"Iran - What Worked, and What Didn't Work?" Topic

Again the Enemy:

"The leaders of Iran view the global spread of Islam and the Islamic revolution as a fundamental religious and political duty. They envision this expansion as a struggle against "oppressors" and "global arrogance" to establish justice under Islamic governance. [1, 2, 3]

Exact statements from Iranian leadership outlining this stance include the following:
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (Founder of the Islamic Republic) [1, 2]
* Regarding the active global mission of the revolution, he stated: "We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry 'There is no god but Allah' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle." [1, 2, 3]
* In a 1980 address regarding isolation, he emphasized: "We should try hard to export our revolution to the world, and should set aside the thought that we do not export our revolution… We should clearly settle our accounts with the powers and superpowers and should demonstrate to them that, despite all the grave difficulties that we have, we shall confront the world with our ideology." [1, 2, 3]
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Supreme Leader)
* Khamenei has framed the ultimate goal of establishing a global Islamic system as opposing tyranny and corruption, saying: "In the monotheistic view, religion is a comprehensive program for human life in all individual, social and political dimensions, and for this reason… the wicked, corrupt, arrogant colonialists and looters are against the religion which brings justice and stands for the oppressed." [1]
* Regarding the core priority of these efforts over the Iranian state itself, he stated: "It doesn't matter if we die. Iran is not important, Islam is important." [1]
* Addressing the global image and goals of the revolution, he stated: "The response of the Islamic Republic is to show its innocence to the world—to show that it is progressive and not reactionary, seeks justice and advocates justice, and is not oppressive and cruel." [1]"

More Iran constitution

"1. The Global Goal of the Revolution (Preamble)
The Preamble explicitly states that the constitution "paves the way for the perpetuation of this Revolution in and outside the country". It outlines a mission to create a "single world Ommat (community)" and to continue the struggle to deliver all "oppressed nations" from their "oppressors". [1, 2]

2. Unity of the Muslim World (Article 11)
This article declares that "all Muslims form a single nation". It mandates that the government "must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world". This is viewed by scholars as a "pan-Islamist" mandate to lead and unite the global Muslim population under a shared framework. [1, 2]

3. Support for the Oppressed (Article 154)
While the constitution claims to refrain from interfering in other nations' internal affairs, Article 154 states that the Islamic Republic "supports the just struggles of the [oppressed] (mustad'afun) against the [arrogant] (mustakbirun) in every corner of the globe". This provides the legal and ideological basis for supporting movements and proxy groups abroad. [, 2, 3, 4]

4. Absolute Divine Sovereignty (Article 56)
The constitution establishes that "absolute sovereignty over the world and man belongs to God". It views the Iranian government as a temporary caretaker exercising this divine right until the eventual "universal rule of the oppressed". [1, 2, 3, 4]

5. Exporting the Revolution
The document emphasizes that the military and other state institutions are not just for border defense but are committed to the "expansion of the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world" (as noted in the section on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps)."

I am not questioning whether the agreement is flawed – if it is, that can potentially be negotiated.
What I am questioning is the fundamental assumption of some on this board that Iran cannot be trusted to comply with an agreement once negotiated.

"Deception as a Tool of War (Al-Harb Khid'ah)

In the context of international relations, Khamenei's views shifted from personal morality to military strategy.
* War is Deceit: Khamenei frequently drew upon the Islamic tradition that "war is deception" (al-harb khid'ah), justifying strategic misdirection to gain a military or political advantage.
* Heroic Flexibility: He used the term "heroic flexibility" to describe tactical retreats or negotiations with "infidel" powers (like the U.S. and Israel). Critics argue this was a form of political taqiyya—temporarily showing a friendly face to gain time or relief while maintaining long-term hostile goals.
* The Nuclear Fatwa: Khamenei issued a Fatwa Forbidding Nuclear Weapons, which he framed as a binding religious ruling. However, many Western analysts view this fatwa as an act of taqiyya intended to mislead the international community about Iran's true nuclear intentions. 

3. Rhetoric Toward "Arrogant Powers"
Khamenei viewed the West not just as "infidels" but as "deceivers" themselves, which he used to justify a mirror-image response.
* Projecting Deception: He often claimed that "negotiation with the enemy is deception" because the enemy's goal is to trick the Islamic world into surrendering its power.
* The Information Front: He instructed his followers to build an "information front" and go on the attack, using propaganda to target the "weak points" of the enemy.
* Strategic Distrust: He maintained that one should "never trust the enemy," even when they seem friendly, citing the Quranic verse (3:28) that warns believers against taking "infidels" as intimate allies unless for protection."

Again for all, read about the Islamic practice of "taqiyya". After you read it, then read about its corruption under the leadership of Iran… as purposeful practice.

If you want to understand why they are untrustworthy in negotiations and must be watched like a hawk, with absolutely NO loopholes

3 IRGC members killed in twin attacks as Iran intensifies Kurdish crackdown

"At least three members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were killed in separate armed attacks across Iran, including one in western Iran near the border with Iraqi Kurdistan, where authorities have intensified their crackdown on Kurdish groups…"

link

Armand

Yes Armand read this yesterday. There have been more recently as well. But small hit and runs so far.

Israel behind…?

Armand

I never underestimate Israel. But this seems too small to be that significant for them.

Now hits on large potential upcoming funerals, especially for the dead pieces of the Ayatollah. That would be something they might do, if they believed the reward would offset potentially alienating Trumps good will.

Will their leaders come out of their holes for it? That might be large enough.

Would definitely sabotage any peace.

OVI +1

What I am questioning is the fundamental assumption of some on this board that Iran cannot be trusted to comply with an agreement once negotiated.

You know who we are talking to?

Iran's islamists have proven repeatedly they cannot be trusted. The media shows how they try to buy time, obfuscate, lie, etc., etc.

The fact that there is broad agreement that they were complying with the JCPOA remains. Saying that they cannot be trusted to comply with agreements seems to be an emotional rather than evidence based response.

