ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

We are two weeks from oil shortages and demand rationing according to Bloomberg.

Not months…weeks.

Anyone that thinks this oil shortage isn’t a serious immediate crisis is delusional: pic.twitter.com/k4KsE7M85m

— QE Infinity (@StealthQE4) May 11, 2026

Do we thrust the world into recession?

If we knew where the nuclear material was with certainty, we would be gearing up to get it, I have no doubt. We can send in more than ten thousand troops tomorrow. We apparently have 600 Apaches there. I think we will be done in the next 2 weeks, one way or another.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

---

It's not absurd. Germany was a minor threat in 1936, but had potential which was later realized.
Iran with any nuclear weapon and missiles to hit Europe and a desire for international chaos would be impossible to control once there. And that power would come before any verification by the UN could prevent it. The UN did not have unannounced regular inspections which is the only thing that would work to avoid clandestine enrichment. They should never have been allowed to get as far as they obviously have in enrichment. Iran is not even close to North Korea having nukes as they have China to keep them under wraps. NK doesn't have a death wish like Iranian leadership, either. China has had big control there since the Korean War. Iran with nukes would be a total threat to the world.

---

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Especially if they still believe Saddam Hussein dropped a mushroom cloud over Manhattan on 9/11.

36 days ago. pic.twitter.com/i6immm00Dw

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) May 11, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

---

It's not absurd. Germany was a minor threat in 1936, but had potential which was later realized.
Iran with any nuclear weapon and missiles to hit Europe and a desire for international chaos would be impossible to control once there. And that power would come before any verification by the UN could prevent it. The UN did not have unannounced regular inspections which is the only thing that would work to avoid clandestine enrichment. They should never have been allowed to get as far as they obviously have in enrichment. Iran is not even close to North Korea having nukes as they have China to keep them under wraps. NK doesn't have a death wish like Iranian leadership, either. China has had big control there since the Korean War. Iran with nukes would be a total threat to the world.

---

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Especially if they still believe Saddam Hussein dropped a mushroom cloud over Manhattan on 9/11.

---

Or they believe Iran was fully forthcoming about their nuclear program to the UN.

Remind me to not read Art of the Deal. That book has to be fantasy. He is a terrible negotiator, much less a statesman! Did Cheeto get his one pager? what a farce. Yeah, piggy, they ain't negotiating with uranium. Guess you didn't like the 1 pager, Gold Jesus? oh well, this war is done. Wrapped up in 4wks. lol. Keep on driving the Oil price up.....you are good for business, Piggy.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

---

It's not absurd. Germany was a minor threat in 1936, but had potential which was later realized.
Iran with any nuclear weapon and missiles to hit Europe and a desire for international chaos would be impossible to control once there. And that power would come before any verification by the UN could prevent it. The UN did not have unannounced regular inspections which is the only thing that would work to avoid clandestine enrichment. They should never have been allowed to get as far as they obviously have in enrichment. Iran is not even close to North Korea having nukes as they have China to keep them under wraps. NK doesn't have a death wish like Iranian leadership, either. China has had big control there since the Korean War. Iran with nukes would be a total threat to the world.

---

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Especially if they still believe Saddam Hussein dropped a mushroom cloud over Manhattan on 9/11.

---

Or they believe Iran was fully forthcoming about their nuclear program to the UN.

---

I noticed you never responded to this.

Quote:

---

Jan. 16, 2016: IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano confirmed that Iran had taken the necessary steps to start implementation of the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Inspectors on the ground verified that Tehran reduced its enriched uranium stockpile, cut and capped its capacity to enrich uranium, modified the Arak heavy water rector to block its ability to produce plutonium, and allowed more robust monitoring by the IAEA.

Feb. 26, 2016: The IAEA's first quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program following implementation noted that Iran briefly exceeded the 130 metric ton limit on its heavy-water stockpile. Tehran, however, reduced the 130.9 tons back below the limit by shipping out 20 metric tons. The report was short but detailed Iran's compliance with specific aspects of the deal.

May 27, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. The watchdog said that Iran accepted additional inspectors and provided complementary access to sites and facilities under the Additional Protocol.

Sept. 8, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. For example, Iran had not surpassed limits on its stock of enriched uranium or heavy water. As with earlier quarterly reports, however, this one did not include details about every restriction in JCPOA.

Nov. 17, 2016: The IAEA report found that while Iran was in general compliance with its obligations, the country's stocks of heavy water had exceeded the limit by 0.1 metric tons. Iran, however, informed the IAEA of its plan to ship it out of the country.

Jan. 19, 2017: IAEA Director General Amano and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz confirmed that Iran had removed certain infrastructure and excess centrifuges from the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant by the one-year anniversary of implementation, as required under the nuclear deal.

Feb. 24, 2017: The Director General's report found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The report said that Tehran was not continuing construction of its heavy water research reactor at Arak. Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium -- which can be used for peaceful purposes but could also be reprocessed for use in a weapon -- was 101.7 kilograms, well below the 300-kilogram limit. Earlier in 2017, Iran had reportedly come close to reaching the limit before a large amount stuck in pipes was recategorized as unrecoverable.

May 9, 2018: Director General Amano said Iran "is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPOA, which is a significant verification gain." In a statement, he asserted that "the IAEA can confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by Iran."

June 2, 2017: The IAEA report's findings indicated that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Tehran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium was 79.8 kilograms, less than in the previous report and well below the 300-kilogram limit. The report, however, did not include any details about how the IAEA was confirming that Iran was not undertaking certain activities related to weaponization.

Aug. 31, 2017: The IAEA reported that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Director General Amano, however, rejected Tehran's claim that its military sites were off-limits to inspectors. He told The Associated Press that his agency "has access to (all) locations without making distinctions between military and civilian locations" under the JCPOA.

Sept. 11, 2017: Amano reported to the IAEA Board of Governors that nuclear related commitments were being implemented. "The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran remain ongoing," he said.

Nov. 13, 2017: The IAEA released its eighth verification report indicating Iranian compliance with the deal. Iran's low-enriched uranium stockpile as of November 5 was 96.7 kg, more than what was reported previously but still well below the limit. Iran's stock of heavy water was 114.4 metric tons, below the 130-ton limit.

Feb. 22, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report acknowledging Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. It noted that Iran notified the watchdog of a "decision that has been taken to construct naval nuclear propulsion in future." Iranian leaders have previously mentioned that goal, which would increase Iran's naval power and could involve enriching uranium beyond the limits of the nuclear deal.

May 24, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report, the first since the United States withdrew from the nuclear deal, showing Iranian adherence to the JCPOA. The watchdog found that Iran's stockpile of heavy water remained below the agreed limit of 130 tons during the previous three months. Iran had slightly exceeded that limit twice since the JCPOA went into effect. It noted that Tehran was implementing the Additional Protocol, which provides the watchdog with great access to nuclear sites. But the report also suggested that "proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access would facilitate implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhance confidence."

Aug. 30, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report indicating Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal. The watchdog was able to carry out all necessary inspections. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," said the report.

Sept. 10, 2018: In his introductory statement to the IAEA Board of Governors, Director General Amano said Iran was implementing its commitments under the JCPOA. "It is essential that Iran continues to fully implement those commitments," he added.

Nov. 12, 2018: The IAEA's quarterly report noted that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The agency said it had access to all the necessary sites and that Iran's heavy water and low-enriched uranium stockpiles remained within the limits.

Feb. 22, 2019: The IAEA again found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Much of the language matched that of the previous quarterly report. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," stated the IAEA. On March 4, Amano confirmed that Iran "is implementing its nuclear commitments."

---

Quote:

---

The head of the international organization charged with monitoring Iran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal said Iran is meeting its obligations under the accord and warned against states trying to influence verification activities. Less than three weeks later, the United States imposed sanctions against Iranian officials and institutions that Washington alleges are working to retain nuclear weapons-related expertise in Iran.

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano cautioned in March that some nations' efforts to micromanage the nuclear agency's monitoring of Iran would threaten the credibility of its findings.

"Iran is implementing its nuclear commitments," said Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in March 4 remarks to the agency's Board of Governors. Amano urged Tehran to continue adhering to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The United States, which withdrew from the agreement in 2018, levied new sanctions on March 22 against Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, purported to employ staff from Iran's past nuclear weapons research activities.

