https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-war-nuclear-06-23-2025-63d873b977642a40986d1f1dee5c4b37


Quote:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Israel and Iran seemed to honor the fragile ceasefire between them for a second day Wednesday and U.S. President Donald Trump asserted that American and Iranian officials will talk next week, giving rise to cautious hope for longer-term peace. ... Iran has insisted that it will not give up its nuclear program. In a vote underscoring the tough path ahead, its parliament agreed to fast-track a proposal that would effectively stop the country’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. watchdog that has monitored the program for years. Ahead of the vote, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf criticized the IAEA for refusing “to even pretend to condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities” that the U.S. carried out Sunday. “For this reason, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran will suspend cooperation with the IAEA until security of nuclear facilities is ensured, and Iran’s peaceful nuclear program will move forward at a faster pace,” Qalibaf told lawmakers.

Well, no surprises there.

The regime is driven by a deeply held religious ideology that transcends the individual and eclipses all fear of death.

Of course the Iranian regime will not abandon its nuclear program... Why would it?

If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word...

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 11:55am:

If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word...

Do you think if we kept negotiating for a few more decades Iran would have stopped developing nukes?

Are you suggesting Trump caused Iran to spend the last few decades developing nukes?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 11:55am:

If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word...

A deal that allowed the regime to maintain its stance on developing its nuclear arms program...

In other words, you can do it... just don't get caught.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 11:58am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:55am: If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word... Do you think if we kept negotiating for a few more decades Iran would have stopped developing nukes? Are you suggesting Trump caused Iran to spend the last few decades developing nukes?

Iran just wanted a seat at the table with the big boys who all have nukes -
it wanted respect.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 12:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:55am: If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word... Do you think if we kept negotiating for a few more decades Iran would have stopped developing nukes? Are you suggesting Trump caused Iran to spend the last few decades developing nukes? Iran just wanted a seat at the table with the big boys who all have nukes - it wanted respect.

It wants to kill the Jews. It does not care whether you respect it.

I continue to be amazed at how some of the wokeist tragics here are so blinded by their ideology that they fail to see what very bad idea it would be to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. ::)

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 11:58am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:55am: If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word... Do you think if we kept negotiating for a few more decades Iran would have stopped developing nukes? Are you suggesting Trump caused Iran to spend the last few decades developing nukes?

No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

I'm saying that both the IAEA and US intelligence both assessed that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. What the JCPOA did was put strict, verifiable limits on Iran's nuclear activities to ensure they stayed peaceful, with the IAEA regularly confirming Iran's compliance up until Trump unilaterally pulled the US out in 2018.

What Trump's withdrawal actually did was remove the deal's enforcement and verification mechanisms, which allowed Iran to resume activities that the JCPOA had successfully capped.

So, no, Trump didn't cause Iran to spend decades developing nukes. He caused Iran to walk away from the restraints that were working.

If anything, he took a bad situation that was under control and tore up the controls. That's not the same thing as saying he caused the original weapons program. It's saying he recklessly dismantled the guardrails that were keeping it from restarting.

Given the pretext for the latest war was their uranium enrichment, I don't see why Trump should be rewarded for playing a part in cleaning up the mess he created.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 1:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:55am: If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word... Do you think if we kept negotiating for a few more decades Iran would have stopped developing nukes? Are you suggesting Trump caused Iran to spend the last few decades developing nukes? No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying that both the IAEA and US intelligence both assessed that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. What the JCPOA did was put strict, verifiable limits on Iran's nuclear activities to ensure they stayed peaceful, with the IAEA regularly confirming Iran's compliance up until Trump unilaterally pulled the U.S. out in 2018. What Trump's withdrawal actually did was remove the deal's enforcement and verification mechanisms, which allowed Iran to resume activities that the JCPOA had successfully capped. So, no, Trump didn't cause Iran to spend decades developing nukes. He caused Iran to walk away from the restraints that were working. If anything, he took a bad situation that was under control and tore up the controls. That's not the same thing as saying he caused the original weapons program. It's saying he recklessly dismantled the guardrails that were keeping it from restarting. Given the pretext for the latest war was their uranium enrichment, I don't see why Trump should be rewarded for playing a part in cleaning up the mess he created.

https://quadrant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/neville-obama.png

Quote:

What Trump's withdrawal actually did was remove the deal's enforcement and verification mechanisms, which allowed Iran to resume activities that the JCPOA had successfully capped. So, no, Trump didn't cause Iran to spend decades developing nukes. He caused Iran to walk away from the restraints that were working.

