06-20-2019, 11:45 PM
Back to the subject of who is choosing what . . .
No error. Iran signed a deal declaring their pursuit of nuclear technology was for peaceful purposes--and that hey would NOT undertake the development of nuclear weapons. That the deal is not in perpetuity does not falsify the fact the deal is about explicit disavowal of pursuit of nuclear weapons. This against the background of Fatwas issued by both Khomeini and Khameni declaring production and use of Nuclear Weapons "unislamic."
Iran chose to abide by the deal, poor or not. The US chose to go back on its word--a choice which affects US credibility internationally.
Hence, US the current Gulf crisis is driven by US choices.
And yes, really a "hardship," as the US re-instituted sanctions and set about engineering a collapse of the Iranian economy. And not only a hardship for Iran: the US decision cost the other signatories billions. The US cajoled them into signing the deal--then just as they began setting up and profiting from business with Iran, the US broke it. Peugeot, for example: https://en.radiofarda.com/a/french-automaker-loses-10-percent-sales-due-to-lack-of-exports-to-iran/29903758.html
They cannot. Just as Saddam Hussein could not turn over WMDs he did not have, Iran cannot "surrender attempts to build nuclear weapons" if it is not attempting to build them. What we see now is a repeat of the Iraq War playbook, complete with connections to Al Qaeda and the need to "protect US interests," and an ultimatum which casts whatever happens as "their choice." No surprise with many players from the previous war leading the show now.
That is why it is not "abundantly clear" that they have a "simple choice" here. After they chose NOT to pursue nuclear weapons, the US went back on its word and is now pushing Iran towards war. Were Iran to agree to some new agreement now, what assurance do they have that the US would keep to it?
So, as I said, without evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and with much evidence that it has chosen not too,
your message to Iran is that it must stop doing what it has not been doing or risk war. Nevermind whatever paper we signed.
(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Trusting the credibility of the US, they chose to sign a deal explicitly disavowing pursuit of nuclear weapons and allowing their nuclear facilities to be monitored.
Incorrect, they temporarily suspended such pursuit, they did not disavow further pursuit. Line two and already a major error.
No error. Iran signed a deal declaring their pursuit of nuclear technology was for peaceful purposes--and that hey would NOT undertake the development of nuclear weapons. That the deal is not in perpetuity does not falsify the fact the deal is about explicit disavowal of pursuit of nuclear weapons. This against the background of Fatwas issued by both Khomeini and Khameni declaring production and use of Nuclear Weapons "unislamic."
(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:The US chose to trash that deal, though by all of our own measures, Iran was holding to it.
They US chose to withdraw from a deal they deemed to be a poor one. You are correct that Iran was, apparently, abiding by said deal at the time.
Quote:Iran then chose to adhere to the deal anyway for another year--i.e., chose not to pursue nukes-- without US cooperation.
Not really a hardship, considering they'd already publicly stated they don't want nuclear weapons.
Iran chose to abide by the deal, poor or not. The US chose to go back on its word--a choice which affects US credibility internationally.
Hence, US the current Gulf crisis is driven by US choices.
And yes, really a "hardship," as the US re-instituted sanctions and set about engineering a collapse of the Iranian economy. And not only a hardship for Iran: the US decision cost the other signatories billions. The US cajoled them into signing the deal--then just as they began setting up and profiting from business with Iran, the US broke it. Peugeot, for example: https://en.radiofarda.com/a/french-automaker-loses-10-percent-sales-due-to-lack-of-exports-to-iran/29903758.html
(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You just said they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons. How can they stop doing something they aren't doing in the first place?
Correct, they have the choice to surrender their attempts to build nuclear weapons, which they've already publicly stated they don't want anyways (seems like an easy choice then eh?), or lose in a war with the United States. Seems like a simple choice to me, but then I'm not an islamic fundamentalist theocrat who sponsors terrorism.
They cannot. Just as Saddam Hussein could not turn over WMDs he did not have, Iran cannot "surrender attempts to build nuclear weapons" if it is not attempting to build them. What we see now is a repeat of the Iraq War playbook, complete with connections to Al Qaeda and the need to "protect US interests," and an ultimatum which casts whatever happens as "their choice." No surprise with many players from the previous war leading the show now.
That is why it is not "abundantly clear" that they have a "simple choice" here. After they chose NOT to pursue nuclear weapons, the US went back on its word and is now pushing Iran towards war. Were Iran to agree to some new agreement now, what assurance do they have that the US would keep to it?
So, as I said, without evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and with much evidence that it has chosen not too,
your message to Iran is that it must stop doing what it has not been doing or risk war. Nevermind whatever paper we signed.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
