Iran Cheated On Odumbo Before The Ink On The Treaty Was Dry.

And there potentially would have been hell to pay, when the Iranians retaliated against Israel. You could have even ended up with World War III. The actual outcome, the nuclear treaty the Obama administration and others negotiated, was much better. It may mean ten or more years before the Iranians will start working again on developing a nuclear weapon. Originally Posted by Tiny

We are in year five of the agreement. There is no way for Iran to get a nuclear weapon until they turn back on the high speed centrifuges and start enriching uranium again. You're right the constraint of not being able to use the high speed centrifuges is for ten years. Obama, Putin and the other 5 countries cut a good deal. Iran can't get a nuclear weapon for ten years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action

We are in year five of the agreement. There is no way for Iran to get a nuclear weapon until they turn back on the high speed centrifuges and start enriching uranium again. You're right the constraint of not being able to use the high speed centrifuges is for ten years. Obama, Putin and the other countries cut a good deal. Iran can't get a nuclear weapon for ten years. Originally Posted by adav8s28

arya .. sure of that?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...r_project.html


Back to Videos
James Rosen: New Evidence Suggests Iran Could Be Hiding New Nuclear Project


Posted By Tim Hains
On Date April 14, 2019

Via Full Measure News -- Iran remains the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. This week, President Trump designated Iran’s elite armed force, the Revolutionary Guard, a foreign terrorist organization. Meantime, Trump has drawn criticism for suggesting Iran continues to explore nuclear weapons development. James Rosen has some surprising evidence.


In 2015, the Obama Administration and five other world powers struck the controversial nuclear deal with Iran. The agreement restricted Iran's sensitive nuclear activities.

President Obama: Because of this deal, inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location.

As part of the deal, the Obama Administration returned tens of billions of dollars in frozen funds to Iran -- a move criticized in many quarters since Iran remains the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. Last year, the Trump Administration withdrew the US from the agreement. In January, CIA director Gina Haspel told Congress Iran is nonetheless still living up to its part of the bargain.

Sen. Angus King: Since our departure from the deal, they have abided by the terms?

Gina Haspel: At the moment, technically they are in compliance.

But before dawn the morning after Haspel testified, President Trump tweeted the opposite: "The intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong!" And in a TV interview, the President singled out the CIA director’s assessment.

Margaret Brennan: Your intel chiefs do say Iran's abiding by that nuclear deal. I know you think it's a bad deal, but –

Pres. Trump: I disagree with them.

Margaret Brennan: You disagree with that assessment?

Pres. Trump: I have intel people, but that doesn't mean I have to agree.

But newly uncovered evidence may support the President’s suspicions that Iran is violating the nuclear deal.

Benjamin Netanyahu: We’re going to show you Iran’s secret nuclear files.

Fourteen months ago, Israeli intelligence staged an overnight raid on an unmarked warehouse in Iran’s capital. There, explained Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran kept an enormous, and secret, archive of documents about its past nuclear work.

Agents from Israel’s intel agency, known as “the Mossad," made off with half a ton of materials

Benjamin Netanyahu: Here’s a photo showing the casting process, and a cast metal core – from the archives.

Perhaps the biggest revelation was a large number of documents, photos, and blueprints showing that Iran built a secret underground complex, analysts say the archive traces the construction, in 2003-2004, of a massive tunnel system called “the Shahid Boroujerdi project.” Satellite photography places the facility on a military base called Parchin, 30-miles southeast of Tehran, where regime officials have given UN monitors only the most limited access. Archive photos show the huge tunnel-boring equipment used to build the complex, the lining of its tunnels with concrete.

Renowned nuclear physicist David Albright says the site should have been declared and inspected as part of the nuclear deal -- but never was.

David Albright: Parchin is a very important site and Iran has fought like crazy to try to keep the International Atomic Energy Agency out of there.

Albright inspected Saddam Hussein’s nuclear sites in Iraq back in the nineties. His think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, took the lead in publishing the first detailed analysis of the Boroujerdi project.

James Rosen: A case could be made that indeed Iran is not presently complying with the terms of the nuclear deal. Correct?

David Albright: Correct.

James Rosen: And so when President Trump says that he disagrees with his intelligence chiefs about whether the Iranians are complying with the nuclear deal, in your view, as a learned scientist on this subject, there's actually some ground to agree with President Trump?

David Albright: There is. When the head of the CIA says they're technically in compliance with the nuclear deal, what does that mean? I mean, does that mean in the details, they're in compliance, but in the big picture, they're not? We think they may be working on nuclear weapons and making progress.

James Rosen: At the time that the Obama Administration and the other Western powers finalized the Iran nuclear deal, did the United States know about the Boroujerdi project?

David Albright: No.

James Rosen: Did the International Atomic Energy Agency know about the Boroujerdi project?

David Albright: No.

James Rosen: Did the Israelis know about the Boroujerdi project?

David Albright: No.

James Rosen: And to your knowledge, IAEA has taken no steps to go inspect this site?

David Albright: None that I know of.

James Rosen: Olli Heinonen is the former deputy director general, the #2 official at the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has visited Parchin and is considered one of the world's foremost experts on nuclear weapons programs.

James Rosen: Do you believe that Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz, principal negotiators for the United States in the Iran nuclear deal, knew about this facility when they signed off on it?

Olli Heinonen: If they knew about it, they have to have a very good explanation, why this was not exposed and dismantled.