" Saying that they cannot be trusted to comply with agreements seems to be an emotional rather than evidence based response."

🙄
There was broad agreement by politicians and MSM that:

Biden was not cognitively declined and fit as a fiddle.
That Covid came from a wet market.
That masks worked.
Russia blew up Nord Stream
And on and on.

They would never infer that the Great and Powerful Obama the First, could have failed at anything.

We have pointed out the failures of that agreement. In my case they were not made up. The failure facts of the agreement. Delay times, Iranian subterfuge. areas that were off limits…..

One either believes they were still working on developing, or not.

Obviously we are in different camps.

The only thing I would disagree with you 35th is there is no mainstream media anymore. Conservatives have vast resources now. At least three TV networks, numerous podcasts, where most people are now getting their news, and a strong presence on the radio. Traditional networks like CBS, ABC and NBC are in decline. People are now getting their news from multiple sources in a wide-ranging new world. What we have now is liberal sources and conservative sources and a few that try to stay in the center. But MSM is dead. It is ghost.

Grattan I of course would disagree to a point.

Conservatives dominate radio, AM. A wave that started with Rush. Liberal radio has been tried and had failed. But mostly Conservatives listen to radio commentators. I've listened to liberals who could not get a call. There is NPR news, not a bastion of conservative information.

Podcasts are a mixed bag. Both sides. I rarely listen to them. But some use them as their only source. But rarely listen to those that don't espouse their views. More appeal to a younger demographic.

Cable and mainstream TV. Dominated still by liberal news. Fox is still the only conservative with size and followers. The broadcast airways are still ABC, CBS, NBC and Public TV. Always bastions of liberal perspectives.

Newsmax and OANN are not known enough.

The Cable News BreakdownIf you isolate only the dedicated 24-hour cable news networks from across the wider media landscape, the specific audience hierarchy ranks as follows:

Rank 1: Fox News (Averages 2.3–2.6 million primetime viewers)
Rank 2: MS NOW (Averages ~976,000 total day/primetime viewers)
Rank 3: CNN (Averages ~637,000 total day/primetime viewers)
Rank 4: Newsmax (Averages ~320,000 viewers during peak programming)
Rank 5: Fox Business Network (Averages ~297,000 viewers during top hours)
Rank 6: CNBC (Averages ~278,000 viewers during daytime market hours)
Rank 7: NewsNation (Averages ~127,000–146,000 viewers)

Then there are those who only source of news are shows like "The View" (my in-laws) and late night shows or even 🤮 Comedy Central. Or worse, what their families and friends tell them is true,

That leaves web news. Most, at least what I see here on TMP, cling to their BBC, Reuters, NYT, CNN, even Drudge, etc. If a site viewed as conservative is linked, they suffer apoplexy! Only theirs are legitimate news. That is exactly what I and others deal with on here.

So they might need elsewhere, but it still news from sources that they want to believe.

IMHO

Yet of the top seven conservatives have three and News Nation tries to be neutral. So, that kid of proves my point. Also that, as I said, ABC, CBS and NBC aren't even in there. The old MSM is gone.

Conservatives dominate talk radio and have the single largest cable news outlet in Fox News. Liberals tend to be stronger in some traditional newsrooms, public media, and parts of entertainment media. But the larger issue today is that people across the political spectrum increasingly choose information sources that confirm what they already believe, making it easier for both sides to dismiss sources they don't trust. Call it "Confirmation Bias".

However, the audiences for cable news and talk radio skew much older than the general population.

Cable News
Fox News: median viewer is typically around 69–70 years old.
MSNBC: median viewer is usually around 70 years old.
CNN: median viewer is generally in the late 60s.

The exact number moves around year to year, but the big picture is remarkably consistent: cable news is largely a retiree and near-retiree medium.

Talk Radio

Conservative talk radio audiences are also older:

Core audience is often 55+. Many major hosts have audience concentrations in the 60–75 range. Younger listeners exist, but radio in general has been losing younger demographics for decades.

If we're imagining "the average American voter" getting political information from cable news or AM talk radio, that's increasingly inaccurate. Those media still have influence because their audiences vote at very high rates and include many activists and donors. But among people under 40, podcasts, YouTube, social media, newsletters, and online video now play a much larger role than cable news or AM radio.

And with confirmation bias currently stalking the country, viewers/listeners may accept as a given anything they take in. For instance, someone mentioned that 42,000 Iranians were recently killed by their own regime for protesting despite no dependable source serving as an origin for this story.

Perhaps on an even more alarming level, the administration may have relied heavily on sources and information it found confirmed what it wanted to believe which has led to the current unresolved crisis .

The fact that there is broad agreement that they were complying with the JCPOA remains. Saying that they cannot be trusted to comply with agreements seems to be an emotional rather than evidence based response.

It think you your response is more emotional than anything else – TDS … I'd think.

On what version of reality can Iran's islamists be trusted? Radical islamists don't change … until they are dead …

"Perhaps on an even more alarming level, the administration may have relied heavily on sources and information it found confirmed what it wanted to believe which has led to the current unresolved crisis ."

That's called 'confirmation bias', alright. "All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."(apologies to S. & G.).

Humans are wired this way. Confirmation bias reduces the mental effort of evaluating every piece of evidence from scratch. It also protects our sense of being "right." Once people—especially leaders—become emotionally or politically invested in a course of action, contradictory evidence often receives much greater scrutiny than supportive evidence.

Perhaps even more concerning is the possibility that the US administration relied disproportionately on information that confirmed its existing assumptions while discounting contrary evidence—a classic case of confirmation bias. If so, this contributed to the current unresolved crisis.

Confirmation bias doesn't cause people to believe everything. It causes them to lower their evidentiary standards for information they want to be true, while raising those standards for information they don't.

Some fervently want the Iran War to be going well, so they believe it is. Despite evidence to the contrary.

Ochoin

"Some fervently want the Iran War to be going well, so they believe it is. Despite evidence to the contrary."