"This is a way for them to keep the gang together, as it were, and to provide a reconstitution capability for that weapons program," said a senior administration official briefing the media March 22. The sanctions impose travel and commercial restrictions on 14 individuals and 17 entities.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano's statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal's terms. It notes that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to "all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit." Amano also continued to defend the importance of the IAEA's independence in evaluating information related to its efforts to monitor peaceful nuclear activities. He emphasized that the IAEA "undertakes analysis and takes action in an impartial, independent, and objective manner."

Amano's March 4 statement is not the first time that he has pushed back against attempts by some nations to direct the agency's verification work. "If attempts are made to micromanage or put pressure on the agency in nuclear verification, that is counterproductive and extremely harmful," he said, adding that "independent, impartial, and factual safeguards implementation is essential to maintain our credibility."

Although Amano did not identify specific states, Israeli officials have called on the IAEA to visit undeclared sites in Iran and follow up on materials that Israel stole from an Iranian archive in January 2018 and shared with the agency later in the year. In September at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically called on the IAEA to visit a site identified by Israeli intelligence as housing materials and documents related to Iran's past nuclear weapons program.

Despite reports of the United States promising Israel that it would pressure the IAEA to follow up on the archival material, Jackie Wolcott, U.S. representative to the IAEA, appeared to defend the agency's process during her March 5 remarks to the IAEA board. Wolcott said Iran must address questions raised by the archival material, but emphasized that the United States supports the "IAEA's continued, careful assessment of the nuclear archive materials." She said Washington has the "highest confidence that the agency will independently and professionally review these materials, in combination with all other available information, to appropriately inform its monitoring and verification activities in Iran."

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, said on March 8 that, "despite the many efforts of certain enemies" to "divert the attention of the IAEA," cooperation between the agency and Iran is "constructive."

Although Iran continues to abide by the nuclear agreement, Gharibabadi emphasized that the remaining parties to the deal -- China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union -- "must ensure Iran's enjoyment of JCPOA-related benefits by adopting appropriate measures."

Those parties to the deal have taken some steps to preserve trade with Iran after the United States reimposed sanctions in May 2018. These efforts, however, have provided few tangible benefits to date.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

---

It's not absurd. Germany was a minor threat in 1936, but had potential which was later realized.
Iran with any nuclear weapon and missiles to hit Europe and a desire for international chaos would be impossible to control once there. And that power would come before any verification by the UN could prevent it. The UN did not have unannounced regular inspections which is the only thing that would work to avoid clandestine enrichment. They should never have been allowed to get as far as they obviously have in enrichment. Iran is not even close to North Korea having nukes as they have China to keep them under wraps. NK doesn't have a death wish like Iranian leadership, either. China has had big control there since the Korean War. Iran with nukes would be a total threat to the world.

---

Ok, it's 1936 and we've destroyed Germany's air force and navy and taken out Hitler, Goring, and Blomberg. What's the threat now?

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

---

It's not absurd. Germany was a minor threat in 1936, but had potential which was later realized.
Iran with any nuclear weapon and missiles to hit Europe and a desire for international chaos would be impossible to control once there. And that power would come before any verification by the UN could prevent it. The UN did not have unannounced regular inspections which is the only thing that would work to avoid clandestine enrichment. They should never have been allowed to get as far as they obviously have in enrichment. Iran is not even close to North Korea having nukes as they have China to keep them under wraps. NK doesn't have a death wish like Iranian leadership, either. China has had big control there since the Korean War. Iran with nukes would be a total threat to the world.

---

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Especially if they still believe Saddam Hussein dropped a mushroom cloud over Manhattan on 9/11.

---

Or they believe Iran was fully forthcoming about their nuclear program to the UN.

---

I noticed you never responded to this.

Quote:

---

Jan. 16, 2016: IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano confirmed that Iran had taken the necessary steps to start implementation of the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Inspectors on the ground verified that Tehran reduced its enriched uranium stockpile, cut and capped its capacity to enrich uranium, modified the Arak heavy water rector to block its ability to produce plutonium, and allowed more robust monitoring by the IAEA.

Feb. 26, 2016: The IAEA's first quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program following implementation noted that Iran briefly exceeded the 130 metric ton limit on its heavy-water stockpile. Tehran, however, reduced the 130.9 tons back below the limit by shipping out 20 metric tons. The report was short but detailed Iran's compliance with specific aspects of the deal.

May 27, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. The watchdog said that Iran accepted additional inspectors and provided complementary access to sites and facilities under the Additional Protocol.

Sept. 8, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. For example, Iran had not surpassed limits on its stock of enriched uranium or heavy water. As with earlier quarterly reports, however, this one did not include details about every restriction in JCPOA.

Nov. 17, 2016: The IAEA report found that while Iran was in general compliance with its obligations, the country's stocks of heavy water had exceeded the limit by 0.1 metric tons. Iran, however, informed the IAEA of its plan to ship it out of the country.

Jan. 19, 2017: IAEA Director General Amano and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz confirmed that Iran had removed certain infrastructure and excess centrifuges from the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant by the one-year anniversary of implementation, as required under the nuclear deal.

Feb. 24, 2017: The Director General's report found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The report said that Tehran was not continuing construction of its heavy water research reactor at Arak. Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium -- which can be used for peaceful purposes but could also be reprocessed for use in a weapon -- was 101.7 kilograms, well below the 300-kilogram limit. Earlier in 2017, Iran had reportedly come close to reaching the limit before a large amount stuck in pipes was recategorized as unrecoverable.

May 9, 2018: Director General Amano said Iran "is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPOA, which is a significant verification gain." In a statement, he asserted that "the IAEA can confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by Iran."

June 2, 2017: The IAEA report's findings indicated that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Tehran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium was 79.8 kilograms, less than in the previous report and well below the 300-kilogram limit. The report, however, did not include any details about how the IAEA was confirming that Iran was not undertaking certain activities related to weaponization.

Aug. 31, 2017: The IAEA reported that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Director General Amano, however, rejected Tehran's claim that its military sites were off-limits to inspectors. He told The Associated Press that his agency "has access to (all) locations without making distinctions between military and civilian locations" under the JCPOA.

Sept. 11, 2017: Amano reported to the IAEA Board of Governors that nuclear related commitments were being implemented. "The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran remain ongoing," he said.

Nov. 13, 2017: The IAEA released its eighth verification report indicating Iranian compliance with the deal. Iran's low-enriched uranium stockpile as of November 5 was 96.7 kg, more than what was reported previously but still well below the limit. Iran's stock of heavy water was 114.4 metric tons, below the 130-ton limit.

Feb. 22, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report acknowledging Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. It noted that Iran notified the watchdog of a "decision that has been taken to construct naval nuclear propulsion in future." Iranian leaders have previously mentioned that goal, which would increase Iran's naval power and could involve enriching uranium beyond the limits of the nuclear deal.

May 24, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report, the first since the United States withdrew from the nuclear deal, showing Iranian adherence to the JCPOA. The watchdog found that Iran's stockpile of heavy water remained below the agreed limit of 130 tons during the previous three months. Iran had slightly exceeded that limit twice since the JCPOA went into effect. It noted that Tehran was implementing the Additional Protocol, which provides the watchdog with great access to nuclear sites. But the report also suggested that "proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access would facilitate implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhance confidence."

Aug. 30, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report indicating Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal. The watchdog was able to carry out all necessary inspections. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," said the report.

Sept. 10, 2018: In his introductory statement to the IAEA Board of Governors, Director General Amano said Iran was implementing its commitments under the JCPOA. "It is essential that Iran continues to fully implement those commitments," he added.

Nov. 12, 2018: The IAEA's quarterly report noted that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The agency said it had access to all the necessary sites and that Iran's heavy water and low-enriched uranium stockpiles remained within the limits.

Feb. 22, 2019: The IAEA again found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Much of the language matched that of the previous quarterly report. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," stated the IAEA. On March 4, Amano confirmed that Iran "is implementing its nuclear commitments."

---

Quote:

---

The head of the international organization charged with monitoring Iran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal said Iran is meeting its obligations under the accord and warned against states trying to influence verification activities. Less than three weeks later, the United States imposed sanctions against Iranian officials and institutions that Washington alleges are working to retain nuclear weapons-related expertise in Iran.

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano cautioned in March that some nations' efforts to micromanage the nuclear agency's monitoring of Iran would threaten the credibility of its findings.

