"Iran war cost/ duration" Topic

77, thanks, lots there to chew on when I have some time. But I will point out immediately that we are now talking a blockade, and those always take a long time to have effect.

Trump wants a new Iranian regime to have an economy to rebuild on. And he is right to want that. But presumably they will have to reopen the wells that will soon have to shut down or pump the oil onto the sand.

My assumption is that the Trump team is getting professional advice from War and State and taking calculated risks. I guess that is a "bet."

We know, don't we, that Eisenhower had prepared a statement accepting blame if the D-Day landings failed. So that too was a bet.

It has been widely reported that Iran had enough 66% enriched uranium for 10 bombs. Do you accept that? Is that a BET we wanted to take?

We were able to de-Nazify Germany, and re-constitute Imperial Japan, because we had destroyed not only their military but their ideology. Master race my ass. And we had a massive occupation force in place. Neither of those things are or will be possible in Tran. Regime change is essential in the long run but only the Iranian people can do that. I ASSUME that the CIA and Mossad are not incompetent and steps are being taken, but why would anyone expect that to be done quickly?

We will not know about the uranium until the regime collapses and a million angry Iranians take a bloody and highly deserved revenge, rooting out their oppressors. And probably hanging on to the uranium, but without the jihad ideology no more a threat than a dozen other nations.

The military part was the easy part, and impressibly executed. Now the long haul. While everyone else scoffs and cavils.

Doc +1

Yes, one not only has to assume the current US administration are total idiots (which many are all to willingly to accept and some actually wish and hope for), but that Israel as well are total buffoons. But in addition, that the Radical Fundamentalist Islamic regime of Iran are indeed Albert Einstein‘s gifted grandchildren and that Allah is indeed blessing their every endeavor against the infidel scum.

We know with 100% accuracy, that Iran not only was working on long range missiles, they had them and used two during the conflict so far. I'm willing to believe Iran was working hard for that weapon of mass destruction as well and they would willingly use it.

I believe we are going to see quite a little bit between now and the middle of summer.

I also realize now there is a large highly spoiled and pampered segment of the population of the U.S., who if alive during WW2 and had been required to sacrifice for more than a month, would have happily capitulated to Japan and Germany.

The ones who order:

"I'll take a quad-shot, extra-hot, half-caff latte with exactly two pumps of sugar-free vanilla, oat milk—but please make it extra dry with only the stiff foam on top. And could you pour the shots over the foam so it doesn't bruise the crema? Thanks."

Or ordering a wine:

"I'm looking for something high-altitude, ideally a pre-phylloxera Nerello Mascalese from the northern slopes of Etna. I'm really over anything with too much 'oak makeup'—I want something reductive, high-acid, and strictly low-intervention. And please, tell me you have some Zalto stems? I simply can't drink out of a thick rim."

Or a tea order:

"I'd love a first-flush Darjeeling, but only if it's single-estate and picked from the clonal bushes. Could you make sure the water is exactly 185 degrees? I find anything higher really scalds the leaves and destroys the delicate muscatel notes. Oh, and I'll take that gaiwan style—I really prefer a short, concentrated steep over a western-style pot. No milk or sugar, obviously; I wouldn't want to mask the terroir."

The ones Gripping about $4.74 USD a gallon gas, are happy to pay $8 USD a day plus tip for a high sugar latte at Starbucks or Café du monde.

The ones who won't sacrifice their luxuries. 😏

Americans fight best when we feel a war is justified. A good "war leader" president is someone who can make the case for a justifiable war. What many of us have been trying to say is that by the way Trumps started this conflict he has proven to be a poor war leader. He never made the case to the American people for this war. The reasons and goals have constantly changed. He stated the war would be over in a matter of days, its not. He has declared victory numerous times, but the war goes on. He says the Strait is open, but it isn't. He says Iran wants peace and they say they don't. Meanwhile the regime is still in power, they still have their uranium and terrorist attacks will still be on going. Thus making a case that this war has been justified hard.

The ones who won't sacrifice their luxuries, or even pay taxes, are in charge, 35th!

I have decided to stop bringing up the silly matter of the Constitution giving Congress the power to declare war.
Why?
Every time I start to start a NEW THREAD, it gets deleted. So, why bother?
Also, Congress is too pussy whipped to even think about asserting their unique power.