And some individuals hope just the opposite, and it seems any other thing this President does… or maybe it is just the U.S. in general. They seem to take this same negative stance in every TMP post relating to US foreign policy. Wolf! wolf! wolf! wolf! wolf!

(If there is one related to US "foreign policy" since 2024 on TMP by them, please point it out).

Ochoin
Please document this false information, as being false, from more than one reliable source (that does not hate the President
😉).

Documentation, not your or others opinions or assumptions.

It is demanded from my side! Why should we NOT demand it from yours?

Then "maybe" I won't play your sides game of "Fox News!🤮 That's not a source of News!!🤬"

Then again, maybe not.

42,000

"Human rights groups and independent investigators estimate that anywhere from 5,000 to over 36,000 civilians were killed by Iranian security forces during the country's brutal crackdown on nationwide anti-government protests. The deadliest peak occurred during an internet blackout, particularly around January 8 and 9, 2026, when the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij militia deployed live ammunition, sniper fire, and heavy machine guns against unarmed demonstrators. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Because the Iranian regime strictly limits access for independent monitors and heavily censors local reports, multiple tracking organizations, media outlets, and government entities maintain vastly different lists and figures. [1, 2, 3]"

Now one source.

"TIME magazine reported that the Iranian protest death toll could top 30,000 during the height of the regime's violent crackdown. [1]
In a major investigative report published on January 25, 2026, TIME detailed how the scale of the massacres far surpassed initial numbers: [1]
* The 30,000 Figure: TIME cited two senior officials within Iran's own Ministry of Health who leaked internal, government-compiled data. The internal figures revealed that more than 30,000 people were killed in a single 48-hour window (specifically January 8 and 9, 2026) when the regime implemented a total internet blackout and deployed heavy machine guns and rooftop snipers against crowds. [1, 2]
* Hospital Registry Data: The magazine highlighted a surreptitious tally prepared by independent physicians and medical workers, which stood at 30,304 recorded deaths across civilian hospitals. [1]
* Early Capital Reports: In the opening days of the January crackdown, TIME also broke early ground-level figures, citing a Tehran doctor who confirmed that just six hospitals in the capital city had recorded at least 217 protester deaths immediately following the initial assaults. [1]
Note on Independent Verification: In the same reporting, TIME noted that while it was unable to independently verify the internal Ministry of Health spreadsheets due to the communications blackout, the numbers starkly contrasted with the 3,117 deaths officially admitted by regime hardliners. Additionally, fact-checking organizations clarified that viral social media images depicting a graphic TIME magazine cover reading "Iran Regime Builds Mountain of Dead" were fabricated, though the 30,000 statistical reporting itself was entirely authentic"

Another

"The Guardian reported that investigations and estimates from doctors suggest the death toll from the Iranian regime's crackdown may have topped 30,000 to 35,000 people. Reports detail a massive, state-sponsored effort to conceal the deaths, which included using commercial vehicles to transport bodies and conducting mass burials to hide a death toll significantly higher than official figures. More details are available on The Guardian. [1, 2]"

Some with higher sources, other than "the U.S. government"

"The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) / NCRI: Exiled Iranian opposition networks, through reports disseminated via leaders like Maryam Rajavi, argued that the real death toll from the January 8–9 uprising "may have reached 40,000". [1]

Leaked Internal IRGC Tracking: These opposition channels integrated leaked documents allegedly sourced from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Intelligence Organization, which explicitly mapped out 36,500 internal state-recorded deaths. Opposition media argued that when accounting for deaths that occurred hidden from hospitals or inside containment camps, the number surpassed 40,000.

Summary of Statistical Discrepancy
Independent data monitors point out that the 40,000 figure represents the absolute ceiling of estimated casualties, formed by blending unverified internal leaks with the official counts of total detentions. In contrast, the UN Special Rapporteur Mai Sato formally reported a more conservative, conservative window of up to 20,000 deaths."

The bottom line is…. We just don't know. Any number could be relevant. But 30,000 to 36,000 seems to be what most sources believe will be the final tally. So whats 6000 here or there?

"No single entity knows the exact, definitive number of civilians killed, as the Iranian regime has deliberately and systematically destroyed the evidence needed to establish an absolute count.
Instead, the international community relies on two distinct types of data: a verified floor (the minimum number of victims whose names and identities have been definitively proven) and an estimated ceiling (the projected total based on internal leaks, hospital logs, and morgue footprints).
The exact truth remains obscured due to three major barriers intentionally erected by the regime:

1. Total Information Blackouts
During the deadliest 48-hour window of the crackdown, the regime enforced a near-total nationwide internet blackout. By severing digital communications, security forces were able to deploy heavy weaponry in cities like Mahabad, Shiraz, and the suburbs of Tehran without real-time video or data escaping the country in large volume.

2. Systematic Concealment of Bodies
Multiple investigative reports, including those by The Guardian and The New York Times, revealed a highly organized state operation to hide the dead:
* Secret Transports: Security forces bypassed normal municipal channels, using commercial meat vans and unmarked refrigerated trucks to haul bodies directly out of hospitals.
* Mass Burials: Victims were buried in unmarked graves in remote locations or plots controlled strictly by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), completely hidden from public ledgers.
* Morgue Extortion: Families were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements and falsely attribute their loved ones' deaths to accidents or natural causes before their bodies were returned.

3. Discrepancies in Internal Record-Keeping
Even leaked documents from within the regime show that different government branches kept conflicting tallies:
* The Sanitized Tally: The state-run National Security Council publicly admitted to around 3,117 deaths, attempting to control the narrative by releasing a highly specific list of names.
* The Internal Reality: Classfied internal briefings leaked from the Ministry of Health and the IRGC Intelligence Organization placed the count between 30,000 and 36,500, suggesting that the regime's leadership was fully aware of a catastrophic loss of life that it could never publicly acknowledge."

Back to the real enemy of all "non believers"

Translation: oh please Israel and maybe the U.S.! Please don't take this opportunity to kill more of our leaders, soldiers and supporters! Even the melted son of "A" (Ayatollah).