"Iran is implementing its nuclear commitments," said Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in March 4 remarks to the agency's Board of Governors. Amano urged Tehran to continue adhering to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The United States, which withdrew from the agreement in 2018, levied new sanctions on March 22 against Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, purported to employ staff from Iran's past nuclear weapons research activities.

"This is a way for them to keep the gang together, as it were, and to provide a reconstitution capability for that weapons program," said a senior administration official briefing the media March 22. The sanctions impose travel and commercial restrictions on 14 individuals and 17 entities.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano's statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal's terms. It notes that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to "all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit." Amano also continued to defend the importance of the IAEA's independence in evaluating information related to its efforts to monitor peaceful nuclear activities. He emphasized that the IAEA "undertakes analysis and takes action in an impartial, independent, and objective manner."

Amano's March 4 statement is not the first time that he has pushed back against attempts by some nations to direct the agency's verification work. "If attempts are made to micromanage or put pressure on the agency in nuclear verification, that is counterproductive and extremely harmful," he said, adding that "independent, impartial, and factual safeguards implementation is essential to maintain our credibility."

Although Amano did not identify specific states, Israeli officials have called on the IAEA to visit undeclared sites in Iran and follow up on materials that Israel stole from an Iranian archive in January 2018 and shared with the agency later in the year. In September at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically called on the IAEA to visit a site identified by Israeli intelligence as housing materials and documents related to Iran's past nuclear weapons program.

Despite reports of the United States promising Israel that it would pressure the IAEA to follow up on the archival material, Jackie Wolcott, U.S. representative to the IAEA, appeared to defend the agency's process during her March 5 remarks to the IAEA board. Wolcott said Iran must address questions raised by the archival material, but emphasized that the United States supports the "IAEA's continued, careful assessment of the nuclear archive materials." She said Washington has the "highest confidence that the agency will independently and professionally review these materials, in combination with all other available information, to appropriately inform its monitoring and verification activities in Iran."

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, said on March 8 that, "despite the many efforts of certain enemies" to "divert the attention of the IAEA," cooperation between the agency and Iran is "constructive."

Although Iran continues to abide by the nuclear agreement, Gharibabadi emphasized that the remaining parties to the deal -- China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union -- "must ensure Iran's enjoyment of JCPOA-related benefits by adopting appropriate measures."

Those parties to the deal have taken some steps to preserve trade with Iran after the United States reimposed sanctions in May 2018. These efforts, however, have provided few tangible benefits to date.

---

---

Why should I. You never responded to my link months ago showing the UN reports that included inspector concerns. Even among the available reports from which your article pulled from there were problems. Maybe skip the article and read the UN reports available online.
And to top it off, all "successful"inspections were on Iran's agreed to timeframe and not unannounced.

{ sipping Uncertainty coffee }

{ eating Uncertainty mini donuts }

- UF

D!

Global Fertilizer Shortage Means Spring Planting Season Disaster In The Northern Hemisphere

"The Hormuz Strait carries roughly one-third of global fertilizer trade. If farmers miss the application window, no amount of catch-up planting can recover the loss. The International Grains Council estimates cumulative global wheat and coarse grain output could fall 53 million tons below last season, a shortfall larger than Ukraine's entire annual grain export volume in a typical year."

"Spring fertilizer application in the Northern Hemisphere runs through June. Parts of Africa are entering the primary planting season now a critical window for the continent's most food-insecure populations. A missed window doesn't delay a harvest it eliminates it. The shortfall will be invisible until it materializes in spiking prices and empty shelves next fall.

This is the story the Hormuz blockade coverage is missing. The crisis isn't just raising energy prices it is breaking food supply chains. The world is facing a slow-motion catastrophe that will not announce itself until it is too late."

"Some farmers have decided to switch to crops that require less fertilizer, and some farmers have decided not to plant at all this season.

In fact, the number of acres of wheat that U.S. farmers are planting this spring will be the fewest that we have seen "since record keeping began in 1919".

If the Strait of Hormuz reopened tomorrow, and there is no way that is going to happen, it would take weeks for cargo vessels to reach their destinations. And once the Strait does finally reopen, we are being told that "it could be months before supply chains normalize"…"

For comparison's sake, the population of the US in 1919 was around 100 million. Today it is around 350 million.

boognish_bear said:

---

We are two weeks from oil shortages and demand rationing according to Bloomberg.

Not months…weeks.

Anyone that thinks this oil shortage isn’t a serious immediate crisis is delusional: pic.twitter.com/k4KsE7M85m

— QE Infinity (@StealthQE4) May 11, 2026

---

Well, that's one way for them to get their 15 minute cities. Glad to have a Tesla in the garage charging off solar on the roof. Wonder when the Paula White crowd will figure out they're actually playing for Team Antichrist.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

---

It's not absurd. Germany was a minor threat in 1936, but had potential which was later realized.
Iran with any nuclear weapon and missiles to hit Europe and a desire for international chaos would be impossible to control once there. And that power would come before any verification by the UN could prevent it. The UN did not have unannounced regular inspections which is the only thing that would work to avoid clandestine enrichment. They should never have been allowed to get as far as they obviously have in enrichment. Iran is not even close to North Korea having nukes as they have China to keep them under wraps. NK doesn't have a death wish like Iranian leadership, either. China has had big control there since the Korean War. Iran with nukes would be a total threat to the world.

---

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Especially if they still believe Saddam Hussein dropped a mushroom cloud over Manhattan on 9/11.

---

Or they believe Iran was fully forthcoming about their nuclear program to the UN.

---

I noticed you never responded to this.

Quote:

---

Jan. 16, 2016: IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano confirmed that Iran had taken the necessary steps to start implementation of the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Inspectors on the ground verified that Tehran reduced its enriched uranium stockpile, cut and capped its capacity to enrich uranium, modified the Arak heavy water rector to block its ability to produce plutonium, and allowed more robust monitoring by the IAEA.

Feb. 26, 2016: The IAEA's first quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program following implementation noted that Iran briefly exceeded the 130 metric ton limit on its heavy-water stockpile. Tehran, however, reduced the 130.9 tons back below the limit by shipping out 20 metric tons. The report was short but detailed Iran's compliance with specific aspects of the deal.

May 27, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. The watchdog said that Iran accepted additional inspectors and provided complementary access to sites and facilities under the Additional Protocol.

Sept. 8, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. For example, Iran had not surpassed limits on its stock of enriched uranium or heavy water. As with earlier quarterly reports, however, this one did not include details about every restriction in JCPOA.

Nov. 17, 2016: The IAEA report found that while Iran was in general compliance with its obligations, the country's stocks of heavy water had exceeded the limit by 0.1 metric tons. Iran, however, informed the IAEA of its plan to ship it out of the country.

Jan. 19, 2017: IAEA Director General Amano and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz confirmed that Iran had removed certain infrastructure and excess centrifuges from the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant by the one-year anniversary of implementation, as required under the nuclear deal.

Feb. 24, 2017: The Director General's report found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The report said that Tehran was not continuing construction of its heavy water research reactor at Arak. Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium -- which can be used for peaceful purposes but could also be reprocessed for use in a weapon -- was 101.7 kilograms, well below the 300-kilogram limit. Earlier in 2017, Iran had reportedly come close to reaching the limit before a large amount stuck in pipes was recategorized as unrecoverable.

May 9, 2018: Director General Amano said Iran "is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPOA, which is a significant verification gain." In a statement, he asserted that "the IAEA can confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by Iran."

June 2, 2017: The IAEA report's findings indicated that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Tehran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium was 79.8 kilograms, less than in the previous report and well below the 300-kilogram limit. The report, however, did not include any details about how the IAEA was confirming that Iran was not undertaking certain activities related to weaponization.

Aug. 31, 2017: The IAEA reported that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Director General Amano, however, rejected Tehran's claim that its military sites were off-limits to inspectors. He told The Associated Press that his agency "has access to (all) locations without making distinctions between military and civilian locations" under the JCPOA.

Sept. 11, 2017: Amano reported to the IAEA Board of Governors that nuclear related commitments were being implemented. "The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran remain ongoing," he said.

Nov. 13, 2017: The IAEA released its eighth verification report indicating Iranian compliance with the deal. Iran's low-enriched uranium stockpile as of November 5 was 96.7 kg, more than what was reported previously but still well below the limit. Iran's stock of heavy water was 114.4 metric tons, below the 130-ton limit.

