• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Launches War On Iran

Toggle Almendro said:
I checked to see if Israel had signed the Non Proliferation Treaty.



I do not need to inspect Israel's nuclear sites in order to determine that they have not signed the Non Proliferation Treaty.



History is not nonsense. The Arabs massively attacked Israel and they were only defending themselves.



I follow the news.

Iran's heavy water reactor was just in the news a few days ago when Israel bombed and destroyed it.
Click to expand...
Great, Israel hasn't signed the NNPT. So what's your point? Which Arab state "massively attacked" Israel, and when?
 
BirdinHand said:
Correct me if I’m wrong - but isn’t it only a few of the Ayyotolahs that actually subscribe to the most radical Islamic theocracy beliefs and are fully onboard with this mentality?

I could have sworn there were more moderates amongst them that are more willing to work with “the west”, including Israel?

(As long as Iran isn’t directly f*cked with?)


I am not asking that to be snotty - I’m just trying to remember things about Iran and am still having my morning coffee 😂
Click to expand...
Your memory is correct. Yesterday during an interview on NewsNation Karim Sadjadpour, a fellow from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, made the same observation.
 
eohrnberger said:
Ahem, except for Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and a number of others.
Seems it is you who is clueless and making idiotic claims.
Click to expand...
Hardly "massive attacks". Small border incidents, yes, for the most part-as well as Israel invading and occupying Southern Lebanon-twice (and being ejected by Hezbollah). Oh, and Hamas, under international law (y'know, the same laws Israel has violated for decades), allows Palestine to defend itself against a belligerent occupier; Israel. I suggest you get clued-in on international law. It helps.
 
ElChupacabra said:
They've apparently been finalizing their nukes for over 30 years despite us being told they were a few weeks away at various points during that time.
Click to expand...
Failure to heed the warnings then is why we had to bomb Iran now.


ElChupacabra said:
Now the interesting thing is this administration isn't sure about the extent of the damage at Fordo or if the centrifuges were even there,
Click to expand...
The centrifuges were there. Where else would they be?
 
Pound4abrown said:
Regardless, they will somehow twist themselves into an illogical mental pretzel to blame the left.
Much like they heaped praise, when their Rep/Sen came home to tout Millions of dollars in infrastructure monies, that they didn't ****ing vote for.
Click to expand...
1750683592502.webp
 
snakestretcher said:
Trump reneging on JCPOA which the IAEA confirmed Iran was complying with is what has led to this. Do some ****ing homework.
Click to expand...
The are a number of implicit and flawed assumptions in the declaration that the JCPOA was working.
  • The JCPOA assumed Iran would dismantle excess centrifuges, halt enrichment at Fordow, and redesign the Arak reactor to prevent plutonium production, all verified by IAEA inspections.
    It presumed Iran’s political will to comply, driven by sanctions relief incentives (e.g., $100 billion in unfrozen assets, per The New York Times).

    Assumption: The IAEA would have unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, including military sites like Parchin, to verify compliance through continuous monitoring, real-time cameras, and the Additional Protocol (enhanced safeguards). This assumes Iran would provide “full and timely cooperation” on undeclared activities and allow experienced inspectors to operate freely.

    Details: The JCPOA mandated 24/7 IAEA access to Natanz, Fordow, and other sites, with 130–150 inspectors deployed. The Additional Protocol required Iran to declare all nuclear activities and allow snap inspections.
    The assumption hinged on Iran’s transparency and the IAEA’s ability to detect any covert weaponization efforts.

  • International Cooperation and Enforcement
    Assumption: The P5+1 would maintain unified pressure on Iran to comply, with mechanisms like the U.N. Security Council’s “snapback” sanctions (Resolution 2231) to deter violations. It assumed continued U.S. participation and European commitment to sanctions relief, ensuring Iran’s economic incentive to adhere.

  • Long-Term Sustainability of Restrictions
    Assumption: The JCPOA’s phased restrictions (e.g., 10–15-year limits on enrichment, centrifuges, and Arak) would delay Iran’s nuclear capability long enough to build trust, leading to permanent non-proliferation commitments. It assumed Iran would not resume enrichment post-restrictions (e.g., after 2030).

    Details: The deal’s “sunset clauses” allowed Iran to expand nuclear activities after 2025–2030, assuming compliance would foster diplomatic normalization.

