

They entered Iranian territorial waters, they had every right to "kidnap" them.

Reply 33

username2950448

Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ

Spoiler

I think he is referring to the fatwa issued by Khamenei forbidding the development/use of nuclear weapons.

Reply 34

username3548838

Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ

They entered Iranian territorial waters, they had every right to "kidnap" them.

But it's not a friendly act, the last time it happened their navigation system caused the problem. The Spanish compromise Gibraltarian waters daily yet we don't consider kidnapping.

Reply 35

Nebuchadnezzaṛ

Original post by Palmyra

I think he is referring to the fatwa issued by Khamenei forbidding the development/use of nuclear weapons.

I see, although religiously it has been allowed so I don't see any meaning behind this "Fatwa". If it's Khamenei's own opinion that is fine

Spoiler

Original post by Hatter_2

But it's not a friendly act, the last time it happened their navigation system caused the problem. The Spanish compromise Gibraltarian waters daily yet we don't consider kidnapping.

Spain does not have any hostilities with the UK. Why would Iran be friendly with the nation threatening to attack them and that put crippling sanctions on them?

Reply 36

username3548838

Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ

Spain does not have any hostilities with the UK. Why would Iran be friendly with the nation threatening to attack them and that put crippling sanctions on them?

Exactly that was my original point, they aren't being friendly.

Reply 37

username2950448

Original post by Hatter_2

Yes, they are openly hostile; kidnapping US sailors; threating the US by saying their missiles are in range within the last week.

You must be confused. I asked for evidence for your claim that Iran desires a nuclear weapon, instead you have provided an example of the US violating Iran's territorial waters?

If you call that "hostile" I'd hate to see what you'd call the US threatening Iran with war for the past few decades and imposing some of the harshest sanctions in modern day history (which stopped Iran from importing even basic medicines and had a huge human effect). Not to mention selling Saudi Arabia $100 billion+ of weapons, calling Iranians terrorists, banning Iranians from the US, and calling the Persian Gulf the "Arabian Gulf". This is all clearly in good faith, right?

It only delays them acquiring weapons, most of the limits will expire.

Many of the provisions last 25+ years, and the Additional Protocol, strict supervision, and prohibition on nuclear weapons are provisions that never expire.

Even so, Iran is the only country subject to such extraordinary limits that go beyond its obligations as a signatory to the NPT and the JCPOA is the strictest non-proliferation regime in history.

Obviously I was referring to all nuclear-related sanctions since that is the issue.

But you said that all such sanctions would be lifted "eventually", which doesn't make sense because they were lifted on implementation day.

And why exactly is that an issue?

If you think having a username or avatar related to the middle east gives you some kind of authority clearly you are failing.

Stop projecting and try to educate yourself on issues before you embarrass yourself.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 38

anarchism101

He should be held to his country's commitments. He has provided no grounds for unilateral change other than personal dislike of the deal.

If a US President is allowed to simply cancel or dismiss legal agreements and resolutions signed up to by predecessor, then there is no point in the US ever signing an agreement - it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

Reply 39

Napp

Trump is a pin head with absolutely no grasp of geo politics. I rather doubt he knows what or where Iran is for heavens sake.
He quite literally has no ground for cancelling this deal, it is in nobodies interest but the saudis and israelis and thus their pet poodle Trump. There is not a single shred of evidence Iran has been seeking nuclear weapons since '03 at the latest, not to mention it has been in full compliance with its international obligations unlike other 'allies' such as pakistan and israel who refuse to allow inspections on their facilities.