Feb. 22, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report acknowledging Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. It noted that Iran notified the watchdog of a "decision that has been taken to construct naval nuclear propulsion in future." Iranian leaders have previously mentioned that goal, which would increase Iran's naval power and could involve enriching uranium beyond the limits of the nuclear deal.

May 24, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report, the first since the United States withdrew from the nuclear deal, showing Iranian adherence to the JCPOA. The watchdog found that Iran's stockpile of heavy water remained below the agreed limit of 130 tons during the previous three months. Iran had slightly exceeded that limit twice since the JCPOA went into effect. It noted that Tehran was implementing the Additional Protocol, which provides the watchdog with great access to nuclear sites. But the report also suggested that "proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access would facilitate implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhance confidence."

Aug. 30, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report indicating Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal. The watchdog was able to carry out all necessary inspections. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," said the report.

Sept. 10, 2018: In his introductory statement to the IAEA Board of Governors, Director General Amano said Iran was implementing its commitments under the JCPOA. "It is essential that Iran continues to fully implement those commitments," he added.

Nov. 12, 2018: The IAEA's quarterly report noted that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The agency said it had access to all the necessary sites and that Iran's heavy water and low-enriched uranium stockpiles remained within the limits.

Feb. 22, 2019: The IAEA again found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Much of the language matched that of the previous quarterly report. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," stated the IAEA. On March 4, Amano confirmed that Iran "is implementing its nuclear commitments."

---

Quote:

---

The head of the international organization charged with monitoring Iran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal said Iran is meeting its obligations under the accord and warned against states trying to influence verification activities. Less than three weeks later, the United States imposed sanctions against Iranian officials and institutions that Washington alleges are working to retain nuclear weapons-related expertise in Iran.

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano cautioned in March that some nations' efforts to micromanage the nuclear agency's monitoring of Iran would threaten the credibility of its findings.

"Iran is implementing its nuclear commitments," said Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in March 4 remarks to the agency's Board of Governors. Amano urged Tehran to continue adhering to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The United States, which withdrew from the agreement in 2018, levied new sanctions on March 22 against Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, purported to employ staff from Iran's past nuclear weapons research activities.

"This is a way for them to keep the gang together, as it were, and to provide a reconstitution capability for that weapons program," said a senior administration official briefing the media March 22. The sanctions impose travel and commercial restrictions on 14 individuals and 17 entities.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano's statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal's terms. It notes that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to "all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit." Amano also continued to defend the importance of the IAEA's independence in evaluating information related to its efforts to monitor peaceful nuclear activities. He emphasized that the IAEA "undertakes analysis and takes action in an impartial, independent, and objective manner."

Amano's March 4 statement is not the first time that he has pushed back against attempts by some nations to direct the agency's verification work. "If attempts are made to micromanage or put pressure on the agency in nuclear verification, that is counterproductive and extremely harmful," he said, adding that "independent, impartial, and factual safeguards implementation is essential to maintain our credibility."

Although Amano did not identify specific states, Israeli officials have called on the IAEA to visit undeclared sites in Iran and follow up on materials that Israel stole from an Iranian archive in January 2018 and shared with the agency later in the year. In September at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically called on the IAEA to visit a site identified by Israeli intelligence as housing materials and documents related to Iran's past nuclear weapons program.

Despite reports of the United States promising Israel that it would pressure the IAEA to follow up on the archival material, Jackie Wolcott, U.S. representative to the IAEA, appeared to defend the agency's process during her March 5 remarks to the IAEA board. Wolcott said Iran must address questions raised by the archival material, but emphasized that the United States supports the "IAEA's continued, careful assessment of the nuclear archive materials." She said Washington has the "highest confidence that the agency will independently and professionally review these materials, in combination with all other available information, to appropriately inform its monitoring and verification activities in Iran."

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, said on March 8 that, "despite the many efforts of certain enemies" to "divert the attention of the IAEA," cooperation between the agency and Iran is "constructive."

Although Iran continues to abide by the nuclear agreement, Gharibabadi emphasized that the remaining parties to the deal -- China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union -- "must ensure Iran's enjoyment of JCPOA-related benefits by adopting appropriate measures."

Those parties to the deal have taken some steps to preserve trade with Iran after the United States reimposed sanctions in May 2018. These efforts, however, have provided few tangible benefits to date.

---

---

Why should I. You never responded to my link months ago showing the UN reports that included inspector concerns. Even among the available reports from which your article pulled from there were problems. Maybe skip the article and read the UN reports available online.
And to top it off, all "successful"inspections were on Iran's agreed to timeframe and not unannounced.

---

The reports don't say anything different from what I'm saying. Inspectors always have "concerns." That's their job. The IAEA had 24/7 access to Iran's declared nuclear sites and access to other sites on as little as a day's notice. In case of disputes it could take as long as 24 days, but that was all pursuant to the agreement. The fact that we continually demanded more access and the Iranians sometimes appealed to the UN doesn't mean the process wasn't working or that Iran wasn't "fully forthcoming." They had legitimate security concerns surrounding military installations and so forth. Total free rein for inspection was neither necessary nor was it contemplated as part of the agreement.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

---

It's not absurd. Germany was a minor threat in 1936, but had potential which was later realized.
Iran with any nuclear weapon and missiles to hit Europe and a desire for international chaos would be impossible to control once there. And that power would come before any verification by the UN could prevent it. The UN did not have unannounced regular inspections which is the only thing that would work to avoid clandestine enrichment. They should never have been allowed to get as far as they obviously have in enrichment. Iran is not even close to North Korea having nukes as they have China to keep them under wraps. NK doesn't have a death wish like Iranian leadership, either. China has had big control there since the Korean War. Iran with nukes would be a total threat to the world.

---

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Especially if they still believe Saddam Hussein dropped a mushroom cloud over Manhattan on 9/11.

---

Or they believe Iran was fully forthcoming about their nuclear program to the UN.

---

I noticed you never responded to this.

Quote:

---

Jan. 16, 2016: IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano confirmed that Iran had taken the necessary steps to start implementation of the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Inspectors on the ground verified that Tehran reduced its enriched uranium stockpile, cut and capped its capacity to enrich uranium, modified the Arak heavy water rector to block its ability to produce plutonium, and allowed more robust monitoring by the IAEA.

Feb. 26, 2016: The IAEA's first quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program following implementation noted that Iran briefly exceeded the 130 metric ton limit on its heavy-water stockpile. Tehran, however, reduced the 130.9 tons back below the limit by shipping out 20 metric tons. The report was short but detailed Iran's compliance with specific aspects of the deal.

May 27, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. The watchdog said that Iran accepted additional inspectors and provided complementary access to sites and facilities under the Additional Protocol.

Sept. 8, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. For example, Iran had not surpassed limits on its stock of enriched uranium or heavy water. As with earlier quarterly reports, however, this one did not include details about every restriction in JCPOA.

Nov. 17, 2016: The IAEA report found that while Iran was in general compliance with its obligations, the country's stocks of heavy water had exceeded the limit by 0.1 metric tons. Iran, however, informed the IAEA of its plan to ship it out of the country.

Jan. 19, 2017: IAEA Director General Amano and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz confirmed that Iran had removed certain infrastructure and excess centrifuges from the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant by the one-year anniversary of implementation, as required under the nuclear deal.

Feb. 24, 2017: The Director General's report found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The report said that Tehran was not continuing construction of its heavy water research reactor at Arak. Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium -- which can be used for peaceful purposes but could also be reprocessed for use in a weapon -- was 101.7 kilograms, well below the 300-kilogram limit. Earlier in 2017, Iran had reportedly come close to reaching the limit before a large amount stuck in pipes was recategorized as unrecoverable.

May 9, 2018: Director General Amano said Iran "is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPOA, which is a significant verification gain." In a statement, he asserted that "the IAEA can confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by Iran."

June 2, 2017: The IAEA report's findings indicated that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Tehran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium was 79.8 kilograms, less than in the previous report and well below the 300-kilogram limit. The report, however, did not include any details about how the IAEA was confirming that Iran was not undertaking certain activities related to weaponization.

Aug. 31, 2017: The IAEA reported that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Director General Amano, however, rejected Tehran's claim that its military sites were off-limits to inspectors. He told The Associated Press that his agency "has access to (all) locations without making distinctions between military and civilian locations" under the JCPOA.