Other world powers who finalized the nuclear agreement -- Germany, France, Britain, China, Russia, and the European Union -- have stayed in the deal, resisting US Pressure to abandon it. Opponents of President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal argued it would alienate those allies who helped negotiate the accord, and undercut the deal’s major accomplishment. Among those critics, Democratic Congressman Peter Welch of Vermont.

Rep. Peter Welch: It did address one: It required Iran to cease and desist from active development of nuclear weapons. That is a huge strategic achievement.

Sharyl: What difference does it make for the US or any other country to pull out or stay in the Iran deal?

James: A lot of it is: business opportunities. As long as the Europeans, Russia and China stay in the deal, their companies can continue do big business with Iran.

Sharyl: Will the discovery of this new material make a difference?

James: That depends on what's done about it. Sources tell me the Trump Administration is pressuring the UN to demand access to this site, so far without success. Analysts believe the site has some active military purpose, and when major restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programs are lifted in the next decade, this facility could help them build a nuclear weapon faster than we thought.

We are in year five of the agreement. There is no way for Iran to get a nuclear weapon until they turn back on the high speed centrifuges and start enriching uranium again. You're right the constraint of not being able to use the high speed centrifuges is for ten years. Obama, Putin and the other 5 countries cut a good deal. Iran can't get a nuclear weapon for ten years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action Originally Posted by adav8s28

You really need to lay off the Odumbo Kool-aid. The Iranians never had any intention of honoring the terms in Odumbo's POS treaty, and they were cheating before the ink dried.

arya .. sure of that?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...r_project.html


Back to Videos
James Rosen: New Evidence Suggests Iran Could Be Hiding New Nuclear Project


Posted By Tim Hains
On Date April 14, 2019

Via Full Measure News -- Iran remains the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. This week, President Trump designated Iran’s elite armed force, the Revolutionary Guard, a foreign terrorist organization. Meantime, Trump has drawn criticism for suggesting Iran continues to explore nuclear weapons development. James Rosen has some surprising evidence.


In 2015, the Obama Administration and five other world powers struck the controversial nuclear deal with Iran. The agreement restricted Iran's sensitive nuclear activities.

President Obama: Because of this deal, inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location.

As part of the deal, the Obama Administration returned tens of billions of dollars in frozen funds to Iran -- a move criticized in many quarters since Iran remains the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. Last year, the Trump Administration withdrew the US from the agreement. In January, CIA director Gina Haspel told Congress Iran is nonetheless still living up to its part of the bargain.

Sen. Angus King: Since our departure from the deal, they have abided by the terms?

Gina Haspel: At the moment, technically they are in compliance.

But before dawn the morning after Haspel testified, President Trump tweeted the opposite: "The intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong!" And in a TV interview, the President singled out the CIA director’s assessment.

Margaret Brennan: Your intel chiefs do say Iran's abiding by that nuclear deal. I know you think it's a bad deal, but –

Pres. Trump: I disagree with them.

Margaret Brennan: You disagree with that assessment?

Pres. Trump: I have intel people, but that doesn't mean I have to agree.

But newly uncovered evidence may support the President’s suspicions that Iran is violating the nuclear deal.

Benjamin Netanyahu: We’re going to show you Iran’s secret nuclear files.

Fourteen months ago, Israeli intelligence staged an overnight raid on an unmarked warehouse in Iran’s capital. There, explained Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran kept an enormous, and secret, archive of documents about its past nuclear work.

Agents from Israel’s intel agency, known as “the Mossad," made off with half a ton of materials

Benjamin Netanyahu: Here’s a photo showing the casting process, and a cast metal core – from the archives.

Perhaps the biggest revelation was a large number of documents, photos, and blueprints showing that Iran built a secret underground complex, analysts say the archive traces the construction, in 2003-2004, of a massive tunnel system called “the Shahid Boroujerdi project.” Satellite photography places the facility on a military base called Parchin, 30-miles southeast of Tehran, where regime officials have given UN monitors only the most limited access. Archive photos show the huge tunnel-boring equipment used to build the complex, the lining of its tunnels with concrete.

Renowned nuclear physicist David Albright says the site should have been declared and inspected as part of the nuclear deal -- but never was.

David Albright: Parchin is a very important site and Iran has fought like crazy to try to keep the International Atomic Energy Agency out of there.

Albright inspected Saddam Hussein’s nuclear sites in Iraq back in the nineties. His think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, took the lead in publishing the first detailed analysis of the Boroujerdi project.

James Rosen: A case could be made that indeed Iran is not presently complying with the terms of the nuclear deal. Correct?

David Albright: Correct.

James Rosen: And so when President Trump says that he disagrees with his intelligence chiefs about whether the Iranians are complying with the nuclear deal, in your view, as a learned scientist on this subject, there's actually some ground to agree with President Trump?

David Albright: There is. When the head of the CIA says they're technically in compliance with the nuclear deal, what does that mean? I mean, does that mean in the details, they're in compliance, but in the big picture, they're not? We think they may be working on nuclear weapons and making progress.

James Rosen: At the time that the Obama Administration and the other Western powers finalized the Iran nuclear deal, did the United States know about the Boroujerdi project?

David Albright: No.

James Rosen: Did the International Atomic Energy Agency know about the Boroujerdi project?

David Albright: No.

James Rosen: Did the Israelis know about the Boroujerdi project?

David Albright: No.

James Rosen: And to your knowledge, IAEA has taken no steps to go inspect this site?