So, we now have the lame candy ass War Powers Act. The 60 day deadline has passed. Laughably, the "War Department" 🙄 has declared that the ceasefire has stopped the clock.
And H has said that the ceasefire is still in place despite Iranian attacks in the Straits of Hormuz.
That's a rather broad definition of "ceasefire", hainna?

I sadly kiss the Constitution goodbye. It had a nice run.
Historical philosophers have long posited that the average lifespan of a republic or democracy is 200-250 years. Ironically, we will be celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in July.

I ask the biggest fans of this war, which is not a war, to explain exactly how we will deprive Iran of its uranium.
What's YOUR plan? Don't make a fool out of yourself, again, by asking what MY plan is. 🙄

The ones who won't sacrifice their luxuries, or even pay taxes, are in charge, 35th!

Sic Semper.

Regime change WILL occur. The instruments of oppression require logistical support which is being steadily degraded. What proportion of the regime's armed force is ideologically committed? Half is probably a generous estimate. The economy is collapsing and the men with guns will feel the effects last, as usual, but they will feel them, as will their families.

Iran is a big place, and the regime is having a hard time moving troops from place to place given US air power. Bridges come down and are not rebuilt. At some point some places will have enough angry people with imported guns to resist. That will spread. It may take a year. Trump HAS a year, and more.

As I said, we may not recover the uranium, but it is only a problem in the hands of a jihadist regime. We do not worry unduly about Pakistan's nukes.

Grattan, yes but.

40% of us are never going to support anything Trump does, ever, no matter what. And they are the organized opposition.

Happily, Trump's power as CinC will be sufficient to wage whatever we are waging until January 2029, as long as he has the support of 34 senators. He has and will keep that and I believe has the will to persist.

It's hard being a pundit.

"I don't believe I said two weeks."

"I'm going to go out on a limb and predict regime change by mid-April, maybe sooner. And the Strait will soon be open with little to no Iranian interference. One way or another we shall soon see."

TMP link

"We were able to de-Nazify Germany, and re-constitute Imperial Japan,"

The "we" was an alliance of the Free World + China & the USSR. The US seems to have neglected to engage its allies this time.

"Why not actually address the analysis offered?"

I did.
YouTube link

Why not watch the video provided?

"As I said, we may not recover the uranium, but it is only a problem in the hands of a jihadist regime. We do not worry unduly about Pakistan's nukes."

Changing goal posts again?

John I've said what I would do on many occasions. Like others, you most have chosen to ignore those comments.

Me in charge, they would never touch the ground the uranium is buried under and live to step away from it again. Me, I might even contaminate it. Me, I'd hunt down every cockroach that wears a Republican guard uniform and exterminate them like the vermin they are. Me, if they fire on a ship in the straits, I destroy some key infrastructure site. They fire at allies, I destroy more. They send out their motorboats, I sink anything that looks like one and start blowing up harbors. Me, I do exactly what I said earlier in this thread and put their relatives on ships that want to run the straits.

Me, I'd have hit all the bridges the first time.

Me, I'd wait until the heat in Tehran is at its worst, then knock out the electricity. See how well leadership handles the bunkers then.

Me, I'd give Israel a free hand. No U.S. restraints.

They want to meet Allah, id oblige them. No waiting. If they truly want to meet him, why hide in holes?

Me, I believe this war is way overdue and extremely well deserved.
Me, I think the President is way too soft!

You asked what I would do. Fortunately i am not in charge. I have absolutely NO LOVE for those who run Iran. Little respect for those who allowed them to take over.

When it comes to Iran and the Radical Fundamentalist Muslims who run it, I don't give a damn what "the world" thinks of what we do to them.

Ochoin, glad to see you are hanging on my every word, but I despair of ever meeting your exacting standards.

Perhaps my degree of confidence in my mid-April prediction might have been suggested by the phrase "out on a limb"?

You seem more concerned with scoring debating points than with substance. Did you debate in high school?

When one changes goalposts here, they are just following the example of our Fearless Leaders.
Every day, there are new rules changes and victory conditions.

I especially love trash talking fanatics. That always goads them into surrendering.