Sept. 11, 2017: Amano reported to the IAEA Board of Governors that nuclear related commitments were being implemented. "The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran remain ongoing," he said.

Nov. 13, 2017: The IAEA released its eighth verification report indicating Iranian compliance with the deal. Iran's low-enriched uranium stockpile as of November 5 was 96.7 kg, more than what was reported previously but still well below the limit. Iran's stock of heavy water was 114.4 metric tons, below the 130-ton limit.

Feb. 22, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report acknowledging Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. It noted that Iran notified the watchdog of a "decision that has been taken to construct naval nuclear propulsion in future." Iranian leaders have previously mentioned that goal, which would increase Iran's naval power and could involve enriching uranium beyond the limits of the nuclear deal.

May 24, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report, the first since the United States withdrew from the nuclear deal, showing Iranian adherence to the JCPOA. The watchdog found that Iran's stockpile of heavy water remained below the agreed limit of 130 tons during the previous three months. Iran had slightly exceeded that limit twice since the JCPOA went into effect. It noted that Tehran was implementing the Additional Protocol, which provides the watchdog with great access to nuclear sites. But the report also suggested that "proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access would facilitate implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhance confidence."

Aug. 30, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report indicating Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal. The watchdog was able to carry out all necessary inspections. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," said the report.

Sept. 10, 2018: In his introductory statement to the IAEA Board of Governors, Director General Amano said Iran was implementing its commitments under the JCPOA. "It is essential that Iran continues to fully implement those commitments," he added.

Nov. 12, 2018: The IAEA's quarterly report noted that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The agency said it had access to all the necessary sites and that Iran's heavy water and low-enriched uranium stockpiles remained within the limits.

Feb. 22, 2019: The IAEA again found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Much of the language matched that of the previous quarterly report. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," stated the IAEA. On March 4, Amano confirmed that Iran "is implementing its nuclear commitments."

---

Quote:

---

The head of the international organization charged with monitoring Iran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal said Iran is meeting its obligations under the accord and warned against states trying to influence verification activities. Less than three weeks later, the United States imposed sanctions against Iranian officials and institutions that Washington alleges are working to retain nuclear weapons-related expertise in Iran.

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano cautioned in March that some nations' efforts to micromanage the nuclear agency's monitoring of Iran would threaten the credibility of its findings.

"Iran is implementing its nuclear commitments," said Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in March 4 remarks to the agency's Board of Governors. Amano urged Tehran to continue adhering to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The United States, which withdrew from the agreement in 2018, levied new sanctions on March 22 against Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, purported to employ staff from Iran's past nuclear weapons research activities.

"This is a way for them to keep the gang together, as it were, and to provide a reconstitution capability for that weapons program," said a senior administration official briefing the media March 22. The sanctions impose travel and commercial restrictions on 14 individuals and 17 entities.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano's statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal's terms. It notes that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to "all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit." Amano also continued to defend the importance of the IAEA's independence in evaluating information related to its efforts to monitor peaceful nuclear activities. He emphasized that the IAEA "undertakes analysis and takes action in an impartial, independent, and objective manner."

Amano's March 4 statement is not the first time that he has pushed back against attempts by some nations to direct the agency's verification work. "If attempts are made to micromanage or put pressure on the agency in nuclear verification, that is counterproductive and extremely harmful," he said, adding that "independent, impartial, and factual safeguards implementation is essential to maintain our credibility."

Although Amano did not identify specific states, Israeli officials have called on the IAEA to visit undeclared sites in Iran and follow up on materials that Israel stole from an Iranian archive in January 2018 and shared with the agency later in the year. In September at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically called on the IAEA to visit a site identified by Israeli intelligence as housing materials and documents related to Iran's past nuclear weapons program.

Despite reports of the United States promising Israel that it would pressure the IAEA to follow up on the archival material, Jackie Wolcott, U.S. representative to the IAEA, appeared to defend the agency's process during her March 5 remarks to the IAEA board. Wolcott said Iran must address questions raised by the archival material, but emphasized that the United States supports the "IAEA's continued, careful assessment of the nuclear archive materials." She said Washington has the "highest confidence that the agency will independently and professionally review these materials, in combination with all other available information, to appropriately inform its monitoring and verification activities in Iran."

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, said on March 8 that, "despite the many efforts of certain enemies" to "divert the attention of the IAEA," cooperation between the agency and Iran is "constructive."

Although Iran continues to abide by the nuclear agreement, Gharibabadi emphasized that the remaining parties to the deal -- China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union -- "must ensure Iran's enjoyment of JCPOA-related benefits by adopting appropriate measures."

Those parties to the deal have taken some steps to preserve trade with Iran after the United States reimposed sanctions in May 2018. These efforts, however, have provided few tangible benefits to date.

---

---

Why should I. You never responded to my link months ago showing the UN reports that included inspector concerns. Even among the available reports from which your article pulled from there were problems. Maybe skip the article and read the UN reports available online.
And to top it off, all "successful"inspections were on Iran's agreed to timeframe and not unannounced.

---

The reports don't say anything different from what I'm saying. Inspectors always have "concerns." That's their job. The IAEA had 24/7 access to Iran's declared nuclear sites and access to other sites on as little as a day's notice. In case of disputes it could take as long as 24 days, but that was all pursuant to the agreement. The fact that we continually demanded more access and the Iranians sometimes appealed to the UN doesn't mean the process wasn't working or that Iran wasn't "fully forthcoming." They had legitimate security concerns surrounding military installations and so forth. Total free rein for inspection was neither necessary nor was it contemplated as part of the agreement.

---

Hiding it from the IAEA was never that difficult. You don't get to 60%+ without evading inspections. They wanted and still want a chip in the big game, and played the diplomacy two-step as part of their deception strategy.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

---

It's not absurd. Germany was a minor threat in 1936, but had potential which was later realized.
Iran with any nuclear weapon and missiles to hit Europe and a desire for international chaos would be impossible to control once there. And that power would come before any verification by the UN could prevent it. The UN did not have unannounced regular inspections which is the only thing that would work to avoid clandestine enrichment. They should never have been allowed to get as far as they obviously have in enrichment. Iran is not even close to North Korea having nukes as they have China to keep them under wraps. NK doesn't have a death wish like Iranian leadership, either. China has had big control there since the Korean War. Iran with nukes would be a total threat to the world.

---

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Especially if they still believe Saddam Hussein dropped a mushroom cloud over Manhattan on 9/11.

---

Or they believe Iran was fully forthcoming about their nuclear program to the UN.

---

I noticed you never responded to this.

Quote:

---

Jan. 16, 2016: IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano confirmed that Iran had taken the necessary steps to start implementation of the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Inspectors on the ground verified that Tehran reduced its enriched uranium stockpile, cut and capped its capacity to enrich uranium, modified the Arak heavy water rector to block its ability to produce plutonium, and allowed more robust monitoring by the IAEA.

Feb. 26, 2016: The IAEA's first quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program following implementation noted that Iran briefly exceeded the 130 metric ton limit on its heavy-water stockpile. Tehran, however, reduced the 130.9 tons back below the limit by shipping out 20 metric tons. The report was short but detailed Iran's compliance with specific aspects of the deal.

May 27, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. The watchdog said that Iran accepted additional inspectors and provided complementary access to sites and facilities under the Additional Protocol.

Sept. 8, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. For example, Iran had not surpassed limits on its stock of enriched uranium or heavy water. As with earlier quarterly reports, however, this one did not include details about every restriction in JCPOA.

Nov. 17, 2016: The IAEA report found that while Iran was in general compliance with its obligations, the country's stocks of heavy water had exceeded the limit by 0.1 metric tons. Iran, however, informed the IAEA of its plan to ship it out of the country.

Jan. 19, 2017: IAEA Director General Amano and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz confirmed that Iran had removed certain infrastructure and excess centrifuges from the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant by the one-year anniversary of implementation, as required under the nuclear deal.

Feb. 24, 2017: The Director General's report found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The report said that Tehran was not continuing construction of its heavy water research reactor at Arak. Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium -- which can be used for peaceful purposes but could also be reprocessed for use in a weapon -- was 101.7 kilograms, well below the 300-kilogram limit. Earlier in 2017, Iran had reportedly come close to reaching the limit before a large amount stuck in pipes was recategorized as unrecoverable.

May 9, 2018: Director General Amano said Iran "is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPOA, which is a significant verification gain." In a statement, he asserted that "the IAEA can confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by Iran."