Iran never complied with it's obligations. Not in 2003. Not in 2013. Not in 2023. It gave the IAEA the runaround the whole time. The IAEA was not confirming compliance on Iran's part.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 1:15pm:

Quote: What Trump's withdrawal actually did was remove the deal's enforcement and verification mechanisms, which allowed Iran to resume activities that the JCPOA had successfully capped. So, no, Trump didn't cause Iran to spend decades developing nukes. He caused Iran to walk away from the restraints that were working. Iran never complied with it's obligations. Not in 2003. Not in 2013. Not in 2023. It gave the IAEA the runaround the whole time. The IAEA was not confirming compliance on Iran's part.

That's not what the IAEA reports on their website.

From 2013 to 2015, Iran engaged in negotiations leading to the JCPOA and once it was signed and in effect from 2015 until 2018 when Trump scrapped it, they were in full compliance.

In May 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated sanctions on Iran.

In response, Iran began to incrementally reduce its compliance with the deal's provisions. By February 2021, Iran had ceased implementing the Additional Protocol, which allowed for more intrusive inspections and limited IAEA access to its nuclear facilities.

The IAEA reported increasing difficulties in verifying Iran's nuclear activities during this time.

If someone hadn't torn up the deal, Iran likely would have remained compliant, wouldn't have elected a hardline, anti-West government that refuses further negotiations, and the sanctions that reignited hostilities wouldn't have been re-applied. Instead, we were left relying on Mr "Art of the Deal" to craft some new, better arrangement. not only did he fail spectacularly to deliver that, but he also obliterated whatever shred of good faith the West had managed to build in this arena.

But sure, we can't believe a word the IAEA say, unless it's of course to tell us Iran isn't complying to give Israel the excuse to strike Iran...

Quote:

From 2013 to 2015, Iran engaged in negotiations leading to the JCPOA and once it was signed and in effect from 2015 until 2018 when Trump scrapped it, they were in full compliance.

So why do some of the noncompliances reported this year date all the way back to 2003 and earlier?

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 1:41pm:

Quote: From 2013 to 2015, Iran engaged in negotiations leading to the JCPOA and once it was signed and in effect from 2015 until 2018 when Trump scrapped it, they were in full compliance. So why do some of the noncompliances reported this year date all the way back to 2003 and earlier?

Because the JCPOA was only signed in 2015.

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 1:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 1:41pm: Quote: From 2013 to 2015, Iran engaged in negotiations leading to the JCPOA and once it was signed and in effect from 2015 until 2018 when Trump scrapped it, they were in full compliance. So why do some of the noncompliances reported this year date all the way back to 2003 and earlier? Because the JCPOA was only signed in 2015. Were you dropped on your head as a child?

The IAEA did not say it was noncompliant in 2003, it said some of the current non-compliances date back to things Iran did over 20 years ago, for which it has been non-compliant ever since.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran-breach-non-proliferation-duties-diplomats-say-2025-06-12/


Quote:

A central issue is Iran's failure to provide the IAEA with credible explanations of how uranium traces detected at undeclared sites in Iran came to be there despite the agency having investigated the issue for years. The May 31 IAEA report, a board-mandated "comprehensive" account of developments, found three of the four locations "were part of an undeclared structured nuclear programme carried out by Iran until the early 2000s and that some activities used undeclared nuclear material".

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 12:34pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 12:31pm: freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:55am: If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word... Do you think if we kept negotiating for a few more decades Iran would have stopped developing nukes? Are you suggesting Trump caused Iran to spend the last few decades developing nukes? Iran just wanted a seat at the table with the big boys who all have nukes - it wanted respect. It wants to kill the Jews. It does not care whether you respect it.