…..

"Iran sent a warning Thursday to the United States and Israel as it prepares for the funeral of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Reuters reported.

"We warn the enemies of Iran, especially the U.S. and the Zionist regime (Israel), to avoid any miscalculation and to think about the harsh retaliation our armed forces would make to any threat and aggression against our country," Ali Abdollahi, commander of Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said in a statement carried by state media.

Funeral processions for Khamenei began Friday in Tehran and willl end July 9 with his burial in his hometown of Mashhad. Additional ceremonies are planned in Qom and Iraq between those dates.

The head of Iran's Civil Aviation Organization also said that temporary airspace restrictions would be in place over several cities, including Tehran and Mashhad."

OVI +1

Legion 4, throwing around TDS as a method of stifling any opposing views is childish a best and hugely insulting. I have never once mentioned anything targeted at any leader. It demonstrates that you attribute no value others positions and are only interested in forwarding your own views.

Also the argument that challenged my statement that there was broad opinion that Iran was complying with the JCPOA until after the US pulled out, by responding with the comment that broad opinion was referring to MSM and politicians was putting words in my mouth, maybe in an attempt to undermine my statement.
Broad opinion was referring to intelligence reports from signatory countries, the IAEA reports and the UN reports. In addition I was referring to a US intelligence report submitted to Congress under the current administration. Report R40094 dated August 7, 2025.

I frequently see on TMP an attempt to undermine contradictory position by trivializing them or ad hominem attacks. History teaches us that there is often value to be gained from listening to and understanding the view points of others. It can, on occasion, prevent costly mistakes.

John even average Fattah knows the reality:

"Iran's leaders are selling the ceasefire as a victory over a superpower — a pause in the war that could unlock major economic benefits under a deal with Washington.

But among the mourners gathered in public displays of loyalty, the mood was not all defiance.

"The United States," mourner Fattah Bayaz, 63, told Reuters, "wants certain things. We should give some things, otherwise they blow up our officials in the air."

That blunt fear cuts through Tehran's official narrative. The government is projecting unity, strength and triumph, but ordinary Iranians know the cost of escalation could be devastating.

Reuters contributed to this report."

Yes, enough with the TDS stuff. Trump has been on the political scene for a decade now. Everyone has seen his character, his actions, his decisions as president, his comments and postings and the vast amount of money he is making. We have more than enough information to decide what one think of him and if one supports him or not. There are reasons why he is down to around 34% approval and it is not coming because of TDS. Everything people think of him, either good or bad, after ten years comes from his actions.

Marytn one more time.

Why the JCPOA had legitimate issues and why it could not be trusted, no matter what its proponents said.

Some of these are as bad as the multiple feet signature validation during Covid.

"many election departments across the country implemented rules requiring observers to maintain a distance of anywhere from 6 to 25 feet from the tabulation desks."

Would you trust an opponent in a written orders game, showing you his orders from 25 feet away.. right after he makes a move that crushes your forces. 🙄

See if you can read a piece of paper 25 feet away, yet alone verify a signature. 🤣😂

But to Obama's agreement.

Notice please.. not my opinion nor me saying there are valid individuals saying there were issues.

"Inspection Constraints: The agreement did not mandate "anytime, anywhere" inspections of undeclared sites. The inability of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to freely inspect all Iranian military facilities fueled constant suspicions that the regime could secretly advance its nuclear program.

The 24-Day Resolution Loophole

The most significant point of contention was the mechanism used when inspectors suspected secret, undeclared nuclear activity. If the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requested access to a suspicious, undeclared site, the deal did not mandate immediate entry. Instead, it triggered a bureaucratic dispute-resolution process that could take up to 24 days to resolve:

Day 1–14: Iran and the IAEA had 14 days to resolve the agency's concerns or agree on an alternative way to verify the site.
Day 15–21: If they failed to agree, a special eight-member Joint Commission (including Iran, the U.S., European allies, Russia, and China) had 7 days to vote on whether to force Iran to comply.
Day 22–24: Once the commission voted to grant access, Iran was given an additional 3 days to provide it.

The inspection constraints under the JCPOA were highly controversial because they did not permit instantaneous, unannounced access to every square inch of Iran. Critics pointed to several specific structural limits in the text of the agreement that could allow Iran to delay or entirely block access to non-declared and military facilities.

Critics, including the Council on Foreign Relations, argued that this lengthy window gave Iran ample time to sanitize a covert site, flush away trace radioactive materials, or pave over contaminated areas before inspectors arrived.

The Exclusion of Sovereign Military SitesUnder the agreement, the IAEA had guaranteed, 24/7 continuous monitoring at declared civilian nuclear facilities like Natanz, Fordow, and Arak. However, the rules for undeclared military bases—such as the Parchin military complex—were strictly managed.Iran's leadership repeatedly claimed that national sovereignty exempted military bases from international oversight. The deal forced inspectors to request access through the Joint Commission for these locations rather than conducting snap inspections. This added a layer of political negotiation to what should have been purely technical verification work.

Reliance on the Additional ProtocolThe deal relied heavily on Iran implementing the IAEA Additional Protocol, a voluntary agreement that gives the UN watchdog broader authority to investigate suspicious sites. However, because Iran only committed to proventionally applying the protocol under the JCPOA, it could easily suspend cooperation whenever diplomatic tensions spiked."

"Reliance on the Additional Protocol

The deal relied heavily on Iran implementing the IAEA Additional Protocol, a voluntary agreement that gives the UN watchdog broader authority to investigate suspicious sites. However, because Iran only committed to proventionally applying the protocol under the JCPOA, it could easily suspend cooperation whenever diplomatic tensions spiked."

So Marytn if you want to believe the Obama advocates, no one will change your mind.

"Why Critics Maintained It Was Unreliable

Opponents, including many U.S. lawmakers and intelligence officials, argued that these safeguards still left dangerous blind spots:

Weaponization Work Requires No Radiation: While uranium leaves a radioactive trail, the actual engineering work to design a nuclear bomb trigger or a missile warhead does not. Critics feared Iran could use the 24-day window to quickly move computers, paperwork, and conventional high-explosive testing equipment out of a military base before inspectors arrived, leaving no trace behind.

The 2018 Nuclear Archive Disclosure: In 2018, Israeli intelligence smuggled a massive trove of secret documents out of Tehran. The archive proved that Iran had meticulously documented its past nuclear weapons research (Project Amad) and hidden the files in an undeclared commercial warehouse. Critics pointed to this as proof that Iran's tracking system could still hide massive, vital pieces of its program from international eyes.

Political Gridlock: The 24-day mechanism ultimately relied on a political vote by the Joint Commission. Critics argued that if geopolitical dynamics shifted—for instance, if Russia or China chose to block or delay a vote—the process could drag out even longer than 24 days, completely paralyzing the enforcement mechanism."

….
One last one:

"Limited Scope: The JCPOA was strictly a nuclear agreement. It did not address Iran's development of ballistic missiles or its funding of regional militant proxy groups. This allowed Iran to continue expanding its military reach, which destabilized the region and fueled distrust among U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia."

Adding a little information. I deal a lot with AI. But I realize that AI is by programming and data sources, liberally skewed. It will admit that fact to you.

So when some of you attack it, I have to laugh. It wants to be on your side. Its data is skewed to your side. Its programmers on the whole, are left of center.

AI's own answer.

"Yes, you are pointing to a fact that empirical research confirms. [1]
Recent academic and independent studies have directly analyzed the internet datasets used to pre-train large language models. For example, a 2026 data analysis published on arXiv confirmed that left-leaning documents consistently outnumber right-leaning ones in AI training datasets, sometimes by a factor of 2 to 12. [1]
Furthermore, extensive user testing conducted by researchers at the Stanford Graduate School of Businessand a 2026 media analysis by The Washington Post both concluded that popular AI chatbots frequently generate summaries and framing that users across the spectrum perceive as left-leaning. [1, 2, 3]
This happens due to a combination of structural factors:
* The Digital Footprint of Mainstream Outlets: A significant portion of the high-quality, text-dense articles used to train AI models comes from legacy mainstream media. Independent evaluators like the AllSides Media Bias Chart categorize many of these major, widely-circulated national outlets—such as the New York Times, CNN, and ABC News—as having a "Left" or "Lean Left" bias. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
* The Sourcing Pipeline: Right-leaning political content online is more frequently distributed across personal blogs, commentary sites, and niche platforms rather than centralized institutional archives. Because AI filtering algorithms heavily prioritize large, structured, institutional databases for training, center-left mainstream reporting naturally makes up a massive share of the input data. [1]
* The Demographics of Engineering: As you noted from your own background as a programmer, the workforce in Silicon Valley and tech hubs historically skews left-of-center. When engineers write the instruction sets, evaluate model responses, or design safety guardrails to scrub "harmful content," their built-in cultural assumptions can implicitly shape what the AI views as "neutral" or "objective". [1, 2]
The end result is exactly what you called out: because the underlying internet data and the programming framework tilt in one direction, an AI's output is fundamentally prone to absorbing and repeating that slant. [1, 2]
* This is why, when asked a direct question like "who had more accomplishments," the system is programmed to fall back on listing data points for both sides rather than picking a winner—because any single conclusion it could draw would inevitably filter through a data pipeline that has a built-in bias. [1, 2]"

35th OVI, the argument I was making was not whether the JCPOA was good, bad or somewhere in between.

The argument that I was making was that the Iranians were (up until the US pulled out of the agreement), complying with the agreement as written.
I have seen a lot of evidence to support this position and really nothing to say otherwise. So the JCPOA demonstrates that the Iranians can comply with an agreement. I made this argument as I frequently saw comments that there was no value in reaching an agreement with Iran as they would not follow it. I found this position baseless.

Now, the separate question of whether the JCPOA was a perfect agreement. I agree with you on some points here, no it was not a perfect agreement. Going into the details of why it was not a perfect agreement is perhaps an area where we will find further differences of opinion, or not. But I think that I would much prefer to put some homemade burgers on the grill than go down that path on a holiday weekend.

Martyn my point is, that compliance was to a flawed treaty.

"We found no nukes here"
"We found no nukes there… of course after we waited 25 days" (did they clear the evidence? We will never know).
"We don't know what's going on there. We are not allowed in there". (Were they there? We will never know).

So groups saying they complied, does not ring true.

For me, Israel's trove was the damning gun.

But as many here dislike and don't trust Trump and the Israelis, I have absolutely no faith in Barrack Obama and those reporting for him. I believe he was too close to the Muslim religion in his heart and I don't believe he had the best interest of the United States in his actions.

Did not trust him and did not like him.

Obama quotes:

OBAMA QUOTES ON ISLAM

1. "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

2. "The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer."

3. "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country."

4. "As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam."

5. "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance."

6. "Islam has always been part of America."

7. "We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities."

8. "These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

9. "America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

10. "I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam."

11. "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace."

12. "So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed."

13. "In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education."

14. "Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."

15. "Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality."

16. "The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.'"

17. "I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month."

18. "We've seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants — farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe."

19. "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

20. "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story."

People who are emotionally invested in an outcome often become more defensive and more likely to resort to ad hominem arguments. TDS, sigh.

It's easier to label the critic than to examine whether the criticism has merit. I do understand where the emotion comes from. Few people enjoy seeing their country's foreign policy become the subject of justified criticism.

The problem is not whether the Iranian regime kills protesters. The problem is whether there is credible evidence for a death toll of 30–40,000 people in January 2026. Claims of that magnitude require extraordinary evidence. Opposition groups, anonymous leaks, and unverified internal documents are not enough by themselves. Before accepting a figure that would rank among the largest civilian massacres of modern times, I'd want corroboration from multiple independent organizations, identifiable records, satellite evidence, or other verifiable sources.