  • It presumed ongoing U.S. and P5+1 engagement to negotiate follow-on agreements.
    Critical Analysis
    Flawed Assumptions: The JCPOA’s reliance on Iran’s compliance, robust IAEA access, and P5+1 unity faltered post-2018 U.S. withdrawal, as Iran’s 60% enrichment and restricted inspections (your IAEA question) demonstrate. The assumption of non-weaponization intent is questionable given unresolved pre-2003 activities and recent advances (web:14).

  • Enforcement Weakness: Snapback sanctions require Security Council consensus, unattainable with China and Russia’s opposition (GOV/2025/24). Iran’s economic isolation reduced compliance incentives, as sanctions relief didn’t materialize fully, per Reuters.

    Current Risks: Iran’s breakout time is now weeks, not a year, per the IAEA, with 233 kg of weapons-grade uranium possible in three weeks. https://grok.com/ (query: "You have issue with the outlined constraints on the effectiveness of the JCPOA? On what basis?")
There's only one reason for a regime to enrich uranium beyond what is needed for peace time nuclear uses (between 3% and 6% if I recall) . . . and that's to build a bomb. Iran was enriching to something like 60%, with the last step to full weapons grade being far easier and quicker than getting to 60% enrichment.

Trump had to do what needed to be done.

You do some ****ing homework.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Airyaman said:
If you join in the bombing of a country during a war (Israel/Iran), then you're pretty much part of that war, regardless of formal declarations.
Click to expand...
I will only call at a war until the missiles and bombs start flying each way between the US and Iran for an extended period of time.

This conflict hasnt progressed to that point (yet)
 
L88 said:
Iran could have still complied with the unsigned agreement.

And there are also the facts,
Yes, Iran has faced accusations of hiding nuclear sites from international inspection. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported concerns regarding Iran's failure to provide full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple locations.
Key Concerns:
Failure to declare sites and activities: The IAEA has criticized Iran for not declaring certain nuclear materials and activities, as required by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards agreement.
Restricted Access: Iran has restricted access to IAEA inspectors, particularly since 2021, limiting monitoring and verification of its nuclear program.

Google AI
Uranium traces: The IAEA has detected uranium traces at several undeclared sites in Iran and has been seeking explanations for their presence.
Suspected military dimensions: Concerns have been raised about potential links between Iran's nuclear activities and possible military dimensions of its nuclear program, though Iran maintains its program is for peaceful purposes.
Construction of new facilities: Reports suggest Iran is constructing new underground facilities and fortifying existing ones, raising concerns that they could be used to house undeclared materials or activities.
Denial of access and lack of transparency: Iran has been accused of denying access to inspectors at suspected sites and failing to provide credible explanations for the presence of undeclared nuclear material.
Historical Context:
Revelations dating back to 2002 exposed a "policy of concealment" that systematically deceived the IAEA for years regarding the scope of Iran's nuclear activities.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a nuclear deal reached in 2015, aimed to enhance IAEA monitoring, but limitations on access to certain sites remained a concern.
Click to expand...
This supports the conclusion that Iran was always cheating. Given the additional realistic and real life issues I posted just above surely gives reason to believe that the JCPOA was a pretty pointless and useless agreement, as was Obama's and Biden's trying to bribe the regime into behaving - guess what, they didn't.
 
Along Came Jones said:
Your memory is correct. Yesterday during an interview on NewsNation Karim Sadjadpour, a fellow from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, made the same observation.
Click to expand...
Thank you. If I remember correctly, Khameni (I’m sure I’m spelling that wrong) is one of the few true hard liners left. Most of them have died at this point?

I don’t see “regime change” as something that going to necessarily happen - but the #2 behind him is more moderate.

And, the population of Iran itself - especially among their younger citizens - tended to be trending more moderate.

I just hope that the current actions by Israel (and now the US) haven’t changed that trajectory.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Failure to heed the warnings then is why we had to bomb Iran now.
Click to expand...
Sure, let's go down this road. So the same person that's said Iran will develop a nuclear weapon in 2 weeks for over 30 years also claimed once Iran obtained such a weapon it would use it on Israel. Let's assume they have one - they haven't used it as predicted why, exactly?