Are you saying that the principal of MAD -
mutually assured destruction  -
would not apply to the Mullahs?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 5:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 12:34pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 12:31pm: freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 11:55am: If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word... Do you think if we kept negotiating for a few more decades Iran would have stopped developing nukes? Are you suggesting Trump caused Iran to spend the last few decades developing nukes? Iran just wanted a seat at the table with the big boys who all have nukes - it wanted respect. It wants to kill the Jews. It does not care whether you respect it. Are you saying that the principal of MAD - mutually assured destruction  - would not apply to the Mullahs?

It does not work on people who, in their own words, welcome death. Just look at Gaza. They assure their own destruction every time they attack Israel, but it is not a deterrent.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 6:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 5:49pm: Are you saying that the principal of MAD - mutually assured destruction  - would not apply to the Mullahs? It does not work on people who, in their own words, welcome death. Just look at Gaza. They assure their own destruction every time they attack Israel, but it is not a deterrent.

All the death rhetoric is something they tell Islamic halfwits to do
to help in their fight against Israel -
just like the Japs and their Kamikaze pilots -
I would say that the Iranian leaders want to live like any normal human being.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 7:33pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 6:54pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 5:49pm: Are you saying that the principal of MAD - mutually assured destruction  - would not apply to the Mullahs? It does not work on people who, in their own words, welcome death. Just look at Gaza. They assure their own destruction every time they attack Israel, but it is not a deterrent. All the death rhetoric is something they tell Islamic halfwits to do to help in their fight against Israel - just like the Japs and their Kamikaze pilots - I would say that the Iranian leaders want to live like any normal human being.

The Iranian leaders are Islamic extremists who regularly announce to the world their desire to wipe out the Jews, and who also recently announced their intention to continue their nuclear program, despite the high likelihood they will be killed.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2025 at 6:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 7:33pm: freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 6:54pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 5:49pm: Are you saying that the principal of MAD - mutually assured destruction  - would not apply to the Mullahs? It does not work on people who, in their own words, welcome death. Just look at Gaza. They assure their own destruction every time they attack Israel, but it is not a deterrent. All the death rhetoric is something they tell Islamic halfwits to do to help in their fight against Israel - just like the Japs and their Kamikaze pilots - I would say that the Iranian leaders want to live like any normal human being. The Iranian leaders are Islamic extremists who regularly announce to the world their desire to wipe out the Jews, and who also recently announced their intention to continue their nuclear program, despite the high likelihood they will be killed.

It depends on what you want to believe.

It's strange how intelligent scientists are only too glad to
help them out to make nuclear weapons.
Many of them were bumped off by Israel - all the top ones.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 1:45pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 1:43pm: freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 1:41pm: Quote: From 2013 to 2015, Iran engaged in negotiations leading to the JCPOA and once it was signed and in effect from 2015 until 2018 when Trump scrapped it, they were in full compliance. So why do some of the noncompliances reported this year date all the way back to 2003 and earlier? Because the JCPOA was only signed in 2015. Were you dropped on your head as a child? The IAEA did not say it was noncompliant in 2003, it said some of the current non-compliances date back to things Iran did over 20 years ago, for which it has been non-compliant ever since.

Full compliance was reported during the active period of the JCPOA.

It only ended after Trump withdrew and reapplied sanctions.

Are you trying to deny this?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 27^th, 2025 at 9:57am:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 1:45pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 1:43pm: freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 1:41pm: Quote: From 2013 to 2015, Iran engaged in negotiations leading to the JCPOA and once it was signed and in effect from 2015 until 2018 when Trump scrapped it, they were in full compliance. So why do some of the noncompliances reported this year date all the way back to 2003 and earlier? Because the JCPOA was only signed in 2015. Were you dropped on your head as a child? The IAEA did not say it was noncompliant in 2003, it said some of the current non-compliances date back to things Iran did over 20 years ago, for which it has been non-compliant ever since. Full compliance was reported during the active period of the JCPOA. It only ended after Trump withdrew and reapplied sanctions. Are you trying to deny this?