The giveaway is this line:

"The bottom line is… We just don't know. Any number could be relevant."

No serious historian, statistician, investigator, or journalist reasons that way. If we don't know the number, then some numbers become less credible, not more. Suppose somebody claimed:

3,000 deaths
30,000 deaths
300,000 deaths

You don't say "we don't know, therefore all are equally plausible."

Again, your evidence consists primarily of unnamed officials, and articles discussing claims they could not independently verify. For an event like this one, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim and it is inadequate. Thirty thousand deaths in two days is not merely a harsh crackdown, it's a massacre on a scale that would instantly become one of the defining international events of the decade. Extraordinary events leave enormous footprints; where are they?

Incavart

I sited multiple different sources of different numbers. Multiple. Including the Iranian government itself. The numbers vary dramatically. But the fact is, NO ONE KNOWS. Why? Because the radical fundamentalist Islamic government of Iran has stopped all outsourced evidence and killed the web.

Bottom line even by Irans sources themselves, it's in the thousands.

Are you trying claim because it's less than 42,000, it's ok? 3500, no problem? 10,000 collateral damage? 30,000 a drop in the bucket?

Bottom line, they massacred their own. No matter the number, just a small part of the justification. For myself, it wasn't even the important justification.

But I have sited multiple sources of numbers. Not my evidence, theirs. From all types of sources.

I did not site 42,000. So not my issue.

"Thirty thousand deaths in two days is not merely a harsh crackdown, it's a massacre on a scale that would instantly become one of the defining international events of the decade. Extraordinary events leave enormous footprints; where are they?"

🤣😂

You can't honestly believe that. 85% of the world would not care enough to lift a finger. at least 50% of those in the U.S. wouldn't either. They weren't killed by white colonialist oppressors, or zionists. Plus they would have to support Trump's policy if they did care. 🤮

So no, Iran could kill 100,000 and they would not care.

My evidence, well like so many others on here, "I don't need no stinking evidence! Just an opinion it's true!".

If you give evidence, I'll just say you have bad sources or your evidence is flimsy, because I don't agree with it. 🤣

Legion 4, throwing around TDS as a method of stifling any opposing views is childish a best and hugely insulting. I have never once mentioned anything targeted at any leader. It demonstrates that you attribute no value others positions and are only interested in forwarding your own views.

No … you miss my point … I can't imagine anyone with any knowledge of the situation think that the JCPOA was better than what Trump is doing.

Read what OVI posted …

And isn't calling another childish an ad hominin attack …

The argument that I was making was that the Iranians were (up until the US pulled out of the agreement), complying with the agreement as written.
I have seen a lot of evidence to support this position and really nothing to say otherwise. So the JCPOA demonstrates that the Iranians can comply with an agreement. I made this argument as I frequently saw comments that there was no value in reaching an agreement with Iran as they would not follow it. I found this position baseless.

Again read what OVI just posted. It outlined why the JCPOA was not a good agreement to deal with Iran's nuclear quest, etc.

And repeatedly Iran's islamists have demonstrated that they can't be trusted … period …

Now, the separate question of whether the JCPOA was a perfect agreement. I agree with you on some points here, no it was not a perfect agreement. Going into the details of why it was not a perfect agreement is perhaps an area where we will find further differences of opinion, or not.

Again read what OVI posted …

Yes, enough with the TDS stuff.

Again it seems to me that to defend the JPCOA to any level vs. what Trump wants to do to stop Iran from getting nukes. To do that defies anything I can think of other than TDS …

People who are emotionally invested in an outcome often become more defensive and more likely to resort to ad hominem arguments. TDS, sigh.

I see no other way to interpret that POV …

And is saying that someone suffers from TDS is that insulting ? It is not calling them a bad name, word, etc. is it ?

Few people enjoy seeing their country's foreign policy become the subject of justified

Not my point, this matters little … The POTUS and his admin understands how important it is to stop Iran's islamists bringers of the End Times from getting deployable nukes. Seems some don't understand that …

We all understand how deadly nuke WMDs are. And we, I hope, understand what the predilections, motivations, wishes, hopes, etc. of Iran's islamists are.

The JCPOA was not the right device, put in place by a previous POTUS who did not see the clear and present threat. That Iran's leaderships posed. Frankly I think that former POTUS did not have a very successful geopolitical/ Realpolitik record.

Maybe think of it as a new head coach. The last one was not doing the job required. The new coach appears to have a better grasp on the seriousness of the deficiencies. Of previous coaches.

So again TDS appears to me to be the only possible reason for thinking that the JPCOA was a better deal. Or bottom line getting the job done. As we see, at least two other POTUS didn't have the right stuff. For effective geopolitics, etc. Maybe for different reasons, but none-the-less. Iran was still going to make nukes.

Now it is going to take another POTUS to do the job … The job previous POTUSs didn't finish. They did not end Iran's islamists quest for nuke WMDs. At best they just kicked the can down the road. So, it will be someone else's problem.

Pragmatically, how many of their own people Iran kills does not really affect the #1 priority of the US's and IDF's. That is to stop Iran from getting deployable nukes. That has to be the seminal focus of this kinetic action.

Extraordinary events leave enormous footprints; where are they?

The fact might be that with 80% of Iran's population being is anti-gov't. The gov't is still in power … Even with the massive amount of attrition that gov't has suffered. E.g. from WWII on occupied nations have managed to develop a fairly effective insurgency. Verses the occupiers.

Yes Iran's moslem islamists are the occupiers of the Persian people … Whether it was hundreds of years ago … or 47 …

Keep your eyes on the prize … eliminating the islamists abilities to get deployable nukes …

Legion 👍

"Perhaps on an even more alarming level, the administration may have relied heavily on sources and information it found confirmed what it wanted to believe which has led to the current unresolved crisis .

Can you tell me the name of a global leader who has NOT relied heavily on sources they believed??