June 2, 2017: The IAEA report's findings indicated that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Tehran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium was 79.8 kilograms, less than in the previous report and well below the 300-kilogram limit. The report, however, did not include any details about how the IAEA was confirming that Iran was not undertaking certain activities related to weaponization.

Aug. 31, 2017: The IAEA reported that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Director General Amano, however, rejected Tehran's claim that its military sites were off-limits to inspectors. He told The Associated Press that his agency "has access to (all) locations without making distinctions between military and civilian locations" under the JCPOA.

Sept. 11, 2017: Amano reported to the IAEA Board of Governors that nuclear related commitments were being implemented. "The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran remain ongoing," he said.

Nov. 13, 2017: The IAEA released its eighth verification report indicating Iranian compliance with the deal. Iran's low-enriched uranium stockpile as of November 5 was 96.7 kg, more than what was reported previously but still well below the limit. Iran's stock of heavy water was 114.4 metric tons, below the 130-ton limit.

Feb. 22, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report acknowledging Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. It noted that Iran notified the watchdog of a "decision that has been taken to construct naval nuclear propulsion in future." Iranian leaders have previously mentioned that goal, which would increase Iran's naval power and could involve enriching uranium beyond the limits of the nuclear deal.

May 24, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report, the first since the United States withdrew from the nuclear deal, showing Iranian adherence to the JCPOA. The watchdog found that Iran's stockpile of heavy water remained below the agreed limit of 130 tons during the previous three months. Iran had slightly exceeded that limit twice since the JCPOA went into effect. It noted that Tehran was implementing the Additional Protocol, which provides the watchdog with great access to nuclear sites. But the report also suggested that "proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access would facilitate implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhance confidence."

Aug. 30, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report indicating Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal. The watchdog was able to carry out all necessary inspections. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," said the report.

Sept. 10, 2018: In his introductory statement to the IAEA Board of Governors, Director General Amano said Iran was implementing its commitments under the JCPOA. "It is essential that Iran continues to fully implement those commitments," he added.

Nov. 12, 2018: The IAEA's quarterly report noted that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The agency said it had access to all the necessary sites and that Iran's heavy water and low-enriched uranium stockpiles remained within the limits.

Feb. 22, 2019: The IAEA again found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Much of the language matched that of the previous quarterly report. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," stated the IAEA. On March 4, Amano confirmed that Iran "is implementing its nuclear commitments."

---

Quote:

---

The head of the international organization charged with monitoring Iran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal said Iran is meeting its obligations under the accord and warned against states trying to influence verification activities. Less than three weeks later, the United States imposed sanctions against Iranian officials and institutions that Washington alleges are working to retain nuclear weapons-related expertise in Iran.

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano cautioned in March that some nations' efforts to micromanage the nuclear agency's monitoring of Iran would threaten the credibility of its findings.

"Iran is implementing its nuclear commitments," said Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in March 4 remarks to the agency's Board of Governors. Amano urged Tehran to continue adhering to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The United States, which withdrew from the agreement in 2018, levied new sanctions on March 22 against Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, purported to employ staff from Iran's past nuclear weapons research activities.

"This is a way for them to keep the gang together, as it were, and to provide a reconstitution capability for that weapons program," said a senior administration official briefing the media March 22. The sanctions impose travel and commercial restrictions on 14 individuals and 17 entities.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano's statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal's terms. It notes that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to "all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit." Amano also continued to defend the importance of the IAEA's independence in evaluating information related to its efforts to monitor peaceful nuclear activities. He emphasized that the IAEA "undertakes analysis and takes action in an impartial, independent, and objective manner."

Amano's March 4 statement is not the first time that he has pushed back against attempts by some nations to direct the agency's verification work. "If attempts are made to micromanage or put pressure on the agency in nuclear verification, that is counterproductive and extremely harmful," he said, adding that "independent, impartial, and factual safeguards implementation is essential to maintain our credibility."

Although Amano did not identify specific states, Israeli officials have called on the IAEA to visit undeclared sites in Iran and follow up on materials that Israel stole from an Iranian archive in January 2018 and shared with the agency later in the year. In September at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically called on the IAEA to visit a site identified by Israeli intelligence as housing materials and documents related to Iran's past nuclear weapons program.

Despite reports of the United States promising Israel that it would pressure the IAEA to follow up on the archival material, Jackie Wolcott, U.S. representative to the IAEA, appeared to defend the agency's process during her March 5 remarks to the IAEA board. Wolcott said Iran must address questions raised by the archival material, but emphasized that the United States supports the "IAEA's continued, careful assessment of the nuclear archive materials." She said Washington has the "highest confidence that the agency will independently and professionally review these materials, in combination with all other available information, to appropriately inform its monitoring and verification activities in Iran."

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, said on March 8 that, "despite the many efforts of certain enemies" to "divert the attention of the IAEA," cooperation between the agency and Iran is "constructive."

Although Iran continues to abide by the nuclear agreement, Gharibabadi emphasized that the remaining parties to the deal -- China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union -- "must ensure Iran's enjoyment of JCPOA-related benefits by adopting appropriate measures."

Those parties to the deal have taken some steps to preserve trade with Iran after the United States reimposed sanctions in May 2018. These efforts, however, have provided few tangible benefits to date.

---

---

Why should I. You never responded to my link months ago showing the UN reports that included inspector concerns. Even among the available reports from which your article pulled from there were problems. Maybe skip the article and read the UN reports available online.
And to top it off, all "successful"inspections were on Iran's agreed to timeframe and not unannounced.

---

The reports don't say anything different from what I'm saying. Inspectors always have "concerns." That's their job. The IAEA had 24/7 access to Iran's declared nuclear sites and access to other sites on as little as a day's notice. In case of disputes it could take as long as 24 days, but that was all pursuant to the agreement. The fact that we continually demanded more access and the Iranians sometimes appealed to the UN doesn't mean the process wasn't working or that Iran wasn't "fully forthcoming." They had legitimate security concerns surrounding military installations and so forth. Total free rein for inspection was neither necessary nor was it contemplated as part of the agreement.

---

Hiding it from the IAEA was never that difficult. You don't get to 60%+ without evading inspections. They wanted and still want a chip in the big game, and played the diplomacy two-step as part of their deception strategy.

---

Iran went to 60% three years after we withdrew from the JCPOA, and there was no deception involved. They publicly announced their intentions in advance.

Trump says the loss of the Strait of Hormuz is “genius” because countries are buying their oil from Texas now.

“It’s sort of amazing” pic.twitter.com/iHYEPlyQP8

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 11, 2026

President Trump is frustrated because the Israelis sold him the pipe dream that arming the Kurds & other Iranian dissidents would quickly topple the Iranian regime, leading to a quick victory. This failed to happen because it was a plan based on wishful thinking not the realities… https://t.co/1C6rwBf9yD

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) May 11, 2026

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/006acd19-a9d9-40ae-a096-c816bc37ddef

The poor SOB actually believes it...

🚨🇺🇸 HUGE! Sec. Marco Rubio DECLARES a Complete Withdrawal from Europe.

"100,000 U.S. troops and $60 billion a year defending Europe and zero help on Hormuz. Time to bring them home."

An Historic Trans-Atlantic Split is occurring! Troops are being moved that have been stationed… pic.twitter.com/kudZsnumtJ

— Based Hungary 🇭🇺 (@HungaryBased) May 11, 2026

BREAKING: The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve released last week >1.22 million barrels a day (~8.6 million for the week).

That's the largest ever weekly release, surpassing the peak rate seen in 2022 when President Biden tapped the SPR after Russia invaded Ukraine.

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) May 11, 2026

This is not going to end well.

Irony will be that after we do all this. Israel is deciding not to take our aide, MAGA rejoices and Israel brings in China.

April 2024

Remember when they said Trump would get us into a full-blown war with Iran?

Times like these should make us all realize how lucky we were to have Trump, his strength and his resolve.

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) April 13, 2024

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

This thread and others show why a country or alliance cannot take out a rising risk without risking inside backlash internally. Lots of Americans should never gripe about 1930s France or Britain not taking on Nazi Germany earlier.

1936 Germany moves troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. France lets it pass.
1938 Britain and France trade part of Czechoslovakia (over protestations of the Czech president) for "peace in our time." War is avoided for one year.
1939-40 Phony War France half heartedly attacks Germany while Poland is invaded. Even after a year's warning the French aren't ready.

