You ought to read the JCPOA deal, or a synopsis of it. The critical issue are the sunset clauses on the amount and enrichment level of stored material, and the restriction on the number of centrifuges that can be in operation. One is 5 years, one is 10 years.
Ok. Perhaps we should start another thread about this topic specifically?
That is a far cry from your assertion that it guarantees Iran will have nuclear arms in X years. Because that assertion assumes two things:
(1) the existing agreement cannot or will not be replaced by an extension or replacement agreement before it expires,
(2) Iran would produce nuclear weapons immediately if the agreement expired without a replacement.
#1 is a preposterous assumption. Very few countries are willing to enter into new, untested agreements “forever”. The idea of a sunset period is it allows both parties to confirm the other is living up to its end of the bargain and that the agreement is functioning as intended. It would be like saying if Congress passes a budget for the year, it “guarantees” the US will go bankrupt, because it only funds the government for one year and will expire without an extension or replacement.
#2 is possible, but cannot be assumed. It also does not support your argument that Iran is less likely to get nuclear arms
without an agreement.
Just think about it:
if you are so worried that Iran would immediately have nukes in 10 years because that’s when the agreement expires, why would you terminate the agreement now, and bring us to that point now?
It makes no sense, it’s self-contradictory, and frankly smacks of the kind of overconfident, amateurish, testosterone-fueled “forget those egghead experts, let’s talk nuclear policy over a beer” thinking that pervades Trump’s style.
Again I await sources for the foreign policy experts / institutions that support your view. Even John Bolton - an implacable Iran hawk - did not seem to share your view that the Iran deal guaranteed them nuclear weapons in X years, from what I have seen.
No, they did not relinquish their entire enriched stockpile. They are approved by this agreement to have enough lower enriched uranium for energy purposes, whatever that means.
We know exactly what that means because it was spelled out and monitored by both the UN and Trump’s own State Department. Iran gave up 97% of its enriched uranium and was in compliance. As a result of Trump re-neging Iran has said they will no longer comply and if I recall they have said they will start enriching more uranium again. I fail to understand how that gets them further, rather than closer, to nuclear weapons. Again - perhaps we should start a new thread?
They see nothing but multiple advantages in having nukes, and none in permanently giving them up.
Why then did Iran dismantle - according to Trump’s own people - their plutonium reactor, for example? Do you dispute that this happened, or do you argue that they were doing something else secretly (building another reactor?) that offset this apparent step backwards from nuclear weapons?
Tangentially, it makes sense for a petro-state to try to diversify its energy resources and become less dependent on domestic crude production / foreign demand.
I won't go over the many successes of the Trump administration. They go from prison/sentencing reform to economic reforms that have created a red hot economy and historic low unemployment rates, including those for minorities.
I am glad that Trumpworld has come to accept the Labor Department’s unemployment rate. Candidate Trump dismissed the very low (and falling) numbers under Obama as fake news - before they became his numbers. And I appreciate you sparing us all “the many successes of the Trump administration”. Perhaps a new thread to cover all of those?
I do not believe that in foreign policy, Trump will act without careful consultation with his foreign policy and military teams.
This is a key point of difference between us. I do not share your faith there and I think it is already evidence he has not been doing that. I would be curious to ask the highest ranking foreign policy and military advisors if they agree with your assessment, such as Rex Tillerson, General Kelly, General Mattis, General McMaster, John Bolton, etc.
It is a cruel and dangerous world, and sometimes there is no option but military intervention to make it safer for many millions. The Arab states are terrified of a nuclear Iran, Israel is terrified of a nuclear Iran, we should be terrified of a nuclear Iran as well.
I agree but I also do not think we should make complex decisions in a state of terror. I am reminded of when we were terrified of a WMD-armed Iraq after 9/11, and how that turned out.
They have to be stopped from getting nukes. If they do get nukes, it will start a cascade of events that could spiral out of control and the whole region, perhaps more, will be severely disrupted
Probably. But a similar cascade of events will happen if the US and Iran go to war. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, which are neighbors of Iran, ought to serve as powerful lessons on this. I would not be quick to exchange the possibility of future violence, for the surety of violence now.