Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Leaders from around the world including the main participants in the nuclear deal (France, Russia, UK, China and Germany) have urged Trump to keep the Iranian nuclear deal saying that Iran are abiding by the terms and holding up their end of the deal.

    Trump has been threatening to pull out of the agreement which world leaders have said could force Iran to resurrect their nuclear program and create a nuclear arms race in the region.

    By pulling out of the deal Trump is also making it clear to other countries who may want nuclear weapons such as North Korea that the U.S don't keep to their agreements and it undermines Americas integrity.

    I think Trump is bonkers for wanting to cancel the agreement and the only reason I can think of is that he wants Iran to restart their program so the U.S can go to war with them? Why would the other signatories praise the deal and urge for it to stay if it wasn't a fair deal?

    Trump just wants to tear down any and all progress Obama made and I really hope the other countries can somehow keep the deal in tact and just ignore it if Trump cancels.

    What do you guys think?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    He's an idiot who's threatening world peace with his sheer stupidity. The Iran deal was brilliant, it showed Iran wanted to progress and build good relations. In fact, Iran's supply of Uranium is so low and weekly concentrated now they can't even use it for medical purposes.

    History will remember Trump as a massive complete moron, and his supporters will be equally vilified for supporting such a repulsive and deranged fool.

    Lucky for us, the deal isn't quite dead and there's no way congress will approve what this orange idiot proposes.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    To me, as with any foreign policy thing, I despair whenever aggression is used.:facepalm:

    Whether it be simply rhetoric or not. Pragmatism doesn't really seem to be Trump's thing.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ninja Squirrel)
    he wants Iran to restart their program so the U.S can go to war with them?
    It certainly won't be the first time.:no: The US have been doing this since WWII. And I would be tempted to blame all the military generals around the president who are really making these decisions.:ninja:
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsfantanoooo)
    He's an idiot who's threatening world peace with his sheer stupidity. The Iran deal was brilliant, it showed Iran wanted to progress and build good relations. In fact, Iran's supply of Uranium is so low and weekly concentrated now they can't even use it for medical purposes.

    History will remember Trump as a massive complete moron, and his supporters will be equally vilified for supporting such a repulsive and deranged fool.

    Lucky for us, the deal isn't quite dead and there's no way congress will approve what this orange idiot proposes.
    I think the President has sole power to pull out of the deal though? Hopefully congress voting to remain in the deal will force Trump to accept it. He is so stubborn though I'd be surprised if he did. I mean he pulled out of the Paris climate agreement when every major nation and congress etc wanted the U.S to stay.

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    It certainly won't be the first time.:no: The US have been doing this since WWII. And I would be tempted to blame all the military generals around the president who are really making these decisions.:ninja:
    Don't get me wrong some countries do require a military solution when they show aggression but Iran have been abiding by the terms of their agreement... Trump just wants to cause problems it seems.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I don't agree with anything Trump does.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ninja Squirrel)
    Don't get me wrong some countries do require a military solution when they show aggression but Iran have been abiding by the terms of their agreement... Trump just wants to cause problems it seems.
    Other countries had allegations of military attacks (which were later proven to be fabricated) in order for the US to have another war. Since WWII they have never been at peace for more than 3 weeks. It's a bit less desperate than that with Iran at the moment, but it's still poor foreign policy as usual from the Americans.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Of course not.

    Virtually all of Trump's own cabinet and top military and intelligence officials support the deal, such as James Dunford and Jim Mattis.

    The IAEA are responsible for assessing Iran's compliance with the deal, and they have affirmed Iran's compliance 8 consecutive times since the deal was implemented. This is why Trump was forced to "certify" the deal twice previously (before recently decertifying on spurious grounds of national security which no one really believes).

    The majority of even Republican voters support the Iran deal, this was a purely political decision driven by Trump's (i) isolationist world view (e.g. pulling out of the Paris Accord, UNESCO, NAFTA etc), (ii) desire to reverse all of Obama's achievements (seen also with the ACA), and (iii) view of his foreign policy as transactional and something that can be bought, e.g. by Saudi Arabia's $100bn+ weapons deal (despite Trump accurately labelling Saudi as the largest sponsors of terrorism in the world pre-election).