Toggle Almendro said:
The centrifuges were there. Where else would they be?
Click to expand...
The US military doesn't share your certainty since they're not sure of their status or if they had been potentially moved.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Poor Marco, the gallery of sadz faces that he is going to have when this is all over, will make a nice display
as he wrestles with his conscience. Eventually all of Trumps people have to pay the piper.
Click to expand...
After Trump is gone some art museum should have an exhibit of all the appointees and their sad faces.
 
eohrnberger said:
The are a number of implicit and flawed assumptions in the declaration that the JCPOA was working.
  • The JCPOA assumed Iran would dismantle excess centrifuges, halt enrichment at Fordow, and redesign the Arak reactor to prevent plutonium production, all verified by IAEA inspections.
    It presumed Iran’s political will to comply, driven by sanctions relief incentives (e.g., $100 billion in unfrozen assets, per The New York Times).

    Assumption: The IAEA would have unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, including military sites like Parchin, to verify compliance through continuous monitoring, real-time cameras, and the Additional Protocol (enhanced safeguards). This assumes Iran would provide “full and timely cooperation” on undeclared activities and allow experienced inspectors to operate freely.

    Details: The JCPOA mandated 24/7 IAEA access to Natanz, Fordow, and other sites, with 130–150 inspectors deployed. The Additional Protocol required Iran to declare all nuclear activities and allow snap inspections.
    The assumption hinged on Iran’s transparency and the IAEA’s ability to detect any covert weaponization efforts.

  • International Cooperation and Enforcement
    Assumption: The P5+1 would maintain unified pressure on Iran to comply, with mechanisms like the U.N. Security Council’s “snapback” sanctions (Resolution 2231) to deter violations. It assumed continued U.S. participation and European commitment to sanctions relief, ensuring Iran’s economic incentive to adhere.

  • Long-Term Sustainability of Restrictions
    Assumption: The JCPOA’s phased restrictions (e.g., 10–15-year limits on enrichment, centrifuges, and Arak) would delay Iran’s nuclear capability long enough to build trust, leading to permanent non-proliferation commitments. It assumed Iran would not resume enrichment post-restrictions (e.g., after 2030).

    Details: The deal’s “sunset clauses” allowed Iran to expand nuclear activities after 2025–2030, assuming compliance would foster diplomatic normalization.

  • It presumed ongoing U.S. and P5+1 engagement to negotiate follow-on agreements.
    Critical Analysis
    Flawed Assumptions: The JCPOA’s reliance on Iran’s compliance, robust IAEA access, and P5+1 unity faltered post-2018 U.S. withdrawal, as Iran’s 60% enrichment and restricted inspections (your IAEA question) demonstrate. The assumption of non-weaponization intent is questionable given unresolved pre-2003 activities and recent advances (web:14).

  • Enforcement Weakness: Snapback sanctions require Security Council consensus, unattainable with China and Russia’s opposition (GOV/2025/24). Iran’s economic isolation reduced compliance incentives, as sanctions relief didn’t materialize fully, per Reuters.

    Current Risks: Iran’s breakout time is now weeks, not a year, per the IAEA, with 233 kg of weapons-grade uranium possible in three weeks.
There's only one reason for a regime to enrich uranium beyond what is needed for peace time nuclear uses (between 3% and 6% if I recall) . . . and that's to build a bomb. Iran was enriching to something like 60%, with the last step to full weapons grade being far easier and quicker than getting to 60% enrichment.

Trump had to do what needed to be done.

You do some ****ing homework.
Click to expand...
Who composed that? Source please. And no, Trump reneged on a deal which was working. Iran had no obligation to continue to comply. In any case whining about Iran's potential nukes is laughably ironic coming from a country which has used them twice, and for no good reason other than to impress Uncle Joe. And don't give me any crap about 'millions of soldier's lives saved' by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan had already been firebombed and starved into submission, and was in no position to continue fighting on any meaningful scale.
 
eohrnberger said:
This supports the conclusion that Iran was always cheating. Given the additional realistic and real life issues I posted just above surely gives reason to believe that the JCPOA was a pretty pointless and useless agreement, as was Obama's and Biden's trying to bribe the regime into behaving - guess what, they didn't.
Click to expand...
It supports nothing but subjective opinion and confirmation bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom