When Will Trump Declare War on Iran?

Feb 2007
6,192
3,860
USA
...and the report from the IAEA in which the IAEA stated and demonstrated that Iran was not complying with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution which put the JCPOA into force, with regards to the claims found in the article that you cited, can be found at...?

And, if the US is unwilling to comply with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution which put the JCPOA into force, then why should Iran be required to comply with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution which put the JCPOA into force?
 
Last edited:
Feb 2007
6,192
3,860
USA
Listen, I'll ask a simple question...would you rather appear weak or strong?

We have all agreed that bullies in school are a bad thing. We want to stop bullies and allow kids to be free to learn unmolested by threats. I would bet we have different ways to seek that same goal. I raised my kids knowing how to defend themselves and never let a bully intimidate them. All my kids encountered some bullies and each time when I was called into the schools I gave the same response to the principal, "Who started it?" While most tried to convince me that didn't matter, I would always repeat the same thing..."If my kid started it, it's my problem, if someone else started it...it's YOUR problem." After a while, by my third kid, I really didn't get many calls because they all knew my kids would only defend themselves or others and never start it.

In your case, I'd wager you're the type who is more helicopter parent and called the principal, teacher, etc to have the child threatening your kid dealt with rather than teach your kid self reliance, self esteem, and build their confidence as they should learn and which would help them throughout life. I may be wrong, but I do see a lot of the wimpier parents now a days raising their kids to be more victim than strong and independent.

With Soleimani, he was the ultimate bully. He tourtured our brothers and sisters year after year. He funded attacks on us and our interests, he taught terrorists to plant IEDs meant to kill our citizens, he was a bully and terrorist through and through. We identified him as a terrorist during Obama's administration and the democrats all agreed with Obama and Biden that he was a terrorist. It just took a while to finally have the opportunity to strike back at the bully and end his terror and I'm glad he's dead. We've suffered his terror long enough and only by striking back will we give other bullies the message that we're not victims...we're strong and we will strike back at you if you push us too far.

If you disagree, that's fine...every country needs the innocent naive liberals and the pit bulls to guard them and keep them safe. Otherwise, without the pit bulls, anyone could roll through and wipe our all the liberals for being such huge wimps. Some people raise victims, I don't.
Actually, I prefer to be-not just appear to be-pragmatic, with the long term big picture always in mind. But then, that is the INTJ in me. So, you can save your weak versus strong labels for someone else who might actually care about such labels.

And, your continuing beating of a dead horse, that being Soleimani, doesn't change several observations about Iran. Those being that now Iran is more unified against the US and its actions against Iran, Iran's government is now more supported by its population which gives it more leeway to stand its ground against the US, and now Iran is even less inclined to want to even talk with the US before US sanctions are removed first.

So, as this situation demonstrates, the appearance of strength or even weakness is quite often just an illusion.
 
Sep 2019
232
86
CA
In reality, those pallets of cash that were sent to Iran were as a result of the legal settlement that was reached between the US and Iran relating to the monies that were sent to the US during the days of the Shah for a weapons purchase that was never delivered to Iran. And, that settlement occurred outside the confines of the JCPOA nuclear deal. Moreover, since the court in that case was about to issue a ruling anyway during that time period, that settlement would have almost certainly occurred anyway, regardless of the status of the nuclear-related talks and deal. Plus, by settling with Iran before that ruling occurred, the US quite arguably saved itself several billion dollars on interest on those monies owed to Iran in the process.

Also, in reality, the sanctions relief that occurred in stages when the JCPOA deal went into force via a UN Security Council Resolution included the unfreezing of Iranian assets and not US assets. Thus, it was Iran's own assets, and not US assets, that were freed up as a result of the JCPOA going into force via said UN Security Council Resolution. And the value of those Iran assets certainly wasn't $1.5 billion, as claimed in one estimate, but were realistically much lower in value.

In addition, in reality, multiple periodic IAEA reports clearly demonstrate that Iran was consistently adhering to the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution of which, again, put the JCPOA into force. And this conclusion was shared by the US government, including during the time period that Trump has been president. (It has only been since last summer when Iran purposely exceeded its allowed limits regarding uranium enrichment level and stockpile size, clearly in response to the actions of the Trump administration.)

To continue, in reality, it was never intended that the JCPOA talks and agreement would address anything else but matters concerning Iran's nuclear program. But, of course, this doesn't mean that another possible agreement concerning other matters couldn't be discussed between the US and Iran after the JCPOA agreement was reached.