    Even most Israeli senior military/intelligence officials support the deal (the far-right Likud party aside), such as Ehud Barak (former Chief of General Staff of IDF and former PM), Efraim Halevy (former head of Mossad), Gadi Eizenkot (Chief of General Staff of IDF), Uzi Arad (former head of Israel's National Security Council), and many many more.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Trump has managed to isolate the US and create a coalition of Russia-China-EU against him, which is quite incredible. The EU continues to invest in Iran and Macron recently announced a State visit to Iran in 2018 (the first of a French President in decades). Now that the global consensus for sanctions on Iran has evaporated, Iran can claim the moral high ground and point to the US's breach, whilst new sanctions on Iran at the UNSC level seem impossible, giving Iran far more leverage to respond to Trump's aggression without fearing sanctions.

    Also, Rouhani (Iran's reformist President) was elected (and recently re-elected) on the basis of re-approachment with the world/US, and the Iran deal was his foreign policy centrepiece. Hardliners in Iran argued that Iran was wrong to negotiate with the US at all, because they have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted. Trump's clear violations of the deal (and now potential withdrawal) give such claims credence and are a damaging blow for reformists inside Iran (and the hopes of its mostly young, educated and pro-US population to connect with the rest of the world).
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone needs a good Trump ....and I am unanimous .

    Johnny English .
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Iran will always be intent on developing a nuke, as much as NK. Strike as many deals as you like and that will not change.

    Stuxnet, the most sophisticated military strike ever. Perpretated against Iran's nuclear intents, as we all know. Despite all the deals.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    Iran will always be intent on developing a nuke
    Evidence?

    If Iran wanted a nuke they would have one by now. They'd also be justified in developing one, given Israel's nuclear capabilities and hostile actions against Iran. But Iran's conventional ballistic missile and asymmetrical power are sufficient deterrents to stop any illegal Israeli/US aggression against it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    Evidence?

    If Iran wanted a nuke they would have one by now. They'd also be justified in developing one, given Israel's nuclear capabilities and hostile actions against Iran. But Iran's conventional ballistic missile and asymmetrical power are sufficient deterrents to stop any illegal Israeli/US aggression against it.
    So you don't think they are interested in developing one, is that right? Why would that be, in the cauldron of the Middle-east of all places? The theocratic grip is as interested in preserving the status-quo as the NKorean regime, even the growing stand-off with Saudi makes the case for them to desire a nuke. Is there any evidence that they really went nuclear merely to satisfy their energy needs?

    Do you know what Stuxnet is? Somebody out there invested a fortune on it for believing Iran are intent on a nuke as much as I am. By the way, do you have any evidence for Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    So you don't think they are interested in developing one, is that right?
    You are the one that made the extremely bold statement that "Iran will always be intent on developing a nuke", yet when asked for evidence for this you balk and reverse the question onto me - that's not how it works!

    But, FWIW, no, I, like every Western, American and Israeli intelligence agency, don't think Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons (mainly because... they're not). As I mentioned, if they wanted one, they would have one by now - look at Pakistan and India, for instance.

    Why would that be, in the cauldron of the Middle-east of all places?
    To be blunt, because they don't need nuclear weapons to deter Israeli/US aggression against them (their stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles and mastery of asymmetric warfare suffice) or to exert influence in the region (their use/funding of proxies does that job just fine).

    The theocratic grip is as interested in preserving the status-quo as the NKorean regime
    You mean the status quo whereby the Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (religious edict) forbidding the production of nuclear weapons and where every intelligence agency in the world agrees Iran is not developing nuclear weapons? I agree.

    even the growing stand-off with Saudi makes the case for them to desire a nuke.
    How so? Iran has recently (i) defeated Saudi's Salafists in Syria, (ii) gained concessions at OPEC (in the form of Saudi restricting their oil output whilst Iran being permitted to increase theirs), (iii) forced Saudi to accept the pro-Iran Aoun in Lebanon and (iv) managed to bleed Saudi's reputation and morale in a quagmire in Yemen at minimal expense. And this was all without nuclear weapons, so why exactly would Iran think they need nuclear weapons? If Iran ever developed nuclear weapons (which they won't), the Saudis could easily purchase one from Pakistan (the Saudis funded Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme on that basis).

    Is there any evidence that they really went nuclear merely to satisfy their energy needs?
    That's not how it works. Is there any evidence they don't?

    As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, which is exactly what they have done and will continue to do.

    The argument that 'Iran has oil so the only reason they'd want to enrich uranium is for nuclear weapons' (i) has no legal basis, and (ii) is fatally undermined in that it is only applied to Iran - Saudi Arabia, for instance, recently announced their intention to start enriching uranium, but where are your neo con commentators making the same arguments and calling for sanctions against KSA's clear intent to develop nuclear weapons?

    History is informative on the Iranian psyche. Iran knows better than anyone the costs of WMDs. During the Iran-Iraq war (which started when Saddam invaded Iran in 1980), Iraq used chemical weapons (with US support - the CWs were supplied by the US and the US helped with intelligence on how to use them against Iran) against Iran and to this day hundreds of thousands of Iranians suffer the consequences (in the form of disabilities etc). At the time, Iran also possessed chemical weapons, but refused to retaliate with them, and instead ordered the destruction of their own CW stockpile.

    Do you know what Stuxnet is? Somebody out there invested a fortune on it for believing Iran are intent on a nuke as much as I am.
    Stuxnet was an illegal attack on Iran's centrifuges devised by the US and Israel to slow down their nuclear enrichment capability. Such terrorist acts devised by the West are not new, and certainly not evidence of what you claim, especially when that runs counter to official intelligence assessments.

    By the way, do you have any evidence for Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities?
    Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is very well known. Jimmy Carter, the US Defence Intelligence Agency (and virtually every intelligence agency out there) have both attested to that fact.

    The lengths Israel went to to arrest Vanunu should give you a clue.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    Stuxnet was an illegal attack on Iran's centrifuges devised by the US and Israel to slow down their nuclear enrichment capability. Such terrorist acts devised by the West are not new, and certainly not evidence of what you claim, especially when that runs counter to official intelligence assessments.
    And therefore conclusive proof that 'the west' sees Iran as intent on developing a nuclear military capability. You put too much faith on the Ayatollah's words, of course they want to look totally averse to the idea. What if they're bluffing?

    The lengths Israel went to to arrest Vanunu should give you a clue.
    What if it's all a con by the Israelis, wanting to make everyone believe they have it? It would make perfectly good sense.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    And therefore conclusive proof that 'the west' sees Iran as intent on developing a nuclear military capability.
    There are elements within Israel and the US that don't want Iran to have a nuclear enrichment programme, period, but that does not outweigh the assessment of every intelligence agency in the world.

    If Iran carries out a cyberattack against banks in Saudi Arabia does that mean Iran doesn't want KSA to have banks? It was just to give them more time and leverage to negotiate a deal, which they have since done.

    You put too much faith on the Ayatollah's words, of course they want to look totally averse to the idea. What if they're bluffing?
    So are they fanatically religious or not? You can't have it both ways.

    Regardless, what I say is not based on what Khamenei says. It is based on history (Iran not using chemical weapons against Iraq when Saddam used CWs against Iran), an analysis of the current balance of powers and strategic defence needs (Iran not needing WMDs to deter aggression against it or exert influence in the region), and the assessment of intelligence agencies/officials in Europe/US/Israel (whom all confirm Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons).

    If Iran ever did try to develop nuclear weapons we would know about it. The JCPOA contains the most restrictive and thorough inspection process in history, with key provisions lasting up to 40 years, and some never expiring. The entire supply chain is monitored 24/7.

    You have no evidence for any of your claims and anyone reading this exchange will be able to detect that very quickly.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    What if it's all a con by the Israelis, wanting to make everyone believe they have it? It would make perfectly good sense.
    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).

    Luckily for us, we don't need to guess on whether arresting whistle-blowers was all a ploy by Israel, because we have documents and photos released by Vanunu, assessments from the US Defence Intelligence Agency (there is no disagreement on this issue from other intelligence agencies), statements from world leaders, and a plethora of other evidence.

    None of which we come even close to in the case you regard with far more cynicism in Iran. Odd that.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ninja Squirrel)
    wants Iran to restart their program
    As far as we know, they are still continuing. The deal doesn't prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and they still have the desire to get them. Monitoring of compliance isn't nearly strong enough to be sure.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    As far as we know, they are still continuing.
    Continuing to enrich uranium (far less, far slower, and to a far lower level, i.e. 5% vs 20%), yes. As is their legal right as a signatory to the NPT.

    The deal doesn't prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons
    How did you come to that conclusion? Particularly impressive considering you apparently know better than the intelligence apparatus of the US, Europe and Israel.

    and they still have the desire to get them.
    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)?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    As far as we know, they are still continuing. The deal doesn't prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and they still have the desire to get them. Monitoring of compliance isn't nearly strong enough to be sure.
    How do you make nuclear weapons with reactor grade (<20%) enrichment?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 5, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.