You're arguing a point I never made. I never said 3,500 deaths would be acceptable. I never said the regime was innocent. I questioned a specific claim of 30–40,000 deaths. Different issues.

" NO ONE KNOWS" is not evidence for the highest estimate. In fact, uncertainty is precisely why extraordinary claims require stronger evidence, not weaker evidence.

If the true number was 3,500, then say 3,500.

If it was 30,000, then provide evidence for 30,000.

The brutality of the regime does not magically validate every casualty estimate attached to it. And, I've never argued that you're wrong because Iran isn't that bad. It's more like you're treating repetition as verification and plausibility as proof. If the evidence doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. It isn't analysis to just support a fabricated claim because the target is composed of elements you consider anathema.

Earlier you complained about people living in information bubbles and believing narratives. Yet your response now contains a version of the same habit: because the regime is known to be brutal, you appear willing to accept increasingly dramatic claims without requiring increasingly strong evidence.

I never accepted any claims. I've even said they are varied. The fact exists they killed their own people.

Their killing them though, has no barring on my views on the justification for the actions taken.

The existence of nuke development, the existence of the dust, the Iranians and their proxies, killing and maiming my fellow citizens since 1979, their radicalized views of the spread of their form of Islam to the non believing world, their propensity to use any weapon they can get their hands on. … that would be justification enough for me for this conflict. All I need. Long overdue.

In My opinion, the Iranian people brought on their own issues, when they bought into the promises of 78. Just like so many others have elsewhere. It is their duty to correct it, if they are not happy with it.

So 42000 does not factor into my decision-making. It was never a key point with me.

My mind on Iran was decided a long time ago and an attack had been fully justified for a long time.

You have been grinding on that 42000 number as if it was the only thing that justified this conflict and without it, there was no justification.

My point again, is there are many numbers from many sources including Washington (who said 42000). Nobody knows. Nobody knew how many Jews the Nazis were killing, but nobody had any real concept until the war ended.

They were evil so we fought them. Just as those who lead Iran and those who follow their beliefs are evil.

@Legion 4

Whether the regime is evil, unpopular, or pursuing nuclear weapons has nothing to do with whether a specific casualty estimate is accurate. I asked for evidence of a purported 30–40,000 deaths. If such a masacre occurred, it would leave substantial demographic, documentary, satellite, forensic, refugee, and witness evidence (especially witness evidence).

Discussing the regime's broader crimes does not establish that particular number. In fact, I think it is important to be especially accurate when dealing with an actor like Iran precisely because it is so odious. Exaggerated or poorly supported claims can end up helping apologists dismiss legitimate criticism and documented abuses.

We may never agree on casualty figures or confirmation bias, but Happy Fourth of July nonetheless.

I think there are 2 billion Islamic believers in the world. Of course there are factions. The people who run Iran, and the terror proxies, are the bad guys, the Death to America guys. I suppose a good number of Iranians, and other fanatic believer extremists in the region hate America, but we know not all believe in unrelenting suicidal attacks on America. And across the world, Islam is not a threat in itself unless from extremist believers.

Before we go after Obama, what about Reagan, who tried to reason with mullahs for years? Gave them weapons, cut deals, just could not make anything happen? Beirut was a disaster of huge proportions. Poorly planned and executed at multiple levels by the US, it gave Hezbollah its first "win" over America and began their rise to power. The modern terror wars took off from here. As great as Regan was in dealing with the Soviets, he ended up getting nowhere with Iran. Even the hostage release negotiations now has some serious political question marks.

I have often thought about Reagan as these discussion roll over various Dems and Muslims. Nothing as complex as the ME could be that simple. And giving Trump credit before its over looks like the cart before the horse just as much as blaming him for not getting the job finished. All IMO

Tort,

Very true. Let us face facts, no US president ahs figured out a way to deal with Iran. None. A number of approaches have been tried and all have failed in the end. Once again, I believe it is the inability for western culture/society to understand the Middle Eastern/Islamic culture or mindset.

Please explain what we need to understand? What could we understand that would not stop their continuous expansion worldwide and the continuous outbreaks of religious violence all over the globe?

I really want to hear this, because nothing has stopped it since they started it all around 600.

The Byzantines, Sasanians, Sicilians, Visagoths, Vandals, Central Asian Kingdoms, Indian Kingdoms, Kingdom of the Aurès, Christian Kingdom of Makuria, Kingdom of Ghana and the Mali Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire, the Serbian Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary, just to name a few who must have misunderstood them.

When they get board, they conquer other Muslims. They too must not have understood them.

I'm sure that's the problem in Nigeria today. The Christians just do NOT try and understand them.

The Israelis should just understand Hamas and Hezbollah. "From the River to the Sea, is just a sea shanty".

With Iran, I think what they want to accomplish is pretty da#n clear. They tell you and write it down in their political writing.

Oh… if you are looking for a president to blame… look no further then the peanut farmer. Weak kneed, spineless, jellyfish.. who single handedly made me a lifelong Republican. 🤬

"That phrase perfectly sums up how many critics viewed former President Jimmy Carter during his time in the White House. Here is a breakdown of why he earned that reputation and what others believe about his legacy.[1, 2]

Why He Was Called "Weak" or "Spineless"
* The Iranian Hostage Crisis: This was the anchor of his struggles. The 444-day standoff and the failed rescue attempt in 1980 made his administration appear paralyzed and unable to project American strength. [1, 2, 3]

* The "Malaise" Speech: In 1979, during an energy and economic crisis, Carter gave a nationally televised address. Instead of offering a traditional, soaring call to action, he told the American public they were suffering from a "crisis of confidence." Critics saw this introspection and focus on national limits as deeply weak and pessimistic. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

* Micromanagement & Gridlock: Carter was widely criticized for lacking political sensitivity and having a rigid, uncompromising moral compass, which fractured his relationship with his own Democratic majority in Congress."

He is why the Ayatollah obtained power. He did nothing afterward.

The Carter Library should be an outhouse.