Lastly, in reality, the critical concern surrounding Iran's nuclear program during the time period of the JCPOA talks was not that Iran had the technical know-how concerning the development of nuclear weapons. In fact, as early as 2007 the US had determined that, if Iran wanted to build nuclear weapons, Iran already knew how to do that some years prior. Rather, the critical concern was the breakout period it would take for Iran to build nuclear weapons. And, the implementation of the JCPOA had increased that breakout period from a few months to at least a year. And, quite arguably, that nuclear weapon breakout period would have become even less than a few months if no agreement had been reached between the P5+1 and Iran, despite sanctions being in place at that time. Plus, quite arguably, the infrastructure needed at that stage Iran was in at the time of the JPOA talks and agreement was one that could rather easily be hidden by Iran, from a technical standpoint, if Iran actually broke out that is. Thus, there really was no "appeasement" as you claim. Rather, a constructive solution was found which forced Iran into a situation which addressed that critical breakout period concern and, as a result, moved Iran significantly away, in time, from when it could have developed nuclear weapons.

But alas, being that you are apparently ignorant of these realities, as well as you clearly having reading comprehension issues, I don't expect you to reply with any claims that you can substantiate that counter these...well...realities.

:rolleyes:
TV: IAEA finds traces of radioactive material at Iran site flagged by Netanyahu

sorry, what was that?

Iran apparently was moving the materials around to avoid UN inspection. To the UN, all was well...to anyone with a brain...they were relocating materials from buildings about to be inspected.

Now you're going to say that intel from Mossad and Israel can't be trusted right? Isn't that the go to...when presented with details that prove you're wrong...dismiss as lies?
 
Sep 2019
232
86
CA
Actually, I prefer to be-not just appear to be-pragmatic, with the long term big picture always in mind. But then, that is the INTJ in me. So, you can save your weak versus strong labels for someone else who might actually care about such labels.

And, your continuing beating of a dead horse, that being Soleimani, doesn't change several observations about Iran. Those being that now Iran is more unified against the US and its actions against Iran, Iran's government is now more supported by its population which gives it more leeway to stand its ground against the US, and now Iran is even less inclined to want to even talk with the US before US sanctions are removed first.

So, as this situation demonstrates, the appearance of strength or even weakness is quite often just an illusion.
Sorry, but I've actually lived in the middle east. Islam teaches it's believers that action is often necessary for peace. I have personally witnessed groups of marauders threaten small villages because they thought they could get away with it until the villages stood up and executed some of them...threat removed and village continues. That's what we're dealing with. Not a bunch of pragmatic thumb up their ass types who want to hug and talk to one another. You have people who consider such pragmatism weakness...please feel free to talk to members of a local mosque if you disbelieve me. I'm not religious but I've learned through my dealings and life that you can't reason with unreasonable and you can't be pragmatic with someone who only wants to kill you. It's best to demonstrate a show of force to make it clear, you are NOT a victim and they'll leave you alone. Only by demonstrating that to Iran will they even be willing to renegotiate...otherwise why should they when they feel we're a bunch of wimps who want to only be pragmatic.

I happen to understand psychology a lot better than you so insulting me and inferring that you're better because you consider yourself pragmatic. Well, I am and have always been pragmatic but as the definition states, it includes being sensible and realistic when considering practical solutions. I know the type of personality these people have and as a pragmatic person, I recognize that negotiations weren't working as they abided to some degree with our agreements but also committed heinous crimes against us through proxies and funding terror. So, since negotiations don't get the job done. Kill the bastard responsible for these actions and then the next time we're all at the table talking, there will be no doubt that this type of terror will be met with extreme justice. so now we can continue. THAT is pragmatic....unlike you who continues to think negotiations are the ONLY solution and killing the terrorist was unnecessary. Sorry, but one of us IS being reasonable and realistic and it isn't you.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,552
30,756
Colorado
Thank you. :) Here are some excerpts from this Reuters story.

Exclusive: IAEA found uranium traces at Iran
'atomic warehouse' - diplomats


• Samples taken by the U.N. nuclear watchdog at what Israel’s prime minister called a “secret atomic warehouse” in Tehran showed traces of uranium that Iran has yet to explain, two diplomats who follow the agency’s inspections work closely say.

• In a speech a year ago Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who vehemently opposed the deal, called on the IAEA to visit the site immediately, saying it had housed 15 kg (33 lb) of unspecified radioactive material that had since been removed.