David Albright: None that I know of.

James Rosen: Olli Heinonen is the former deputy director general, the #2 official at the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has visited Parchin and is considered one of the world's foremost experts on nuclear weapons programs.

James Rosen: Do you believe that Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz, principal negotiators for the United States in the Iran nuclear deal, knew about this facility when they signed off on it?

Olli Heinonen: If they knew about it, they have to have a very good explanation, why this was not exposed and dismantled.

Other world powers who finalized the nuclear agreement -- Germany, France, Britain, China, Russia, and the European Union -- have stayed in the deal, resisting US Pressure to abandon it. Opponents of President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal argued it would alienate those allies who helped negotiate the accord, and undercut the deal’s major accomplishment. Among those critics, Democratic Congressman Peter Welch of Vermont.

Rep. Peter Welch: It did address one: It required Iran to cease and desist from active development of nuclear weapons. That is a huge strategic achievement.

Sharyl: What difference does it make for the US or any other country to pull out or stay in the Iran deal?

James: A lot of it is: business opportunities. As long as the Europeans, Russia and China stay in the deal, their companies can continue do big business with Iran.

Sharyl: Will the discovery of this new material make a difference?

James: That depends on what's done about it. Sources tell me the Trump Administration is pressuring the UN to demand access to this site, so far without success. Analysts believe the site has some active military purpose, and when major restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programs are lifted in the next decade, this facility could help them build a nuclear weapon faster than we thought.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The last statement by James is not even possible without the high-speed centrifuges being moved there (to the Parchin plant) and turned on. All of the high-speed centrifuges were moved to the Natanz plant and turned off. The Natanz plant is under constant monitoring 24/7 in real time with video cameras.

From the link below:

For ten years, Iran will place over two-thirds of its centrifuges in storage, from its current stockpile of 19,000 centrifuges (of which 10,000 were operational) to no more than 6,104 operational centrifuges, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium,[47][65] with the enrichment capacity being limited to the Natanz plant. The centrifuges there must be IR-1 centrifuges, the first-generation centrifuge type which is Iran's oldest and least efficient; Iran will give up its advanced IR-2M centrifuges in this period.[45][66][67] The non-operating centrifuges will be stored in Natanz and monitored by IAEA, but may be used to replace failed centrifuges.[71][72] Iran will not build any new uranium-enrichment facilities for fifteen years.[65]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action

The last statement by James is not even possible without the high-speed centrifuges being moved there (to the Parchin plant) and turned on. All of the high-speed centrifuges were moved to the Natanz plant and turned off. The Natanz plant is under constant monitoring 24/7 in real time with video cameras.

From the link below:

For ten years, Iran will place over two-thirds of its centrifuges in storage, from its current stockpile of 19,000 centrifuges (of which 10,000 were operational) to no more than 6,104 operational centrifuges, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium,[47][65] with the enrichment capacity being limited to the Natanz plant. The centrifuges there must be IR-1 centrifuges, the first-generation centrifuge type which is Iran's oldest and least efficient; Iran will give up its advanced IR-2M centrifuges in this period.[45][66][67] The non-operating centrifuges will be stored in Natanz and monitored by IAEA, but may be used to replace failed centrifuges.[71][72] Iran will not build any new uranium-enrichment facilities for fifteen years.[65]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action Originally Posted by adav8s28

Iran is a nuclear cheat and the IAEA is a complete failure

http://www.aei.org/publication/iran-...plete-failure/

Foreign and Defense Policy, Middle East

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s revelation of documents proving Iran worked on a nuclear warhead have fundamentally changed the debate ahead of President Trump’s May 12 deadline to determine whether or not to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.


Advocates of the Iran nuclear deal say that Netanyahu’s exposure of 100,000 documents is proof that the Iran deal worked because, they insist, the agreement ended such Iranian work. That is far from clear.

Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a news conference at the Ministry of Defence in Tel Aviv, Israel, April 30, 2018. Reuters


What is worrisome, however, is how proponents of the JCPOA ignore two problems: First is Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s previous insistence that Iran had never worked on nuclear weapons, and second was that former President Barack Obama accepted Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s supposed fatwa against nuclear weapons as evidence that Iran was sincere. In reality, Netanyahu’s bombshell shows both Zarif and Khamenei have lied repeatedly, raising questions about their honesty about every aspect of Iran’s nuclear program.

The bigger problem, and one that should lead to resignations, is with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Contrary to those who argue that Netanyahu’s revelations reveal nothing new, the documents show both that the size and scope of Iran’s program was far greater than the IAEA realized and that Tehran sought illicitly to retain the ability to reconstitute its program. And yet, the IAEA missed the extent of Iran’s nuclear program, all the while giving cover for largely political reasons that the deal was working.

This represents the IAEA’s second major failure. In 1991, after the IAEA gave Saddam Hussein’s Iraq 11 clean bills of health certifying that Baghdad was not working on a covert nuclear program, documents and Saddam’s own son-in-law revealed that Saddam had fooled IAEA inspectors. As a result, the IAEA created the Additional Protocol which 129 states have signed and ratified. (While Iran has signed the agreement to close loopholes in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has refused to ratify the agreement and so has not committed permanently to the more rigorous inspection regime which JCPOA advocates imply).

Simply put, the IAEA should be ashamed, and IAEA Director Yukiya Amano should be out of a job. Under Amano, the IAEA succumbed to diplomatic pressure to push aside its standards in order to bless a deeply flawed agreement and maintain the fiction that it could certify Iran’s compliance under its watered down parameters.