New operation, new ROE, new 60 days.

link

Of course both parties will try to maneuver within the existing statutes.

John, the trash talk must be followed by the beat-down.

John, a thread discussing war powers based on the American system of government would seem appropriate here. Especially regarding the intent of the original authors. But as the Mandalorian might now say,
"That is not the way, anymore"

The "we" was an alliance of the Free World + China & the USSR.

To be fair the UK had it's own version of "Allies Amnesia" in the early WWII years.

"Britain Stands Alone!".

Except for Australia, British West Indies, Burma, Canada, India (which, at the time, included Pakistan, East Pakistan and Ceylon), Singapore and Hong Kong- the latter two supplied mainly labourers), New Zealand, Rhodesia, South Africa and a few other colonies and Dominions. Then there's the foreign nationals who flocked to the UK. There were enough to raise two armoured divisions (Czech and Polish) by 1944, fill several RAF squadrons and man a number of ships. So "Stands Alone" but with Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Norway, Poland, The Netherlands and others standing with Britain. There were even a few from the US, pretending to be Canadians.

But that's what National Mythology does- it takes the lies of national leaders and shapes them like truth (look at the "history" article Armand posted at TMP link , where the author couldn't even spell "Sydney" correctly, and downplayed or ignored the RAN and Army Service Corps small ships). Even here we have "Bill-Jim, the Invincible ANZAC" of WWI.

Dal, remember the BLACKHAWK comics ? They didn't give the little Chinese guy a plane, though.

doc +1

OVI +1

Dal, remember the BLACKHAWK comics ? They didn't give the little Chinese guy a plane, though.

I never saw those, Doc. At least not that I remember. The British Commando and some of the US super hero comics (Superman, Batman and Flash, from memory) were about all we could get at the local newsagent, in the 60's.

US influence was much reduced back then, Doc. There were no MacD's or KFC, Coke came in one flavour and Pepsi was known, but rarely seen. Soda was what you put in whisky (if you must) and not for kids, and we went to the milk bar to buy lollies, not the drug store to buy candy. That changed over the years, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse (please, please take Taco Bell back!).

PS The only American things I remember really fondly are Barbara Eden and Elizabeth Montgomery…….

But you had Emma Peel.

Check the Wikipedia article on Blackhawk. It was a pretty big deal for a long time.

But you had Emma Peel.

Unfortunately not. Mum ruled the TV after the news and The Avengers must have clashed with one of her programmes.

Just checked Wiki. I'm sure I never saw those, mate. But "DC Comics" strikes a bell. Not sure why.

Well, Dal, I'm sorry. No doubt she loved you and you her, but that might qualify as adolescent abuse.

As to Blackhawk, I was reading it passionately in the 1950s, so in grade school, and it is likely enough that it was the basis of my understanding that the Nazis conquered a bunch f European nations and that some from those nations fought on.

The Chinese character, Chop Chop, was portrayed with the typical racism of that time, and happily they DID upgrade him gradually over the years.

but that might qualify as adolescent abuse.

It wasn't all bad. I didn't have to put up with that supercilious Steed, for a starter.

I wasn't a big comic reader. They ate into what little pocket money I had and there were higher priorities- Airfix and Timpo figures, Airfix and Bandai plastic model kits, etc. I remember, I think, one US comic, though. Something about a ghost commanding a US army tank, doing missions that the SAS wouldn't touch and which was able to dispatch Tigers with ease, set in the Western Desert. Does that ring a bell?

Not the desert part. There was a Stuart light tank haunted by ol JEB but my recollection is it was France 44. But maybe not!

I think I'd have rather been in a Sherman haunted b William Tecumseh.

There was a Stuart light tank haunted by ol JEB

That's probably it. It's probably revealing- I can't remember the comic, but I can remember that the Timpo Confederates had brown hats (not kepis) and that once touched, an Airfix Roman's shield could not be expected to stay on the figure for more than 30 seconds. Regardless of glue, pins or any other fastener (mumble, grumble, f….).

We may have strayed a step or two off topic, methinks…

Not the desert part. There was a Stuart light tank haunted by ol JEB but my recollection is it was France 44. But maybe not!