This is what ignoring a coming threat does. In our case there are two rising threats, China and Iran. One is already nuclear armed while the other was working toward it.
That other working toward nuclear arms is ruled by a group with a desire for an apocalypse. That same one has been attacking American interests and western interests for 47 years.
The nuclear armed one has been gaining as a geopolitical foe for even longer. Easing of economic relations over decades did not ease the tension between us. It's been long overdue for correction, but the economic "pain" feared here has prevented appropriate actions. Loud public cries about even short term inflation over long term safety and strength are now present. We are now France in that respect.

---

Even if one were to buy into your overhyping of the Iranian threat and misguided analogy, at this point there is nothing left to accomplish militarily. And whether one says "we won the war" or not, Iran is in fact not a direct threat to the United States, and will not be for some time even if we ignored them.

But we're past the phase of "short term inflation" and will be broaching energy collapses in some markets in the not too distant future if this continues. Besides, a shattered state of Iran is much more dangerous than anything we have right now. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

---

How many of the French would have spoken out about the overhyped threat of Germany as the French army went into the Rhineland to enforce the treaty of Versailles?
* Even reconstituted German army too small to be an invasion force.
* It is German territory anyway. They have a right.
* No French blood for imperialistic actions.
* A stronger Germany is a buffer against the Soviets.
* Now we may not even get interest payments from the Young plan bonds, much less agreed repayments.
* We have our own economic and internal problems and don't need a foreign adventure.

Thus short term issues are argued above long term self preservation.

---

To even compare the Iranian threat to the German is absolute absurdity. To not acknowledge we've already neutralized the threat, however modest it was (especially compared to 1938 Germany), makes this an even more absurd parallel.

---

It's not absurd. Germany was a minor threat in 1936, but had potential which was later realized.
Iran with any nuclear weapon and missiles to hit Europe and a desire for international chaos would be impossible to control once there. And that power would come before any verification by the UN could prevent it. The UN did not have unannounced regular inspections which is the only thing that would work to avoid clandestine enrichment. They should never have been allowed to get as far as they obviously have in enrichment. Iran is not even close to North Korea having nukes as they have China to keep them under wraps. NK doesn't have a death wish like Iranian leadership, either. China has had big control there since the Korean War. Iran with nukes would be a total threat to the world.

---

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Especially if they still believe Saddam Hussein dropped a mushroom cloud over Manhattan on 9/11.

---

Or they believe Iran was fully forthcoming about their nuclear program to the UN.

---

I noticed you never responded to this.

Quote:

---

Jan. 16, 2016: IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano confirmed that Iran had taken the necessary steps to start implementation of the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Inspectors on the ground verified that Tehran reduced its enriched uranium stockpile, cut and capped its capacity to enrich uranium, modified the Arak heavy water rector to block its ability to produce plutonium, and allowed more robust monitoring by the IAEA.

Feb. 26, 2016: The IAEA's first quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program following implementation noted that Iran briefly exceeded the 130 metric ton limit on its heavy-water stockpile. Tehran, however, reduced the 130.9 tons back below the limit by shipping out 20 metric tons. The report was short but detailed Iran's compliance with specific aspects of the deal.

May 27, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. The watchdog said that Iran accepted additional inspectors and provided complementary access to sites and facilities under the Additional Protocol.

Sept. 8, 2016: The IAEA report to the Board of Governors found that Iran was living up to its commitments under the nuclear deal. For example, Iran had not surpassed limits on its stock of enriched uranium or heavy water. As with earlier quarterly reports, however, this one did not include details about every restriction in JCPOA.

Nov. 17, 2016: The IAEA report found that while Iran was in general compliance with its obligations, the country's stocks of heavy water had exceeded the limit by 0.1 metric tons. Iran, however, informed the IAEA of its plan to ship it out of the country.

Jan. 19, 2017: IAEA Director General Amano and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz confirmed that Iran had removed certain infrastructure and excess centrifuges from the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant by the one-year anniversary of implementation, as required under the nuclear deal.

Feb. 24, 2017: The Director General's report found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The report said that Tehran was not continuing construction of its heavy water research reactor at Arak. Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium -- which can be used for peaceful purposes but could also be reprocessed for use in a weapon -- was 101.7 kilograms, well below the 300-kilogram limit. Earlier in 2017, Iran had reportedly come close to reaching the limit before a large amount stuck in pipes was recategorized as unrecoverable.

May 9, 2018: Director General Amano said Iran "is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPOA, which is a significant verification gain." In a statement, he asserted that "the IAEA can confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by Iran."

June 2, 2017: The IAEA report's findings indicated that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Tehran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium was 79.8 kilograms, less than in the previous report and well below the 300-kilogram limit. The report, however, did not include any details about how the IAEA was confirming that Iran was not undertaking certain activities related to weaponization.

Aug. 31, 2017: The IAEA reported that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Director General Amano, however, rejected Tehran's claim that its military sites were off-limits to inspectors. He told The Associated Press that his agency "has access to (all) locations without making distinctions between military and civilian locations" under the JCPOA.

Sept. 11, 2017: Amano reported to the IAEA Board of Governors that nuclear related commitments were being implemented. "The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran remain ongoing," he said.

Nov. 13, 2017: The IAEA released its eighth verification report indicating Iranian compliance with the deal. Iran's low-enriched uranium stockpile as of November 5 was 96.7 kg, more than what was reported previously but still well below the limit. Iran's stock of heavy water was 114.4 metric tons, below the 130-ton limit.

Feb. 22, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report acknowledging Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. It noted that Iran notified the watchdog of a "decision that has been taken to construct naval nuclear propulsion in future." Iranian leaders have previously mentioned that goal, which would increase Iran's naval power and could involve enriching uranium beyond the limits of the nuclear deal.

May 24, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report, the first since the United States withdrew from the nuclear deal, showing Iranian adherence to the JCPOA. The watchdog found that Iran's stockpile of heavy water remained below the agreed limit of 130 tons during the previous three months. Iran had slightly exceeded that limit twice since the JCPOA went into effect. It noted that Tehran was implementing the Additional Protocol, which provides the watchdog with great access to nuclear sites. But the report also suggested that "proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access would facilitate implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhance confidence."

Aug. 30, 2018: The IAEA released a quarterly report indicating Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal. The watchdog was able to carry out all necessary inspections. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," said the report.

Sept. 10, 2018: In his introductory statement to the IAEA Board of Governors, Director General Amano said Iran was implementing its commitments under the JCPOA. "It is essential that Iran continues to fully implement those commitments," he added.

Nov. 12, 2018: The IAEA's quarterly report noted that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. The agency said it had access to all the necessary sites and that Iran's heavy water and low-enriched uranium stockpiles remained within the limits.

Feb. 22, 2019: The IAEA again found that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Much of the language matched that of the previous quarterly report. "Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances confidence," stated the IAEA. On March 4, Amano confirmed that Iran "is implementing its nuclear commitments."

---

Quote:

---

The head of the international organization charged with monitoring Iran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal said Iran is meeting its obligations under the accord and warned against states trying to influence verification activities. Less than three weeks later, the United States imposed sanctions against Iranian officials and institutions that Washington alleges are working to retain nuclear weapons-related expertise in Iran.

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano cautioned in March that some nations' efforts to micromanage the nuclear agency's monitoring of Iran would threaten the credibility of its findings.

"Iran is implementing its nuclear commitments," said Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in March 4 remarks to the agency's Board of Governors. Amano urged Tehran to continue adhering to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The United States, which withdrew from the agreement in 2018, levied new sanctions on March 22 against Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, purported to employ staff from Iran's past nuclear weapons research activities.

"This is a way for them to keep the gang together, as it were, and to provide a reconstitution capability for that weapons program," said a senior administration official briefing the media March 22. The sanctions impose travel and commercial restrictions on 14 individuals and 17 entities.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano's statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal's terms. It notes that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to "all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit." Amano also continued to defend the importance of the IAEA's independence in evaluating information related to its efforts to monitor peaceful nuclear activities. He emphasized that the IAEA "undertakes analysis and takes action in an impartial, independent, and objective manner."

Amano's March 4 statement is not the first time that he has pushed back against attempts by some nations to direct the agency's verification work. "If attempts are made to micromanage or put pressure on the agency in nuclear verification, that is counterproductive and extremely harmful," he said, adding that "independent, impartial, and factual safeguards implementation is essential to maintain our credibility."