Iran, after all, was not the first country whose nuclear program the IAEA was asked to certify to be clean. When the Soviet Union fell, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan forfeited their legacy nuclear programs. In 1991, South Africa came in from the cold with regard to its covert program. Even with a fully compliant government, however, it still took the IAEA 19 years to certify South Africa’s compliance to be complete.

And yet, without conducting its own inspection of any Iranian military site, the IAEA gave Iran a free pass. The international community, meanwhile, required Libya to physically dismantle its program, a precedent which neither Obama nor the IAEA upheld. Rather than approach Iran with a critical eye, Amano was willing to look the other way. He degraded the IAEA for political reasons. Rather than give Iran a clean slate, Amano should have held Tehran to the same standards the IAEA had held South Africa and the rest. To make an analogy, rather than uphold university standards, Amano decided to dumb down the standard by which Iran would be judged to junior high summer school. On top of all this, the IAEA agreed to look the other way and then equate the resulting lack of evidence with lack of malfeasance.

Iran has cheated, but make no mistake — by allowing itself to become the agent to politicize and twist intelligence instead of dictating to diplomats standards for inspections and verification, the IAEA has degraded itself and permanently undercut its reputation and raised questions about its ability to fulfill its mission. Amano should go.

Iran is a nuclear cheat and the IAEA is a complete failure

http://www.aei.org/publication/iran-...plete-failure/

Foreign and Defense Policy, Middle East

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s revelation of documents proving Iran worked on a nuclear warhead have fundamentally changed the debate ahead of President Trump’s May 12 deadline to determine whether or not to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.


Advocates of the Iran nuclear deal say that Netanyahu’s exposure of 100,000 documents is proof that the Iran deal worked because, they insist, the agreement ended such Iranian work. That is far from clear.

Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a news conference at the Ministry of Defence in Tel Aviv, Israel, April 30, 2018. Reuters


What is worrisome, however, is how proponents of the JCPOA ignore two problems: First is Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s previous insistence that Iran had never worked on nuclear weapons, and second was that former President Barack Obama accepted Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s supposed fatwa against nuclear weapons as evidence that Iran was sincere. In reality, Netanyahu’s bombshell shows both Zarif and Khamenei have lied repeatedly, raising questions about their honesty about every aspect of Iran’s nuclear program.

The bigger problem, and one that should lead to resignations, is with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Contrary to those who argue that Netanyahu’s revelations reveal nothing new, the documents show both that the size and scope of Iran’s program was far greater than the IAEA realized and that Tehran sought illicitly to retain the ability to reconstitute its program. And yet, the IAEA missed the extent of Iran’s nuclear program, all the while giving cover for largely political reasons that the deal was working.

This represents the IAEA’s second major failure. In 1991, after the IAEA gave Saddam Hussein’s Iraq 11 clean bills of health certifying that Baghdad was not working on a covert nuclear program, documents and Saddam’s own son-in-law revealed that Saddam had fooled IAEA inspectors. As a result, the IAEA created the Additional Protocol which 129 states have signed and ratified. (While Iran has signed the agreement to close loopholes in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has refused to ratify the agreement and so has not committed permanently to the more rigorous inspection regime which JCPOA advocates imply).

Simply put, the IAEA should be ashamed, and IAEA Director Yukiya Amano should be out of a job. Under Amano, the IAEA succumbed to diplomatic pressure to push aside its standards in order to bless a deeply flawed agreement and maintain the fiction that it could certify Iran’s compliance under its watered down parameters.

Iran, after all, was not the first country whose nuclear program the IAEA was asked to certify to be clean. When the Soviet Union fell, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan forfeited their legacy nuclear programs. In 1991, South Africa came in from the cold with regard to its covert program. Even with a fully compliant government, however, it still took the IAEA 19 years to certify South Africa’s compliance to be complete.

And yet, without conducting its own inspection of any Iranian military site, the IAEA gave Iran a free pass. The international community, meanwhile, required Libya to physically dismantle its program, a precedent which neither Obama nor the IAEA upheld. Rather than approach Iran with a critical eye, Amano was willing to look the other way. He degraded the IAEA for political reasons. Rather than give Iran a clean slate, Amano should have held Tehran to the same standards the IAEA had held South Africa and the rest. To make an analogy, rather than uphold university standards, Amano decided to dumb down the standard by which Iran would be judged to junior high summer school. On top of all this, the IAEA agreed to look the other way and then equate the resulting lack of evidence with lack of malfeasance.

Iran has cheated, but make no mistake — by allowing itself to become the agent to politicize and twist intelligence instead of dictating to diplomats standards for inspections and verification, the IAEA has degraded itself and permanently undercut its reputation and raised questions about its ability to fulfill its mission. Amano should go. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

It is true that buying replacement parts for a reactor that was to be shut down is a violation. This type of cheating is like not coming to a full stop at stop sign while driving. The agreement is 5 years old going on 6 years. The reason Iran does not have a nuke bomb right now is pretty simple. The following constraints ARE being followed. One more time it is not possible for Iran to get a nuke bomb until the HIGH-SPEED CENTRIFUGES ARE TURNED BACK ON and the U-235 is enriched to the proper concentration.