Looks like it started in North Africa:

". . . at the time of the ghost's arrival, Jeb is a sergeant in the United States Army who commands an M3 Stuart tank fighting with the Allies in the North African Campaign."

I think I'd have rather been in a Sherman haunted b William Tecumseh.

They got the Sherman upgrade later:

"A new M3 tank is eventually replaced by an M4A1 Sherman tank[9] that sees them through to the end of the war. Despite a story that involves the ghost of General William T. Sherman being assigned to the tank after the crew switches to the Sherman,[10] General Stuart's ghost continues to watch over the crew until war's end."

Haunted Tank

link

I had only heard of that comic, but I fondly remember reading some of the Sgt. Rock ones! :)

Thanks, Steve. So my memory's not 100% useless.

Was never a big fan of the WW2 comics. More Spider Man and Thor (silver age Marvel). I think I started around Spider Man 40's. (Kept them and sold much, gave the rest to my kids. )

What I foolishly did was buy those hard plastic armies always advertised on the back cover. CW, Rev War, Knights. Almost impossible not to break the stands. Somehow still have the knights. One side white, one black. Actually in pretty darn good shape! Ends of some lances broken off. A few mace heads. A banner here or there. But considering how fragile, pretty good.

I think I learned after buying 3. 🙂

What I foolishly did was buy those hard plastic armies always advertised on the back cover.

I got the first one shown here back in the early to mid-1970s and I still feel cheated:

link

link

They always looked so great when you were 7 and 8! At least I never bought the tank you could ride in. Kids down the street did. Nor did I buy or fall for the X-ray glasses. 😂

So now we're talking about things advertised in comic books.

My, how the whiny have fallen.

Oil below $100 USD a barrel.
Stock market booming.
Iranian "leadership"— which even Trump publicly admits is a questionable proposition— is flailing.
And Rubio has travelled to the Vatican to say, "No, Your Holiness, there is not a God-given national right to nuclear weapons for fascist terrorist states." Which should have been a "Duh." (I miss John Paul II— now there was a Pope with actual guts.)

Iran is down to ski-boats with small arms. If they keep this nonsense up in the Straits, they soon will be down to flamingo-headed pool floats. (The Gayatollah probably has a supply.) Even the dolphins are saying "Are you NUTS???!!!"

Everything I have predicted is coming true.
Everything you guys whined about is proving FALSE.

From the beginning, this fight has centered on one clearly stated premise: Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Ever.

That has been the purpose, that has been the goal. Nothing else. Claims that it wasn't the goal are provably false, with a simple look at the President's statement to the people.

The only "movement" of any "post," by the US, is to say that the "uranium dust" be turned over to the US. Right now it's buried under tons of rock. We know where it is. We know they have no ability to move it themselves. Ideally, we'd like to send in our trained teams to collect it and transport it out of Iran entirely, without interference from nut jobs. But if we just have to shoot anybody who approaches the sites, well that's just what we'll do. Either way, no nuke for Iran. That's pretty much done and dusted.

Whether or not the action was legal has also been dealt with. Congress had a vote. They authorized the action. Even then, it all took place within the 60 day window of the (unconstitutional) War Powers Act. So at no point was the action either illegal nor unconstitutional, any more than it was for Clinton, Bush, or Obama to take military actions in situations of even less imminent threat than this was.

And yes, this was an imminent threat. When somebody threatens to kill you over and over and over again, and is constantly shooting at you and your family and friends, and tells you he has the ingredients to make a bomb which he will use to blow up your house, you have to take that threat seriously; you have to assume it is imminent. Even the Portland police department would act based on the kind of public statements made by Iran, if made by an individual.

What is the most central responsibility of any government, or government body, or President?
The safety and security of the American people and the protection of their rights, at home and abroad.
Period.
No, it isn't the economy, stupid, though the economy is a part of that. It's defending the US against all threats, foreign or domestic. And that "foreign" bit includes Iran, or anyone else who makes threats against America and her people. ANYONE.

Was/is Iran a threat to the safety and security of the American people and our rights?
Would they have used nuclear weapons to threaten us, or even used them to attack us? Are you really willing to bet that they would not?
I'm not. Trump isn't. And I appreciate that.