We could have gone on burying our head in the sand and "reporting" full compliance right up till they nuked Israel. But once they nuked Israel, we would be pretty much forced to change the reports to reflect reality.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran-breach-non-proliferation-duties-diplomats-say-2025-06-12/


Quote:

A central issue is Iran's failure to provide the IAEA with credible explanations of how uranium traces detected at undeclared sites in Iran came to be there despite the agency having investigated the issue for years. The May 31 IAEA report, a board-mandated "comprehensive" account of developments, found three of the four locations "were part of an undeclared structured nuclear programme carried out by Iran until the early 2000s and that some activities used undeclared nuclear material".

So we can only trust the IAEA when they tell us what we want to believe?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 27^th, 2025 at 10:16am:

So we can only trust the IAEA when they tell us what we want to believe?

I don't think anyone actually wants to believe Iran is going to nuke Israel. But there is only so long you can stay in denial.

Even the best case scenario from the JCPOA was not expected to prevent Iran nuking Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action


Quote:

On 18 October 2015 E.U. High Representative Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif jointly announced "Adoption Day". In June 2016, IAEA investigators reported that they had reported traces of uranium found at the Parchin facility in December 2015. After 15 years, many provisions of the JCPOA would expire, including most enrichment provisions. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised that Republicans would discuss the agreement respectfully in September.[185][186] Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer distinguished the nuclear and non-nuclear aspects. His conclusion was: "when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-united-states/story?id=123020009


Quote:

If all parties adhered to the deal, experts held that it likely would have prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

That's not very long, even if it did work. Just Iran giving the anti proliferation authorities more of the runaround.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 27^th, 2025 at 10:16am:

So we can only trust the IAEA when they tell us what we want to believe?

"There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.

"Will be peace or will be bad proper one."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GuWI-KTbgAESFKM?.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ip8A0jK.jpeg

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 1:27pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 1:15pm: Iran never complied with it's obligations. Not in 2003. Not in 2013. Not in 2023. It gave the IAEA the runaround the whole time. The IAEA was not confirming compliance on Iran's part. That's not what the IAEA reports on their website.

FD is right , sadskip is a bullshitter with TDS.

If Sadskip took the time to read what the IAEA says he would find Iran hasn't complied with the NPT during the rule of any US President.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran/iaea-and-iran-iaea-resolutions

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 1:01am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 1:27pm: freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2025 at 1:15pm: Iran never complied with it's obligations. Not in 2003. Not in 2013. Not in 2023. It gave the IAEA the runaround the whole time. The IAEA was not confirming compliance on Iran's part. That's not what the IAEA reports on their website. FD is right , sadskip is a bullshitter with TDS. If Sadskip took the time to read what the IAEA says he would find Iran hasn't complied with the NPT during the rule of any US President. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran/iaea-and-iran-iaea-resolutions

My claim was that Iran was compliant during the JCPOA until Trump withdrew and reimposed sanctions.

Your link proves that if you bothered to read the reports it links to...  Stop misrepresenting what I've said to something you think you can counter, you liar.  Even if you ended up stepping on a rake that hit you in the face, there's still no need to lie...

From your link, if you read the reports, you'll find that it says:

Early 2000s - Non-Compliance Identified
In 2003, the IAEA reported that Iran had conducted undeclared nuclear activities, including uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, which were not reported to the agency as required under its safeguards agreement. This led the IAEA Board of Governors to find Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations.

2015-2018 - Compliance During JCPOA Implementation
Following the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, the IAEA consistently verified that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments under the agreement. Reports during this period indicated that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA terms.

Post-2018 - Renewed Concerns and Non-Compliance
After the US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Iran began reducing its compliance with the agreement's provisions. By 2025, the IAEA reported that Iran had conducted covert nuclear activities involving undeclared nuclear materials at several sites, leading to findings of non-compliance with its safeguards obligations.

My first contribution to this thread was,


ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 11:55am:

If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word...

And yes, it's still correct, proven by the very link you posted.

Thanks for inadvertently supporting exactly what I said.

You really should try reading beyond the headlines and the garbage your private MAGA Facebook or Telegram groups are feeding you, you absolute dumb dumb.

The issue here is simple: because I'm critical of Trump,  because I hold him accountable for his own decisions, decisions he made freely, you've lazily tried to paint me as being pro-Iran.

I'm not. Iran aren't the good guys, nobody is pretending they are. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore Trump's central role in the chain of events we've all just witnessed. Iran's resumed weapons research and uranium enrichment, the very things now being waved around as a pretext for war, are a direct consequence of Trump withdrawing from the JCPOA and slapping sanctions back on them.

Before that, Iran was compliant. That was widely reported by the IAEA. That's not spin. That's not opinion. That's documented fact.

It's an inconvenient truth for MAGA, sure, but honestly, who cares? Facts aren't interested in your feelings.

No amount of bad faith, reality-denying arguments will change that.

Quote:

My claim was that Iran was compliant during the JCPOA until Trump withdrew and reimposed sanctions.

Were they "actually compliant" or "reported" as being compliant?

Seeing as you are a bit slow on the uptake on this one, I'll give you a hint. I am asking if you can distinguish truth from box ticking.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 8:45am:

Quote: My claim was that Iran was compliant during the JCPOA until Trump withdrew and reimposed sanctions. Were they "actually compliant" or "reported" as being compliant? Seeing as you are a bit slow on the uptake on this one, I'll give you a hint. I am asking if you can distinguish truth from box ticking.

You can't pick and choose when you want to believe the IAEA.

Your problem is that Iran being compliant doesn't suit your narrative.

Too bad.

Stop demanding the facts bend to your beliefs.

Iran still wants to build nukes.

Of course it does.

What possible reason would it have to abandon its nuclear weapons program?

For public consumption, the regime has survived a joint Israeli-US attack, which is currently working in he mullahs' favour.

A nuclear weapon would ensure that Iran could project power and influence without serious provocation, as it continues with its long-term ideological goals of establishing a Middle Eastern Shia crescent and the destruction of Israel.

Publicly abandoning its nuclear weapons program would end any hope of being perceived as the most powerful state in the region, surrendering that to its regional, Arab enemy - Saudi Arabia.

What's in it for the mullahs' Iran to dismantle the program?

Cui bono?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 8:55am:

Iran still wants to build nukes. Of course it does. What possible reason would it have to abandon its nuclear weapons program?

Exactly. 

But back to my original point, if only someone hadn't torn up the agreement that had Iran going in the opposite direction, as confirmed by the IAEA, who repeatedly verified Iran's compliance with the reductions in uranium enrichment and the dismantling of that capability during the period that the agreement was active.

Instead, thanks to that someone, we watched the deal shredded, sanctions slammed back into place, Iran resume its weapons research and enrichment, and diplomacy collapse entirely as the US demonstrated to the world that it could not be trusted and that its word counted for nothing tying the hands of even the next administrations as they tried to find a diplomatic solution.

And now, here we are, on the doorstep of yet another war, one that could have been so easily avoided, if only...

But that's an inconvenient truth to many whose red hats have clearly cut off the blood supply to their brains, so I suppose the argument will continue, and the misinformation will keep flowing to help soothe their cognitive dissonance.

As those same people loudly call for Nobel Peace Prizes, I'm left wondering, why exactly should we be rewarding someone who proudly claims they put out a fire that, as it turns out, they lit themselves and may have left still smouldering?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 9:03am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 8:55am: Iran still wants to build nukes. Of course it does. What possible reason would it have to abandon its nuclear weapons program? Exactly.  But back to my original point, if only someone hadn't torn up the agreement that had Iran going in the opposite direction, as confirmed by the IAEA, who repeatedly verified Iran's compliance with the reductions in uranium enrichment and the dismantling of that capability during the period that the agreement was active.

And Iran immediately returned to enriching Uranium, thereby confirming that it always intended to advance its nuclear weapons program whenever it could, which the original deal allowed it to publicly maintain.

In the meantime, billions in wealth were repatriated to Iran, much of which it used to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and, likely, sleeper cells throughout the world.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 9:12am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 9:03am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 8:55am: Iran still wants to build nukes. Of course it does. What possible reason would it have to abandon its nuclear weapons program? Exactly.  But back to my original point, if only someone hadn't torn up the agreement that had Iran going in the opposite direction, as confirmed by the IAEA, who repeatedly verified Iran's compliance with the reductions in uranium enrichment and the dismantling of that capability during the period that the agreement was active. And Iran immediately returned to enriching Uranium, thereby confirming that it always intended to advance its nuclear weapons program whenever it could, which the original deal allowed it to publicly maintain. In the meantime, billions in wealth were repatriated to Iran, much of which it used to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and, likely, sleeper cells throughout the world.