From the link below:

For ten years, Iran will place over two-thirds of its centrifuges in storage, from its current stockpile of 19,000 centrifuges (of which 10,000 were operational) to no more than 6,104 operational centrifuges, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium,[47][65] with the enrichment capacity being limited to the Natanz plant. The centrifuges there must be IR-1 centrifuges, the first-generation centrifuge type which is Iran's oldest and least efficient; Iran will give up its advanced IR-2M centrifuges in this period.[45][66][67] The non-operating centrifuges will be stored in Natanz and monitored by IAEA, but may be used to replace failed centrifuges.[71][72] Iran will not build any new uranium-enrichment facilities for fifteen years.[65]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action

It is true that buying replacement parts for a reactor that was to be shut down is a violation. This type of cheating is like not coming to a full stop at stop sign while driving. The agreement is 5 years old going on 6 years. The reason Iran does not have a nuke bomb right now is pretty simple. The following constraints ARE being followed. One more time it is not possible for Iran to get a nuke bomb until the HIGH-SPEED CENTRIFUGES ARE TURNED BACK ON and the U-235 is enriched to the proper concentration.

From the link below:

For ten years, Iran will place over two-thirds of its centrifuges in storage, from its current stockpile of 19,000 centrifuges (of which 10,000 were operational) to no more than 6,104 operational centrifuges, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium,[47][65] with the enrichment capacity being limited to the Natanz plant. The centrifuges there must be IR-1 centrifuges, the first-generation centrifuge type which is Iran's oldest and least efficient; Iran will give up its advanced IR-2M centrifuges in this period.[45][66][67] The non-operating centrifuges will be stored in Natanz and monitored by IAEA, but may be used to replace failed centrifuges.[71][72] Iran will not build any new uranium-enrichment facilities for fifteen years.[65]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action Originally Posted by adav8s28

it won't do you any good to keep posting that. Iran has been shown to cheat on this so-called agreement. your blind faith in this is almost "religious fanaticism". how many times does it need to be shown to you that Iran can and has bypassed your so-called 24/7 live feeds? provided samples without on-site representatives from your precious IAEA?

how many times have you seen movies where any number of cameras have been compromised? it's not just Hollywood fantasy .. it happens in the real world all the time. you don't think the CIA can do that easily? The Mossad? whatever they call the KGB these days? they can all do it and so can Iran.


just because your patron saint Obama approved this crap doesn't mean it's a good deal and that Iran isn't cheating. more blind faith?

The Iranians never had any intention of honoring the terms in Odumbo's POS treaty, and they were cheating before the ink dried. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There is not 1 oz of evidence that Iran has tried to enrich uranium past the 3.76% concentration of U-235 (The radioactive isotope of uranium). The 3.76% concentration is the maximum allowed in the agreement. There is no evidence that Iran has turned on any of the high speed centrifuges, to try and enrich uranium to a weapons grade level of 20% U-235.

The only thing the engineer gave you was that they purchased replacement parts for reactor that was suppose to shut down. That is what you had in post #1. This is the equivalent of going 36 mph in a 35mph speed zone.

There is not 1 oz of evidence that Iran has tried to enrich uranium past the 3.76% concentration of U-235 (The radioactive isotope of uranium). The 3.76% concentration is the maximum allowed in the agreement. There is no evidence that Iran has turned on any of the high speed centrifuges, to try and enrich uranium to a weapons grade level of 20% U-235.

The only thing the engineer gave you was that they purchased replacement parts for reactor that was suppose to shut down. That is what you had in post #1. This is the equivalent of going 36 mph in a 35mph speed zone. Originally Posted by adav8s28

The engineer admitted Iran phonied up the reports and other details that were never inspected and verfied by Odumbo, et al, and Netanyahu explained in great detail how Iran cheated in other areas.

it won't do you any good to keep posting that. Iran has been shown to cheat on this so-called agreement. your blind faith in this is almost "religious fanaticism". how many times does it need to be shown to you that Iran can and has bypassed your so-called 24/7 live feeds? provided samples without on-site representatives from your precious IAEA?

how many times have you seen movies where any number of cameras have been compromised? it's not just Hollywood fantasy .. it happens in the real world all the time. you don't think the CIA can do that easily? The Mossad? whatever they call the KGB these days? they can all do it and so can Iran.


just because your patron saint Obama approved this crap doesn't mean it's a good deal and that Iran isn't cheating. more blind faith? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Here is two questions for you Waco.

What proof do you have that Iran has enriched past 3.76% concentration of U-235?

What proof do you have that Iran has sabotaged the video cameras that are used for the constant montioring of the Natanz nuke plant?

Thanks to Obama. Iran does not possess weapons grade Uranium. If they are doing all the cheating you suggest that would have had a
nuclear bomb by now. Don't forget about those enrichement charts that were posted by lustylad a couple of years ago that showed just how far Iran had enriched when all 20,000 centrifuges were turned on. I don't have time to look for his link. It's out there. Because of this deal Iran does not have weapons grade uranium. Even if they had a delivery system (which they don't) they don't have any weapons grade Uranium or Plutonium to use. The constraints of the deal are good until 2025. After that Iran can turn on the centrifuges and start enriching again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action

Here is two questions for you Waco.

What proof do you have that Iran has enriched past 3.76% concentration of U-235?

What proof do you have that Iran has sabotaged the video cameras that are used for the constant montioring of the Natanz nuke plant?