I see some trying to say that the Iranian leadership is just stringing us along while they regroup and strengthen themselves. That interpretation is based on assuming that they *can* strengthen themselves. Oh, I know they're idiotic enough to believe they can, that Allah will come through for them in the end. (He hasn't so far, but fanaticism brooks no facts.) But their belief and public posturing isn't relevant— none of that means they *can* strengthen. They don't have anything to strengthen, and roadside IEDs only work if someone's actually moving along the road. You can't mine the air. And without ships, you can't mine the sea, either. They can't build ships. They can't build planes. They can't even build tanks, not that tanks would be of any use. They don't even have AA emplacements. Everything has to be brought in from outside, and we can see the routes. What the hell are they going to "strengthen" with delays?
The only answer isn't themselves— it's political opposition within the US who they hope will be strengthened by delay. But that is dependent on the US economy— and their ability to impact the US economy is SOLELY dependent on them being able to convince the world that they can make good a threat to close the Straits. And even that doesn't affect the US economy— just everybody else stupid enough to base their economic structure on commerce with Iran and the Persian Gulf states. Oh, yeah, they had people nervous for awhile. But they made a mistake— instead of blustering, they actually opened fire… and missed. And then their assets (f you can call a glorified bass boat an asset) got hammered by the US. Again. And the world got to see where the real strength lies, and where the real weakness lies. Hint for the utterly clueless: America has the strength, Iran has none at all.

Now I predict there will be a few more scattered smackdowns here and there. But Iran is gonna factionalize (at worst) into petty groups each declaring themselves to be the True Islamic Revolutionary Whatever, and they'll shoot each other and every once and a while someone else— ineffective, but irritating. But there's also a possibility— and a strong one— that either while or (best case) before that happens, the Iranian people will find a way to rise up against the violent thugs. It's happened before; it can happen now.

In the meantime, the isolated idjit "diplomats" from Iran at the UN and other embassies will continue to bluster and blow— because if they don't, when they get home they know they will be tortured and executed by the hardliners before the latter fall themselves. If a revolution occurs and the fanatics are ousted, then they can claim they were coerced (possibly even truthfully) by threats against their families, etc., etc., and hope that more moderate or pro-democracy leaders in Iran will show mercy and let them off the hook. But in the meantime, don't take their propaganda as anything other than that. They are not the voice of Iran. They can be ignored.

In short, to quote the great Ferris Bueller: "Why are you still here? It's over. Go home."

Parz, I assume you were not talking to me, because you know my views on this conflict and Iran and radical fundamentalist Islam In general. I doubt there are many more hardline than I am about it.

They have moved this conversation on to another TMP thread.

I'm willing to talk about everyday things, something actually fun. At least sometimes.

A ceasefire so to speak. 😉

But no matter the deal, we can never trust a radical fundamentalist Islamic government. Vigilance constantly! Always ready to strike again.

The problem was, President's did not remain vigilant, nor did the world!

"Ironically, much of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile expanded during the pandemic years precisely because global attention was elsewhere."

A wishy washy agreement on the nuclear dust and development is not a good idea unless you can guarantee observers everywhere (which Biden and Obama DID NOT have). The dust must be gone. Otherwise you have only partial victories. Because Trump will not be there and Democrats will regain power and ignore them again.

Much of what results from negotiations, we will not be able to make judgments on for at least a year.

I know the opposition will be quick to claim defeat, we can expect nothing less.

"Confidential CIA analysis says Iran can survive US blockade for months – WP
31 minutes ago

Listen to this article
Iran can survive the US naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship, the Washington Post reported, citing a confidential CIA analysis delivered to policymakers this week."

I don't put much confidence in "confidential sources". I think they are 🐥 💩's!

Maybe it's just me, but if they find the confidential sources, load them on a plane and drop them off over Iran. 🤔 Maybe with a parachute.

Parz, yes. Yes indeed.

OFM – your same comments only on a different day … You'd complain if your ice cream in cold, with sprinkles and cherry on top.

Ochoin – read what I posted above for OFM … you're starting to get boring …

"Why are you still here? It's over. Go home."