Right, so we can find a diplomatic solution to the problem, which we had, or it could be cancelled by someone who claimed they'd get a better deal, miserabley fail at that despite having the reputation as a deal maker, then set the conditions for war, then choose war as the solution despite being praised as a President of Peace and being anti-war.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 9:17am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 9:12am: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 9:03am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 8:55am: Iran still wants to build nukes. Of course it does. What possible reason would it have to abandon its nuclear weapons program? Exactly.  But back to my original point, if only someone hadn't torn up the agreement that had Iran going in the opposite direction, as confirmed by the IAEA, who repeatedly verified Iran's compliance with the reductions in uranium enrichment and the dismantling of that capability during the period that the agreement was active. And Iran immediately returned to enriching Uranium, thereby confirming that it always intended to advance its nuclear weapons program whenever it could, which the original deal allowed it to publicly maintain. In the meantime, billions in wealth were repatriated to Iran, much of which it used to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and, likely, sleeper cells throughout the world. Right, so we can find a diplomatic solution to the problem, which we had, or it could be cancelled by someone who claimed they'd get a better deal, miserabley fail at that despite having the reputation as a deal maker, then set the conditions for war, then choose war as the solution despite being praised as a President of Peace and being anti-war.

Thats your problem, TDS.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 8:48am:

freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 8:45am: Quote: My claim was that Iran was compliant during the JCPOA until Trump withdrew and reimposed sanctions. Were they "actually compliant" or "reported" as being compliant? Seeing as you are a bit slow on the uptake on this one, I'll give you a hint. I am asking if you can distinguish truth from box ticking. You can't pick and choose when you want to believe the IAEA.

The IAEA is not God. It can be wrong. If I am picking and choosing when to believe the IAEA, then so is the IAEA.


Quote:

Your problem is that Iran being compliant doesn't suit your narrative.

My problem is that it does not suit the latest IAEA report.

I knew this one would confuse you. Let's try again.

Were they "actually compliant" or "reported" as being compliant?

Seeing as you are a bit slow on the uptake on this one, I'll give you a hint. I am asking if you can distinguish truth from box ticking.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 9:35am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 8:48am: freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 8:45am: Quote: My claim was that Iran was compliant during the JCPOA until Trump withdrew and reimposed sanctions. Were they "actually compliant" or "reported" as being compliant? Seeing as you are a bit slow on the uptake on this one, I'll give you a hint. I am asking if you can distinguish truth from box ticking. You can't pick and choose when you want to believe the IAEA. The IAEA is not God. It can be wrong. If I am picking and choosing when to believe the IAEA, then so is the IAEA. [quote]Your problem is that Iran being compliant doesn't suit your narrative.

My problem is that it does not suit the latest IAEA report.

I knew this one would confuse you. Let's try again.

Were they "actually compliant" or "reported" as being compliant?

Seeing as you are a bit slow on the uptake on this one, I'll give you a hint. I am asking if you can distinguish truth from box ticking.[/quote]

The only way you will get Proudroo to say they were wrong is by saying that Trump was wronger.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 9:17am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 9:12am: ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 9:03am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 8:55am: Iran still wants to build nukes. Of course it does. What possible reason would it have to abandon its nuclear weapons program? Exactly.  But back to my original point, if only someone hadn't torn up the agreement that had Iran going in the opposite direction, as confirmed by the IAEA, who repeatedly verified Iran's compliance with the reductions in uranium enrichment and the dismantling of that capability during the period that the agreement was active. And Iran immediately returned to enriching Uranium, thereby confirming that it always intended to advance its nuclear weapons program whenever it could, which the original deal allowed it to publicly maintain. In the meantime, billions in wealth were repatriated to Iran, much of which it used to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and, likely, sleeper cells throughout the world. Right, so we can find a diplomatic solution to the problem, which we had, or it could be cancelled by someone who claimed they'd get a better deal, miserabley fail at that despite having the reputation as a deal maker, then set the conditions for war, then choose war as the solution despite being praised as a President of Peace and being anti-war.