Thanks to Obama. Iran does not possess weapons grade Uranium. If they are doing all the cheating you suggest that would have had a
nuclear bomb by now. Don't forget about those enrichement charts that were posted by lustylad a couple of years ago that showed just how far Iran had enriched when all 20,000 centrifuges were turned on. I don't have time to look for his link. It's out there. Because of this deal Iran does not have weapons grade uranium. Even if they had a delivery system (which they don't) they don't have any weapons grade Uranium or Plutonium to use. The constraints of the deal are good until 2025. After that Iran can turn on the centrifuges and start enriching again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action Originally Posted by adav8s28

here's a few for you.

why is the agreement a “binding” UN Security Council resolution rather than approved by the House and Senate as TREATIES must be?

the "Intelligence Community" are a bunch of partisan lying hacks. your "faith" in their word on compliance is naive and laughable.

face it. you think this agreement is great because Obama engineered it. you worship Obama. i support Trump. there's a difference.

Obama is a traitorous Muslim {forbidden topic} who despises Israel and is allowing his Muslim brothers a way to destroy them. Israel won't tolerate this and they will strike Iran to stop them.

.https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy....-nuclear-deal/

Five Myths About President Trump’s Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal

May 14, 2019 Fred Fleitz

May 8, 2019 marked the one-year anniversary of one of President Trump’s most important foreign policy decisions – withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, the JCPOA. This was a controversial decision that was condemned by the usual mainstream foreign policy and press naysayers who predicted it would start a war, be ignored by European states and isolate the United States.

None of this happened. A year later it is clear that President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA was the right call. However, the mainstream media and foreign policy establishment refuse to admit this and are instead promoting five myths to make the case that this was the wrong decision. None of these myths stand up to scrutiny.

Myth 1: The JCPOA is a good agreement.

Contrary to President Trump’s statement that the JCPOA is the worst deal ever negotiated, its backers insist the agreement was a diplomatic success based on reasonable compromises with Iran that significantly reduced the threat from its nuclear program.

There is strong and growing evidence to the contrary.

Let’s start by reviewing what President Obama promised the American people would be in a nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by his administration.

When campaigning for president in 2007, Mr. Obama told an America Israel Public Affairs Committee conference: “The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium-enrichment program.” President Obama went further during an October 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney when he said: “… Our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place. … But the deal we’ll accept is — they end their nuclear program. It’s very straightforward.”

These statements by the former president could have been the basis of an excellent nuclear agreement to address regional and global concerns about Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, after Iran refused to agree to these terms, the Obama administration pursued a much weaker agreement based on a series of ill-advised and dangerous concessions to Tehran.

The most dangerous concession was abandoning Obama’s promise to require Iran to cease enriching uranium, a process that can be used to make uranium fuel for both power reactors and nuclear weapons. Instead, the JCPOA concedes to Iran the “right” to enrich uranium and allows it to operate 5,000 centrifuge machines and develop more advanced centrifuges while the agreement is in effect.

Under the nuclear agreement, Iran agreed to disable an under-construction heavy-water reactor (a source of plutonium) which JCPOA parties agreed to replace with a redesigned reactor that would produce less plutonium. Plutonium poses major nuclear proliferation concerns because it can be used as a lighter and more powerful nuclear bomb fuel than enriched uranium. The decisions by JCPOA parties to not only let Iran have a heavy-water reactor, but to build one for Iran and teach it how to operate such a reactor are among the JCPOA’s worst and most dangerous concessions to Tehran. Moreover, according to a February 2019 Institute for Science and International Security report, there are indications that Iran did not fully disable this reactor as required and may have taken steps to alter its design so it will produce larger amounts of plutonium.

The JCPOA has other major flaws. It has weak enforcement provisions (more about this later) and excludes Iran’s missile program, its sponsorship of terrorism and Iranian meddling in Middle East conflicts.

The agreement also has a short duration. Under the JCPOA’s “sunset clauses” its provisions begin to expire in 2025.

And then there are the huge financial benefits Iran gained from the JCPOA. Not only did Tehran receive $150 billion in sanctions relief, a web of tough multinational sanctions against Iran – including EU financial and oil sanctions – were ended and will be difficult to fully reimpose. Iran also received $1.7 billion in cash secretly flown to Tehran. While Obama officials insisted these planeloads of cash were sent to pay an old U.S. debt to Iran, it is clear this payment was actually ransom to free innocent U.S. citizens imprisoned in Iran.

The JCPOA also failed to meet one of President Obama’s chief goals for the agreement: bringing Iran into the community of nations and ending its belligerent behavior. Instead, Iran’s behavior significantly worsened after the JCPOA was agreed to when it sent troops into Syria, arms to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and increased spending on terrorism, the military and its missile program. In response to Iranian assassination squads operating in Europe to kill Iranian dissidents, the European Union imposed sanctions on Iran in January 2019, the first EU sanctions since the JCPOA was implemented.

Many critics of the Obama administration believe Obama officials made so many risky concessions to negotiate the JCPOA because they were desperate to get a “legacy” nuclear deal for President Obama. By agreeing to such a weak and lopsided agreement, the Obama administration emboldened Iran to step up its belligerent activity, failed to halt Iran’s nuclear program and undermined American credibility on the world stage.

Myth 2: President Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA was illegal and immoral because the agreement is legally binding.

JCPOA supporters could credibly argue the nuclear agreement was legally and morally binding on the United States if Obama officials had followed the U.S, Constitution and submitted this agreement for ratification as a treaty by the U.S. Senate. While the Iranian parliament was permitted to ratify the JCPOA, Obama officials refused to submit it for Senate ratification because this deal was deeply unpopular with the American people and opposed by a majority in both houses of Congress.

Instead, on July 20, 2015 – five days after the JCPOA was agreed to – the Obama administration engineered a “binding” UN Security Council resolution that endorsed the nuclear deal so it could argue the agreement was binding on future presidents. Senate and House opponents of the JCPOA were given an opportunity to kill the JCPOA in September 2015 through the Corker-Cardin Act, but were required to get filibuster-proof and veto-proof majorities AGAINST the deal, a process that National Review’s Andrew McCarthy called “a constitutional perversion.”

That is not how the U.S. system of government works. The ratification of treaties requires a 2/3 vote in favor by the U.S. Senate. A U.S. president can’t do an end-run around the Constitution to impose a treaty on his successors by going to the United Nations because, as Ambassador John Bolton once said, “the U.S. Constitution trumps the UN Charter.” The fact is, the JCPOA is an executive agreement signed by President Obama that in no way binds his successors. There therefore was nothing to stop President Trump from rejecting this executive agreement with the stroke of his pen.

Myth 3: The U.S. should not have withdrawn from the JCPOA because Iran was complying. We know this because the IAEA and the US Intelligence Community said so.

There is strong evidence Iran has violated the JCPOA from the beginning of the agreement even though IAEA and U.S. intelligence officials refuse to acknowledge this.

Iran’s refusal to allow IAEA inspections of military sites is a clear violation of the JCPOA. If covert nuclear weapons work is being conducted in Iran, it is taking place at military sites. Although the IAEA could ask to inspect Iranian military facilities, it won’t do so because Tehran would refuse, which would force the IAEA to declare Iran in noncompliance with the JCPOA. This reluctance of the IAEA to conduct full inspections in Iran could be called a “don’t ask, don’t inspect” policy.

There was one exception to Iran’s refusal to allow IAEA inspections of military sites, the Parchin military base, which was inspected in September 2015. However, Iran insisted this site be inspected by Iranians and tightly restricted what they could inspect to a single building that was sanitized to remove incriminating evidence. Nevertheless, samples collected by this inspection proved that nuclear weapons work had been conducted at this site that Iran tried to hide.

The Parchin inspection was in response to paragraph 14 of the JCPOA which required Iran to fully cooperate with an ongoing IAEA investigation of the “Possible Military Dimensions” (PMD) of its nuclear program before Tehran would be granted full sanctions relief in January 2016. A December 2, 2015 IAEA report indicated that Iran failed to fully cooperate with this investigation, making it impossible for the Agency to explain Iran’s nuclear activities and assess with certainty that possible nuclear weapons-related activities had ceased. However, led by the United States, IAEA members decided to ignore these issues and voted on December 15, 2015 to close the file on Iran’s PMD issues.

We learned last year from a trove of Iranian nuclear documents stolen by Israeli intelligence – a.k.a. the Iranian Nuclear Archive – how far Iran’s nuclear program had progressed and the extent of its deception during the IAEA’s 2015 PMD investigation. This included:

— A plan to manufacture five nuclear warheads at 10 kilotons each.
— A plan to conduct an underground nuclear test.
— An attempt to acquire highly-enriched uranium (weapons-grade) from abroad.

The nuclear archive documents also provided details of multiple buildings at the Parchin base where work to develop nuclear weapons was conducted.

Israel learned from the Iranian nuclear archive about the existence of a secret atomic warehouse in Tehran that may have contained 300 tons of equipment and 15 kilograms of radioactive material. Israeli officials told the IAEA about this discovery in the spring of 2018 and urged the Agency to inspect it. However, probably due to its “don’t ask, don’t inspect” policy, the IAEA failed to inspect this warehouse until April 2019, long after it had been emptied.

There has been other compelling evidence of Iranian cheating on the JCPOA, including several reports by German intelligence agencies on covert efforts by Iran to acquire nuclear equipment and materials in violation of the nuclear agreement.

If there is strong evidence that Iran has been violating the JCPOA, why do the IAEA and the U.S. Intelligence Community claim otherwise? One reason may be that they prefer to side on this issue with the liberal foreign policy establishment and European leaders rather than American conservatives like President Donald Trump and Ambassador John Bolton. Another reason could be that while these organizations privately believe the JCPOA is flawed, they feel it is better than nothing. Regardless of the actual reasons, IAEA and U.S. intelligence officials have misled the American people and the world on Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal.

Myth 4: The United States should have stayed in JCPOA and fixed it.

This is a popular myth about the JCPOA that some conservatives have fallen for which revolves around the fallacy that minor modifications to the nuclear deal – notably removing or extending its “sunset clauses” – could fix the agreement.

The are many problems with the “fixer” approach, the most important of which is that the agreement cannot be fixed without major changes that Iran will never agree to, such as barring uranium enrichment and heavy-water reactors, including Iran’s missile program, implementing tougher inspections that allow the IAEA to inspect Iranian military sites, and resolving unanswered PMD questions.

The fixers ignored the need for major revisions and instead focused on a less urgent issue – the short duration of the JCPOA due to its sunset clauses under which most provisions expire between 2025 and 2030. The problem with this approach is that by only altering the sunset clauses, such fixes would extend or make permanent this dangerously flawed agreement.

Before President Trump made his decision in May 2019 to withdraw from the JCPOA, members of Congress and American and European diplomats had 16 months to devise a plan of revisions to convince President Trump to not exit the nuclear deal. They failed because they were unable to reach an agreement. And even if they had, Iran was dead set against any changes to the JCPOA.