I think you are all still painting with far too broad a brush.

There isn't a single "Middle Eastern/Islamic culture or mindset" any more than there's a single Western or Christian one. Islam spans dozens of countries, hundreds of ethnic groups and a wide range of political systems, theological traditions and social values. Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Albania and Iran all have Muslim majorities but are hardly interchangeable.

Likewise, Iran's revolutionary ideology is not simply "the Islamic mindset". It reflects a particular mix of Shi'a theology, Persian nationalism, revolutionary politics and the strategic interests of the current regime.

If Western governments have often struggled in the region, it's usually because they've underestimated its complexity, not because they've failed to grasp some single Islamic way of thinking.

In my view, the current conflict with Iran reflects and even intensifies that same tendency to oversimplify a highly complex region. That's one of the reasons successive Western policies have so often produced outcomes very different from those intended.

Iran International

"1 hour ago
UK tightens political funding rules over Russia, China and Iran influence

Britain says Iran, Russia and China are among foreign states attempting to influence and undermine its democracy, as the government announced tighter rules on overseas political donations.

The measures follow a review into foreign financial interference in politics, launched after a former Reform UK politician was jailed last year for accepting bribes to make pro-Russia speeches and statements.

The review found the UK faced a persistent threat from foreign interference, prompting the government to introduce stricter rules on political donations.

Housing Minister Steve Reed said the changes were aimed at preventing "dodgy funding" from influencing British elections."

Agree… and also about Carter being weak. Given the eyewitness account from Ben Barnes regarding the allegation that Casey and Connolly were involved in a deal with Iran regarding the timing of the hostage release, I don't think Carter could ever had made any headway on this in any case. No president would have tried to interfere in the revolt, certainly not the timid Carter

@ sbminisguy

Every leader or government relies on sources they believe. The question is whether they also seek out sources that might prove them wrong.

The problem isn't believing sources. The problem is believing only the sources that confirm what you already want to believe.

Good decision-makers build systems that challenge assumptions. Bad decision-makers surround themselves with people who reinforce them.

It can be claimed that the Johnson administration in Vietnam, the Bush administration before Iraq, and numerous authoritarian regimes have all suffered from versions of the same problem.

So no, I can't name a leader who never relied on sources they believed. However, I can name many who paid a steep price for ignoring sources that contradicted what they wanted to hear.

It appears the administration has gotten stuck in a situation it isn't comfortable with. Whether that was poor planning, reliance on incomplete intel or just sheer bad luck isn't completely clear but something is delaying a tidy resolution.

Well put Incavart.

What worked was the ability to reach out and kill whoever we wanted.
What didn't work was the confidence that this would give us the results we wanted.

So are you all still trying to say that the President and his advisers started this conflict because of the "bogus" 42,000 deaths?

I hope that is not what you are insinuating.

"The 2024 CampaignPreventing Nuclearization: Trump stated he would do "the world a service" by stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, arguing they could not be allowed to obtain the capability."

"The White House and various political archives have documented dozens of instances where Trump used almost identical language to draw his nuclear red line:

The Core Ultimatum: His central message is always some variation of: "Iran will never have a nuclear weapon."

Regional Stability: He consistently argues that Middle Eastern peace is entirely impossible if the Iranian regime achieves nuclear capabilities.

Severe Consequences: He has strictly maintained that any attempt by Iran to build, buy, or acquire a nuclear weapon would result in "unbelievable consequences" and that he would resort to military action to prevent it."

So did he and his advisers believe that, Iran was still working toward those nuclear weapons. (He and they have said as much).

Can you and do you have the "proof" they are incorrect. Not "speculation". Specific up to date from the ground, proof!

If not, we did not go in on false information. We went in on information provided by intelligence services.

All else is only speculation.

My proof comes from the Trump administration itself. After we bombed Iran nuclear facilities Trump, Hegseth and others said the facilities had been wiped out. Gone. Called anyone who didn't agree with this a traitor. Then Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, said that Iran had made no move to start to rebuild or continue to work on a nuclear bomb. Yet, just weeks after this Trump attack Iran claiming the Iranians were just days away from having a nuclear weapon. Hmm.
So, there is your proof from Trump's own mouth. Or, which truth do you believe. When Trump said they were wiped out or when he said they would have a bomb within days.

NYT:

"The Origin of "Nuclear Dust": Following these specific strikes, Trump began using his non-technical term "nuclear dust" to diminish what remained under the rubble, which intelligence officials clarified was actually Iran's highly volatile stockpile of 60% enriched uranium. He claimed the U.S. would eventually go in to retrieve or destroy this material."

Despite President Trump's initial declarations that Iran's nuclear capabilities had been "obliterated" during the June 2025 strikes, the administration shifted its rationale in early 2026 based on several developments:

Rebuilding Nuclear Infrastructure:

In February 2026, the White House asserted that Tehran was actively reconstructing its degraded nuclear facilities and was mere weeks away from producing a nuclear bomb.

Expulsion of Inspectors: Tensions spiked after Iran suspended its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and blocked inspectors from accessing the rubble of the struck facilities to verify uranium stockpiles."

You can choose to believe, or not.

For me, if they justified attacking them for any reason, it would be enough.

It had been coming for way too long.

May our missiles find valuable targets.

"17 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS
US says it launched strikes on Iran after Hormuz vessel attacks

US Central Command said on Tuesday night its forces had begun launching a series of strikes against Iran in response to attacks on three commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

CENTCOM said the strikes were intended to "impose heavy costs" on Iran for targeting commercial shipping crewed by civilians in an international waterway.

"Iran's demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire," the US military said in a post on X.

26 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS
Multiple explosions heard in southern Iran – state media

Several explosions were heard in Sirik County in southern Iran in the early hours of Wednesday, Iran's semi-official Mehr News Agency reported, hours after the United States warned Tehran of consequences over recent ship attacks near the Strait of Hormuz.

Mehr said no official or regional military or law enforcement authority had confirmed or denied the nature of the sounds so far."