There is no diplomatic solution possible that will convince the Islamic Republic to abandon its ideological goals in the region, nor the nuclear weapons necessary to ensure that they are largely unchallenged...

What can be achieved diplomatically is the charade of nuclear weapons program abandonment. No external agency has complete oversight over a state's acknowledged government's actions to determine with certainty anything within that state.

That Iran could immediately start enriching Uranium meant that it had not dismantled its enrichment capability, and that its will to continue enrichment persisted.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2025 at 9:35am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 8:48am: freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2025 at 8:45am: Quote: My claim was that Iran was compliant during the JCPOA until Trump withdrew and reimposed sanctions. Were they "actually compliant" or "reported" as being compliant? Seeing as you are a bit slow on the uptake on this one, I'll give you a hint. I am asking if you can distinguish truth from box ticking. You can't pick and choose when you want to believe the IAEA. The IAEA is not God. It can be wrong. If I am picking and choosing when to believe the IAEA, then so is the IAEA. [quote]Your problem is that Iran being compliant doesn't suit your narrative.

My problem is that it does not suit the latest IAEA report.

I knew this one would confuse you. Let's try again.

Were they "actually compliant" or "reported" as being compliant?

Seeing as you are a bit slow on the uptake on this one, I'll give you a hint. I am asking if you can distinguish truth from box ticking.[/quote]

Is that what they're "reporting" or did that "actually happen"?

Stupidity aside, I don't know if we're even having the same conversation at this point.

I am not saying Iran is compliant now, because they're not.

They were compliant when the JCPOA was active. That is not an opinion, that is what the IAEA investigated and confirmed. The only reason the JCPOA collapsed is because the United States unilaterally withdrew in 2018 and reimposed sanctions.

That withdrawal triggered the chain of events that led Iran to progressively walk away from their commitments and resume uranium enrichment well beyond civilian levels.

Hence:


ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2025 at 11:55am:

If only someone hadn't torn up the deal and reimposed sanctions, pushing Iran from compliance to defiance, from dismantling their nuclear capabilities to ramping them up, from engaging at the negotiating table to electing a hardline government that no longer trusts the West to honour its word...

Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to:

- Daily access for IAEA inspectors to key nuclear facilities.
- 24/7 surveillance via cameras and real-time monitoring.
- The most intrusive verification regime ever negotiated, including tracking Iran's entire nuclear supply chain from uranium mining to enrichment.

This is not speculation. This is what Iran agreed to. This is what they were doing, until the United States broke the deal.

The IAEA itself said this about the verification measures:


Quote:

"The JCPOA is a substantial gain for verification, because the combination of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, Additional Protocol and additional transparency measures represents the most robust verification system in existence anywhere in the world." Link

For compliance records, you can review the actual IAEA board reports here:

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran/iaea-and-iran-iaea-board-reports

If you want to verify compliance during the time the JCPOA was in effect, look specifically between January 16, 2016, and May 8, 2018,  though, to be fair, Iran actually remained compliant for some time even after the US pulled out.

If you're going to continue to push the claim that Iran wasn't compliant, you'll need to post actual evidence. Not gut feelings. Not misread headlines. Not semantic games. Show your work.

Quote:

They were compliant when the JCPOA was active. That is not an opinion, that is what the IAEA investigated and confirmed.

Does this confirm it?

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran-breach-non-proliferation-duties-diplomats-say-2025-06-12/


Quote:

The U.N. nuclear watchdog's 35-nation Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations on Thursday for the first time in almost 20 years, raising the prospect of reporting it to the U.N. Security Council. A central issue is Iran's failure to provide the IAEA with credible explanations of how uranium traces detected at undeclared sites in Iran came to be there despite the agency having investigated the issue for years. The May 31 IAEA report, a board-mandated "comprehensive" account of developments, found three of the four locations "were part of an undeclared structured nuclear programme carried out by Iran until the early 2000s and that some activities used undeclared nuclear material".

Are you still struggling to tell the difference between the truth and which box is ticked?