Although Amano did not identify specific states, Israeli officials have called on the IAEA to visit undeclared sites in Iran and follow up on materials that Israel stole from an Iranian archive in January 2018 and shared with the agency later in the year. In September at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically called on the IAEA to visit a site identified by Israeli intelligence as housing materials and documents related to Iran's past nuclear weapons program.

Despite reports of the United States promising Israel that it would pressure the IAEA to follow up on the archival material, Jackie Wolcott, U.S. representative to the IAEA, appeared to defend the agency's process during her March 5 remarks to the IAEA board. Wolcott said Iran must address questions raised by the archival material, but emphasized that the United States supports the "IAEA's continued, careful assessment of the nuclear archive materials." She said Washington has the "highest confidence that the agency will independently and professionally review these materials, in combination with all other available information, to appropriately inform its monitoring and verification activities in Iran."

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, said on March 8 that, "despite the many efforts of certain enemies" to "divert the attention of the IAEA," cooperation between the agency and Iran is "constructive."

Although Iran continues to abide by the nuclear agreement, Gharibabadi emphasized that the remaining parties to the deal -- China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union -- "must ensure Iran's enjoyment of JCPOA-related benefits by adopting appropriate measures."

Those parties to the deal have taken some steps to preserve trade with Iran after the United States reimposed sanctions in May 2018. These efforts, however, have provided few tangible benefits to date.

---

---

Why should I. You never responded to my link months ago showing the UN reports that included inspector concerns. Even among the available reports from which your article pulled from there were problems. Maybe skip the article and read the UN reports available online.
And to top it off, all "successful"inspections were on Iran's agreed to timeframe and not unannounced.

---

The reports don't say anything different from what I'm saying. Inspectors always have "concerns." That's their job. The IAEA had 24/7 access to Iran's declared nuclear sites and access to other sites on as little as a day's notice. In case of disputes it could take as long as 24 days, but that was all pursuant to the agreement. The fact that we continually demanded more access and the Iranians sometimes appealed to the UN doesn't mean the process wasn't working or that Iran wasn't "fully forthcoming." They had legitimate security concerns surrounding military installations and so forth. Total free rein for inspection was neither necessary nor was it contemplated as part of the agreement.

---

Hiding it from the IAEA was never that difficult. You don't get to 60%+ without evading inspections. They wanted and still want a chip in the big game, and played the diplomacy two-step as part of their deception strategy.

---

Iran went to 60% three years after we withdrew from the JCPOA, and there was no deception involved. They publicly announced their intentions in advance.

---

C'mon Sam. They spent decades building up 20% enriched uranium way beyond agreement limits and done in undisclosed locations. That is why they could jump to weapons grade levels so quickly.

---

Iran first announced the start of 20% enrichment in 2010. There was no agreement prohibiting it at the time. It was halted under the JCPOA, then resumed in 2020 in response to US withdrawal from the agreement. Again, no deception involved.

Arch-neocon Robert Kagan got what he asked for...and he's not happy.

Quote:

---

Checkmate in Iran
Washington can't reverse or control the consequences of losing this war.
By Robert Kagan

It's hard to think of a time when the United States suffered a total defeat in a conflict, a setback so decisive that the strategic loss could be neither repaired nor ignored. The calamitous losses suffered at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and throughout the Western Pacific in the first months of World War II were eventually reversed. The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America's overall position in the world, because they were far from the main theaters of global competition. The initial failure in Iraq was mitigated by a shift in strategy that ultimately left Iraq relatively stable and unthreatening to its neighbors and kept the United States dominant in the region.

Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character. It can neither be repaired nor ignored. There will be no return to the status quo ante, no ultimate American triumph that will undo or overcome the harm done. The Strait of Hormuz will not be "open," as it once was. With control of the strait, Iran emerges as the key player in the region and one of the key players in the world. The roles of China and Russia, as Iran's allies, are strengthened; the role of the United States, substantially diminished. Far from demonstrating American prowess, as supporters of the war have repeatedly claimed, the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started. That is going to set off a chain reaction around the world as friends and foes adjust to America's failure.

The risk calculus that forced Trump to back down a month ago still holds. Even if Trump were to carry out his threat to destroy Iran's "civilization" through more bombing, Iran would still be able to launch many missiles and drones before its regime went down--assuming it did go down. Just a few successful strikes could cripple the region's oil and gas infrastructure for years if not decades, throwing the world, and the United States, into a prolonged economic crisis. Even if Trump wanted to bomb Iran as part of an exit strategy--looking tough as a way of masking his retreat--he can't do that without risking this catastrophe.

Defeat for the United States, therefore, is not only possible but likely. Here is what defeat looks like.

Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz. The common assumption that, one way or another, the strait will reopen when the crisis ends is unfounded. Iran has no interest in returning to the status quo ante. People talk of a split between hard-liners and moderates in Tehran, but even moderates must understand that Iran cannot afford to let the strait go, no matter how good a deal it thought it could get. For one thing, how reliable is any deal with Trump? He all but boasted of replicating the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by approving the killing of Iran's leadership amid negotiations. The Iranians cannot be sure that Trump won't decide to attack again within a few months of striking a deal. They also know that the Israelis may attack again, as they never feel constrained from acting when they perceive their interests to be threatened.

And Israel's interests will be threatened. As many Iran experts have noted, the regime in Tehran currently stands to emerge from the crisis much stronger than it was before the war, having not only retained its potential nuclear capacity but also gained control of an even more effective weapon: the ability to hold the global energy market hostage. When the Iranians talk of "reopening" the strait, they still mean to keep the strait under their control. Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations. If a nation behaves in a way that Iran's rulers don't like, they will be able to exact punishment merely by slowing, or even threatening to slow, the flow of that nation's cargo ships in and out of the strait.

The power to close or control the flow of ships through the strait is greater and more immediate than the theoretical power of Iran's nuclear program. This leverage will allow the leaders in Tehran to force nations to lift sanctions and normalize relations or face penalties. Israel will find itself more isolated than ever, as Iran grows richer, rearms, and preserves its options to go nuclear in the future. It may even find itself unable to go after Iran's proxies: In a world where Iran wields influence over the energy supply of so many nations, Israel could face enormous international pressure not to provoke Tehran in Lebanon, Gaza, or anywhere else.

The new status quo in the strait will also occasion a substantial shift in relative power and influence both regionally and globally. In the region, the United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran. As the Iran scholars Reuel Gerecht and Ray Takeyh wrote recently, "The Gulf Arab economies were built under the umbrella of American hegemony. Take that away--and the freedom of navigation that goes with it--and the Gulf states will ineluctably go begging to Tehran."

One effect of this transformation may be an expanding great-power naval race. In the past, most of the world's nations, including China, counted on the United States to both prevent and address such emergencies. Now the nations in Europe and Asia that depend on access to the Persian Gulf's resources are helpless against the loss of energy supplies that are vital to their economic and political stability. How long can they tolerate this before they start building their own fleets, as a means of wielding influence in an every-nation-for-itself world where order and predictability have broken down?

The American defeat in the Gulf will have broader global ramifications as well. The whole world can see that just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight. The questions this raises about America's readiness for another major conflict may or may not prompt Xi Jinping to launch an attack on Taiwan, or Vladimir Putin to step up his aggression against Europe. But at the very least America's allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.

The global adjustment to a post-American world is accelerating. America's once-dominant position in the Gulf is just the first of many casualties.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/05/iran-war-trump-losing/687094/

---

STRAIT CLOSURE SHOCK LIMITED: GOLDMAN SEES ONLY MODERATE GLOBAL DAMAGE

Goldman Sachs says the 10-week Strait of Hormuz closure has caused only moderate global economic disruption so far.

Chief economist Jan Hatzius cites three key reasons: oil prices didn’t spike as feared due…

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) May 11, 2026

BREAKING: Fox News reports that UAE forces are carrying out military strikes inside Iran and have been fighting against the Iranian regime for several days. pic.twitter.com/wbnpGvZj7P

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) May 11, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING: Fox News reports that UAE forces are carrying out military strikes inside Iran and have been fighting against the Iranian regime for several days. pic.twitter.com/wbnpGvZj7P

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) May 11, 2026

---

Sure they are. With their 44 Dassault Mirages designed in 1972.

Yep. Completely believable.