Realitybites said: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.
MARCO RUBIO: “The goal of the war in Iran is now to return it to how it was before Trump started the war.”
— Stew Peters (@realstewpeters) May 11, 2026
Unreal. pic.twitter.com/biX43kiTcy
Look into the Amad Plan.Sam Lowry said: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.
It hasn't existed since 2003, and it never even produced enriched uranium, much less anything close to weapons grade. The Safeguards Agreement and the JCPOA addressed that issue. In no way does it represent "decades of building up 20% enriched uranium beyond agreement limits" (even assuming 20% enriched uranium was prohibited by the NPT, which it wasn't).ATL Bear said:Look into the Amad Plan.Sam Lowry said: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.
So we're going to ignore the hidden facilities built to produce highly enriched (see weapons grade) uranium decades before the JCPOA inline with the Amad Plan?Sam Lowry said:It hasn't existed since 2003, and it never even produced enriched uranium, much less anything close to weapons grade. The Safeguards Agreement and the JCPOA addressed that issue. In no way does it represent "decades of building up 20% enriched uranium beyond agreement limits" (even assuming 20% enriched uranium was prohibited by the NPT, which it wasn't).ATL Bear said:Look into the Amad Plan.Sam Lowry said: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.
If the Amad Plan is proof that no deal is workable, we might as well stop pretending that we're looking for a deal.
No such facilities were ever built, but we can assume they had been planned and designed. Of course we didn't ignore them. That's why stricter safeguards were imposed.ATL Bear said:So we're going to ignore the hidden facilities built to produce highly enriched (see weapons grade) uranium decades before the JCPOA inline with the Amad Plan?Sam Lowry said:It hasn't existed since 2003, and it never even produced enriched uranium, much less anything close to weapons grade. The Safeguards Agreement and the JCPOA addressed that issue. In no way does it represent "decades of building up 20% enriched uranium beyond agreement limits" (even assuming 20% enriched uranium was prohibited by the NPT, which it wasn't).ATL Bear said:Look into the Amad Plan.Sam Lowry said: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.
If the Amad Plan is proof that no deal is workable, we might as well stop pretending that we're looking for a deal.
Realitybites said:boognish_bear said:We are two weeks from oil shortages and demand rationing according to Bloomberg.
— QE Infinity (@StealthQE4) May 11, 2026
Not months…weeks.
Anyone that thinks this oil shortage isn’t a serious immediate crisis is delusional: pic.twitter.com/k4KsE7M85m
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.
Natanz and Fordow?Sam Lowry said:No such facilities were ever built, but we can assume they had been planned and designed. Of course we didn't ignore them. That's why stricter safeguards were imposed.ATL Bear said:So we're going to ignore the hidden facilities built to produce highly enriched (see weapons grade) uranium decades before the JCPOA inline with the Amad Plan?Sam Lowry said:It hasn't existed since 2003, and it never even produced enriched uranium, much less anything close to weapons grade. The Safeguards Agreement and the JCPOA addressed that issue. In no way does it represent "decades of building up 20% enriched uranium beyond agreement limits" (even assuming 20% enriched uranium was prohibited by the NPT, which it wasn't).ATL Bear said:Look into the Amad Plan.Sam Lowry said: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.
If the Amad Plan is proof that no deal is workable, we might as well stop pretending that we're looking for a deal.
Can a workable agreement only be reached if Iran demonstrates that the Amad Plan never existed? How do you propose that they do so? Failing that, what sort of agreement would satisfy you?
ATL Bear said:Sam Lowry said:ATL Bear said:Sam Lowry said:ATL Bear said:Sam Lowry said: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.
Look into the Amad Plan.
It hasn't existed since 2003, and it never even produced enriched uranium, much less anything close to weapons grade. The Safeguards Agreement and the JCPOA addressed that issue. In no way does it represent "decades of building up 20% enriched uranium beyond agreement limits" (even assuming 20% enriched uranium was prohibited by the NPT, which it wasn't).
If the Amad Plan is proof that no deal is workable, we might as well stop pretending that we're looking for a deal.
So we're going to ignore the hidden facilities built to produce highly enriched (see weapons grade) uranium decades before the JCPOA inline with the Amad Plan?
No such facilities were ever built, but we can assume they had been planned and designed. Of course we didn't ignore them. That's why stricter safeguards were imposed.
Can a workable agreement only be reached if Iran demonstrates that the Amad Plan never existed? How do you propose that they do so? Failing that, what sort of agreement would satisfy you?
Natanz and Fordow?
Listen, I'm not here to debate agreements. In reality, I'm not sure one is even achievable. And you're free to argue whether the U.S. was or has ever negotiated in good faith. What can't be denied from word and deed is that Iran planned for, executed, and intended to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities, and played the diplomatic two step to assist them along the way.
Realitybites said: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.
boognish_bear said:MARCO RUBIO: “The goal of the war in Iran is now to return it to how it was before Trump started the war.”
— Stew Peters (@realstewpeters) May 11, 2026
Unreal. pic.twitter.com/biX43kiTcy
Mothra said:
Your last statement about Natanz and Fordow just isn't true. Construction of the Natanz enrichment complex began in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Iran did not declare the IAEA while it was being built, even though enrichment facilities are subject to safeguards. The site's existence became public only after it was exposed in August 2002 by an Iranian opposition group, supported by satellite imagery. It wasn't until Iran was caught red-handed that it acknowledged Natanz and allowed IAEA inspections beginning in 2003. The IAEA later documented that the facility had been undeclared up to that point.
Fordow was constructed beginning in the early to mid2000s, deep within the mountains (wonder why?), without declaration to the IAEA. It was publicly revealed by Western govts. in September 2009, with ample evidence that Iran had been building a covert enrichment facility for years (hmm, I wonder why?). Iran notified the IAEA only shortly before the public announcement, after the site had already been detected by foreign intelligence.
It's incredible how much utter bull**** you spread as fact on this board.