• Those traces were, however, of uranium, the diplomats said - the same element Iran is enriching and one of only two fissile elements with which one can make the core of a nuclear bomb. One diplomat said the uranium was not highly enriched, meaning it was not purified to a level anywhere close to that needed for weapons.

• “There are lots of possible explanations,” that diplomat said. But since Iran has not yet given any to the IAEA it is hard to verify the particles’ origin, and it is also not clear whether the traces are remnants of material or activities that predate the landmark 2015 deal or more recent, diplomats say.

• The 2015 nuclear deal, which Netanyahu opposed, imposed tight restrictions on Iran's atomic program in exchange for sanctions relief, and was based on drawing a line under Iran's past activities. Both the IAEA and U.S. intelligence services (here) believe Iran had a nuclear weapons program that it ended more than a decade before the deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baloney_detector

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,552
30,756
Colorado
...and the report from the IAEA in which the IAEA stated and demonstrated that Iran was not complying with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution which put the JCPOA into force, with regards to the claims found in the article that you cited, can be found at...?

And, if the US is unwilling to comply with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution which put the JCPOA into force, then why should Iran be required to comply with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution which put the JCPOA into force?
I've looked through the IAEA reports. I didn't turn up any official report on the matter.

 
  • Like
Reactions: baloney_detector

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,552
30,756
Colorado
...and the report from the IAEA in which the IAEA stated and demonstrated that Iran was not complying with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution which put the JCPOA into force, with regards to the claims found in the article that you cited, can be found at...?

And, if the US is unwilling to comply with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution which put the JCPOA into force, then why should Iran be required to comply with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution which put the JCPOA into force?
I bet that was the plan.
 
Dec 2015
19,719
19,791
Arizona
TV: IAEA finds traces of radioactive material at Iran site flagged by Netanyahu

sorry, what was that?

Iran apparently was moving the materials around to avoid UN inspection. To the UN, all was well...to anyone with a brain...they were relocating materials from buildings about to be inspected.

Now you're going to say that intel from Mossad and Israel can't be trusted right? Isn't that the go to...when presented with details that prove you're wrong...dismiss as lies?
There are so many problems with this article and your assertions I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, WHY would anyone believe what Bibi Netanyahu says about anything, but particularly and more specifically about Iran? Bibi is as big a liar as Trump and it was Bibi who gave Trump his marching orders about getting OUT of the Iranian deal. So Trump DID...and now he and Bibi are genuinely surprised that Iran is suddenly doing what it wants regarding radioactive materials? What did they expect would happen?
Second, anyone who is under the impression that nuclear components can just be packed up in boxes-- and moved to other locations is batty as hell. This isn't like packing a suitcase, for Pete's sake.
Iranian labs and factories contain millions of valves, machines, storage tanks, mixing vats, pumps, compressors, voltage regulators, pressure sensors and fuel rods, as well as miles of piping and tons of deadly materials, including the radioactive kind. The job of inspecting is so daunting that the agency’s inspectors frequently describe themselves as buried.
Third, this isn't 1980. Inspections today involved high-tech surveillance--in real-time, including laser sensors, smart cameras and encrypted networks that let the inspectors closely monitor Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
AND last, WHY SHOULD Iran continue to follow rules set by the International Atomic Energy Agency when other countries like the U.S. have backed out? The minute--the second Trump renigged on the agreement--it was over--no matter how many other countries stayed and hoped for the best. Everyone KNEW what Iran would do--eventually. AND THEY DID and somehow RW Americans are surprised?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG
Feb 2007
6,192
3,860
USA
TV: IAEA finds traces of radioactive material at Iran site flagged by Netanyahu

sorry, what was that?

Iran apparently was moving the materials around to avoid UN inspection. To the UN, all was well...to anyone with a brain...they were relocating materials from buildings about to be inspected.

Now you're going to say that intel from Mossad and Israel can't be trusted right? Isn't that the go to...when presented with details that prove you're wrong...dismiss as lies?
...and the evidence that "Iran apparently was moving the materials around to avoid UN inspection" is...?

…and the evidence that "(Iran was) relocating materials from buildings about to be inspected" is...?

And, perhaps more importantly, the evidence that any of the alleged activities above had occurred after the JCPOA had gone into force via a UN Security Council Resolution is...?

:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Feb 2007
6,192
3,860
USA
I've looked through the IAEA reports. I didn't turn up any official report on the matter.

I strongly suspected that you wouldn't find such a report.

Otherwise, it would have been blasted all over right-wing media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en and Clara007