Get a clue …

OVI +1

doc +1

Parz +1

Dal +1

Airfix and Timpo figures, Airfix and Bandai plastic model kits,

Ditto …

Something about a ghost commanding a US army tank, doing missions that the SAS wouldn't touch and which was able to dispatch Tigers with ease, set in the Western Desert.

Yeah ? So ? You say that like it is a bad thing ? 🤔🤨

It is going to be very interesting to see the path to any deal.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt by the international community that the Iranians were complying with the JCPOA. I understand that there were some in the administration that felt that there were some weaknesses of the JCPOA, but I have not seen anything that tells me that the Iranians were not complying with the agreement as written.
So the fact remains that the US pulled out of a previously negotiated agreement without breach of the agreement by Iran.

If this were the only recent track record of pulling out of negotiated agreements it would be one thing, but if it becomes a method of doing business it is quite another. We only have to look at what was referred to as the best negotiated deal ever, the USMCA. Only a few short years later the US claimed it was a terrible deal and ignited a trade war. A similar situation exists with the UK Tariff deal. There are other examples.
It seems that any agreement with the US cannot be guaranteed to have a long life expectancy.

The whole situation is therefore fraught with problems of confidence in the other side's negotiating position – on top of the complicated base underlying issues. From these boards it can be seen that many in the US do not trust the Iranians as negotiating partners. And from the Iranian side, it is likely that they do not trust the US as a serious negotiating partner.

I hope that I am wrong, but I see an extremely difficult road to any long term negotiated settlement.

Yeah ? So ? You say that like it is a bad thing ? 🤔🤨

It's a pity there weren't more of them in reality, Legion, if they could do all that. I had to think about why the comic didn't grab me, but there's no chance of remembering the reason- I'd be effectively guessing. I'll just say it must have hit my Whisky Tango Foxtrot and Delete buttons.

Airfix and Timpo figures, Airfix and Bandai plastic model kits,

[SIGH]. Those were good days, weren't they? Mine all went to landfill when I joined up, with all of my other stuff that my %^&* sister couldn't give away.

Yes, those were good times back then …

There doesn't seem to be any doubt by the international community that the Iranians were complying with the JCPOA. I understand that there were some in the administration that felt that there were some weaknesses of the JCPOA, but I have not seen anything that tells me that the Iranians were not complying with the agreement as written.
So the fact remains that the US pulled out of a previously negotiated agreement without breach of the agreement by Iran.

Wait … over and over again it has been proven Iran's leadership can't be trusted. And based on past history, no matter what the JPCOA said, you can't trust that they were following it. Can even those inspectors even be trusted ?

They still wanted nukes to start their version of the End Times back then. They saw that Obama and Biden did not have the right stuff. And both proved that often. Iran's regime would freely lie to the "infidels", nod their heads in compliance but obfuscating what they are really doing.

They were playing the long game. Like their Chicoms mentors do. Does anyone think they just got the idea to use nukes to start their End Times fantasy?

They played both those former POTUSs … And are trying to do the same thing now. Which is costing them very, very, much … Regardless of what some in Congress and the media are saying.

The whole situation is therefore fraught with problems of confidence in the other side's negotiating position – on top of the complicated base underlying issues. From these boards it can be seen that many in the US do not trust the Iranians as negotiating partners. And from the Iranian side, it is likely that they do not trust the US as a serious negotiating partner.

Yes … that is rub. But … it is clear they want nukes and why. They chant Death to Israel/the USA, etc., support/fund islamic terrorism, kill their own people by the thousands, etc.

They can't be allowed to get deployable nukes. The JCPOA only acted as cover. So they could still continue to work on getting nukes. The JPCOA was not the answer. At best in only kick the can down the road. And in 4-8 years it will be someone else's problem. Unless they got those nukes before/during those 4-8 years. And if that occurred … They would nuke Israel, etc., etc.

They can't be trusted … period.

So there is no evidence that the Iranians were not complying with the JPCOA. Indeed most of the international community believes that they were.
Questioning whether the IAEA inspectors can be trusted? What evidence is there that they cannot be trusted? Again most of the international community are not questioning the inspectors trustworthiness. Neither were they questioning the value of the surveillance and inspections.

Also, claiming they were continuing to work on getting nukes. I am sorry but we have been here before with claims that countries are close to getting nukes, only to find out that was not the case after the war. Irrefutable evidence counts more than unsubstantiated opinions.

The JPCOA was not perfect, but it did prevent Iran getting nukes and provided both continuous surveillance of sites and a large number of inspections by qualified inspectors.

Yes, it was better than nothing, which is what we finally ended up with. But trusting these guys, given their terrorist proxy empire and brutal treatment of their own people, to me means that a successful deal rests on regime change.

Liberals and Globalists what to believe Iran has complied. After all, it was negotiated by the "Great Divider". Evidence provided that they complied, was of course provided by that same regime, that has proven to be false in many cases since (ie inter city crime statistics, Russian collusion just 2 easy examples).

You can trust nothing from a regime that uses "Taqiyya" as an offensive and defensive weapon!

People here and US presidents, including Trump, need to understand this!

"Whether Iran abided by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a subject of significant international debate, with evidence varying depending on the timeframe and the metric of compliance used.[1]

Critics point to a long history of "strategic deception" and non-compliance:

Clandestine Nuclear Activity: Between 1985 and 2003, Iran engaged in illicit uranium enrichment and plutonium separation without declaring it to the IAEA, which investigators later labeled as "serious violations" of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Verification Issues: Even during periods of "compliance," intelligence reports like the 2018 Nuclear Archive revealed that Iran had concealed its past weapons research. As of late 2025, the IAEA has formally found Iran in non-compliance for failing to explain uranium traces at undeclared sites.

Strategic "Snapback": Since 2019, Iran has intentionally violated nearly every limit of the JCPOA as a tactical maneuver to gain leverage, leading to current enrichment levels of 60%—far beyond civilian needs."

…..

1. Pre-2019 Compliance
From the deal's implementation in January 2016 until May 2019, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.S. State Department consistently reported that Iran was fully implementing its commitments. These reports confirmed that Iran stayed within agreed-upon limits for: [1, 2, 3, 4]
* Enriched Uranium Stockpile: Kept below the 300 kg limit.
* Enrichment Levels: Maintained at or below 3.67%.
* Centrifuge Numbers: Operated no more than 5,060 first-generation IR-1 centrifuges.
* Heavy Water: Remained below the 130 metric ton limit. [1, 2]

2. Systematic Violations Starting in 2019 [1]
In May 2019, exactly one year after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions, Iran began a phased strategy of reducing its compliance to pressure European signatories for sanctions relief. Documented violations include: [1, 2]
* Enrichment Purity: Iran increased enrichment levels first to 4.5%, then to 20%, and eventually to 60%by mid-2025—far exceeding the 3.67% limit.
* Stockpile Size: As of late 2024, Iran's uranium stockpile was reported to be 30 times the level permitted by the JCPOA.
* Advanced Centrifuges: Iran installed and operated advanced centrifuge cascades (IR-2m, IR-4, IR-6) for enrichment, violating R&D and operational restrictions.
* Facility Usage: Resumed uranium enrichment at the Fordow facility, which was designated as a research-only center under the deal. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. Verification and Transparency Issues
Critics and intelligence reports have highlighted several "hidden" or systemic failures to comply:
* Nuclear Archive: In 2018, Israeli intelligence revealed a secret archive showing Iran had not fully disclosed its past nuclear weapons research (the "Amad Plan") as required for a "baseline" of the deal.
* Undeclared Locations: The IAEA has raised serious concerns since 2019 regarding man-made uranium particles found at undeclared sites like Varamin and Turquzabad, for which Iran failed to provide "technically credible" explanations.
* Access Restrictions: Since February 2021, Iran has stopped implementing additional monitoring measures and restricted inspector access to certain facilities. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

4. Current Status (May 2026)
As of early 2026, the deal is effectively collapsed. Reports indicate:
* High Enrichment: Iran possesses over 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium as of mid-2025.
* Halting Cooperation: Iran has largely halted cooperation with the IAEA following military strikes in mid-2025, although some limited dialogue has continued.
* Policy Stance: Iranian officials maintain they would return to compliance only if all U.S. sanctions are lifted first. [1, 2, 3, 4]"

That is a long way of saying that prior to the US pulling out of the JCPOA (and therefore not honoring its commitments), Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA.

No, that is showing they never really comply with anything.

I put as much trust in anything Obama or Biden said, as you do Trump.

Firstly, I make it a point to never give my views on any politician on any social media. I therefore reject the inference about my political views.

Your response lists four particular time periods (numbered 1-4). Period 1 is before the US pulled out of the JPCOA. That seems to fully support the consensus view that Iran was complying. Was the JPCOA perfect, no. Was it working as written, yes.

The JPCOA was an agreement between Iran and multiple other parties – predominantly the EU and the USA. It offered a number of incentives to Iran for compliance. Not least of which was relief from EU and US sanctions. When the US withdrew, it removed a significant portion of the incentives.
Expecting Iran to continue to comply with a deal that had essentially been completely undermined by the US pulling out and eliminating the incentives, that is a big ask.

It is saying we are not going to comply with the deal we signed, but we expect you to still comply.

Iran was restricting access to sites of their choosing.

"The primary point of contention is whether the IAEA has the right to inspect military bases. Iran consistently maintains that military installations are off-limits, while the IAEA and Western nations argue that comprehensive oversight requires access to any location—civilian or military—where illicit nuclear activity is suspected."

So there is no evidence that the Iranians were not complying with the JPCOA. Indeed most of the international community believes that they were.
Questioning whether the IAEA inspectors can be trusted? What evidence is there that they cannot be trusted? Again most of the international community are not questioning the inspectors trustworthiness. Neither were they questioning the value of the surveillance and inspections.

Also, claiming they were continuing to work on getting nukes. I am sorry but we have been here before with claims that countries are close to getting nukes, only to find out that was not the case after the war. Irrefutable evidence counts more than unsubstantiated opinions.

The JPCOA was not perfect, but it did prevent Iran getting nukes and provided both continuous surveillance of sites and a large number of inspections by qualified inspectors.

Having already addressed that … there is no need to go over it again. I disagree with your assessments. And in many cases I and others don't trust the international community or even IAEA inspections, etc. This reminds of how things go on in the UN. Which generally is only marginally effective. Remember Gaza ? Hamas/islamic terrorists were working for/with the UN.

So there is no evidence that the Iranians were not complying with the JPCOA. Indeed most of the international community believes that they were.
Questioning whether the IAEA inspectors can be trusted? What evidence is there that they cannot be trusted? Again most of the international community are not questioning the inspectors trustworthiness. Neither were they questioning the value of the surveillance and inspections.

Also, claiming they were continuing to work on getting nukes. I am sorry but we have been here before with claims that countries are close to getting nukes, only to find out that was not the case after the war. Irrefutable evidence counts more than unsubstantiated opinions.

The JPCOA was not perfect, but it did prevent Iran getting nukes and provided both continuous surveillance of sites and a large number of inspections by qualified inspectors.

Again … you have to know your enemy … And those comments show me some don't … Again, Iran cannot be trusted any more than any islamic terrorists.

Also, claiming they were continuing to work on getting nukes. I am sorry but we have been here before with claims that countries are close to getting nukes, only to find out that was not the case after the war. Irrefutable evidence counts more than unsubstantiated opinion.

The problem with islamists getting nukes with irrefutable evidence means we will only find out after they launch them. With WMDs, I and many others know when they are incoming it is too late. Again, we are dealing with islamists … they can't be trusted. So to trust them is at one's own risk. These are not just HE … but nukes … WMDs …

And IMO and others there is a lot of evidence reported by at least the US and Israeli intel assets. Many will take their assessment as they have more intel about this than anyone else does. Again regardless of what the international community, the IAEA, UN, etc. think.

It is about risk mitigation … Not trusting islamists who want to get nukes. Again they cannot be trusted. That evidence is irrefutable.

Plus since the 2d Gulf War, our intel assets have gotten many magnitudes better. Technically and otherwise.

So to follow that line of thinking that there was no evidence of Ian's nuclear ambitions. Reminds me of that saying. "Give peace a chance … but I'll cover you anyway."

To trust any islamist about anything is an unnecessary risk … As they have proven to be [very] bad players on the field. And little has changed or will anytime soon.

Take off the rose-colored glasses and avoid the unicorn 🦄💩…

OVI +1