Myth 5: President Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA would be ineffective and could cause a war.

As stated earlier, President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal and his “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran has resulted in a successful Iran policy.

The predictions of war with Iran if the U.S. withdrew from the nuclear accord have proved to be groundless fearmongering by the Left. This is still the case today despite a recent deployment of U.S. warships and bombers to the Middle East as a show of force in response to intelligence indicating that Iran may be considering acts of terrorism against U.S. or allied targets in the Middle East. While this deployment does not indicate President Trump plans to go to war with Iran, it is another sign that Iran deserves the U.S. State Department’s designation as the world’s leading state-sponsor of terrorism.

Iran also threatened last week to retaliate for the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA by withdrawing from parts of the agreement by ending limits on uranium enrichment and sales of heavy water. These threats are absurd because the Iranian president threatening to withdraw from a weak nuclear agreement that Iran is already cheating on.

Meanwhile, European multinationals are honoring re-imposed U.S. sanctions and are leaving Iran in droves, including Air France, British Airways, KLM, Total, Siemens, and Volkswagen. New U.S. sanctions have isolated Iran and deprived its ruling mullahs of funds to spend on the military, terrorism and meddling in regional disputes.

The Trump administration’s Iran sanctions have caused Iran’s oil exports to drop to about 1.3 million barrels a day, down from 2.8 million before the U.S. left the JCPOA. Iran’s oil exports probably will drop much further due to the Trump administration recent decision to end all exemptions to U.S. oil sanctions. Iran’s economy is expected to shrink by 6 percent in 2019 after negative 3.9 percent growth in 2018. 2019 inflation could reach 50 percent.

At the same time, President Trump remains open to dialogue with Iranian leaders just like he was open to talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Secretary Pompeo announced a list of 12 U.S. requirements for a new agreement with Iran on nuclear and regional issues in a May 2018 speech at the Heritage Foundation. So far, Iranian officials have shown no interest in dialogue with the U.S. and are sticking to hostile rhetoric to divide and threaten America.

While a new agreement that addresses the full range of threats from Iran is not on the horizon, President Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and his maximum pressure policy have yielded many important achievements, including strengthening America’s relationships with Israel and the Gulf states and repairing the damage done to these relationships by the Obama administration’s pro-Iran, leading-from-behind Middle East policy.

President Trump’s Iran policy has also reversed significant erosion during the Obama administration of longstanding U.S. policies to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles worldwide.

The decision to withdraw from the JCPOA was a difficult one because the mainstream media, former Obama officials and the foreign policy establishment have vociferously promoted so many myths about this agreement and the alleged dangers of the U.S. withdrawing from it. Some Republicans, including former members of President Trump’s cabinet, fell for these myths.

President Trump did not. As an outsider who instinctively questions conventional wisdom, Mr. Trump instead looked at the facts and listened to a wide range of critics of the nuclear deal, including Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. This led to what may be the most important foreign policy decision of the Trump presidency that has significantly improved regional and international security and helped restore American credibility in the Middle East and around the world.

It is true that buying replacement parts for a reactor that was to be shut down is a violation. This type of cheating is like not coming to a full stop at stop sign while driving. Originally Posted by adav8s28

What part of ...



... do you not understand?

Do you understand it better when you see a cop sitting across the street ....

... watching you?

The most dangerous concession was abandoning Obama’s promise to require Iran to cease enriching uranium, a process that can be used to make uranium fuel for both power reactors and nuclear weapons. Instead, the JCPOA concedes to Iran the “right” to enrich uranium and allows it to operate 5,000 centrifuge machines and develop more advanced centrifuges while the agreement is in effect.

The agreement also has a short duration. Under the JCPOA’s “sunset clauses” its provisions begin to expire in 2025.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Your policy link has a couple of mistakes. Before the agreement Iran had 19,000 centrifuges in operation (14,000 slow-speed and 5,000 high-speed centrifuges) Your link fails to mention that as part of the agreement about 9,000 slow-speed centrifuges and all 5,000 high-speed centrifuges were turned off and are under constant monitioring at the Natanz plant.

Your policy link also fails to mention that Iran is only allowed to enrich uranium to a concentration of 3.76% of U-235 which is far below the weapons grade level of 20% concentration of U-235.
If the deal had not be signed Iran would be in possession of weapons grade Uranium because they had completed a significant amount of Uranium enrichment before the agreement was signed. See the chart that was posted by lustylad.

It's true that major constraints are lifted in 2025 (that part they got right) and Iran can turn on all of the centrifuges and start enriching again. It was communicated from the beginning that deal prevents Iran from getting a nuke bomb for 10 years. We are in to year 5 of the agreement and Iran does not have weapons grade Uranium and they don't have a delivery system either.

Your policy article is critical of the 10 year window. You are not going to get everything that you want in a negotiation. Your policy article does not prove that the major constraints of the agreement are not being followed.

From the link below:

For ten years, Iran will place over two-thirds of its centrifuges in storage, from its current stockpile of 19,000 centrifuges (of which 10,000 were operational) to no more than 6,104 operational centrifuges, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium,[47][65] with the enrichment capacity being limited to the Natanz plant. The centrifuges there must be IR-1 centrifuges, the first-generation centrifuge type which is Iran's oldest and least efficient; Iran will give up its advanced IR-2M centrifuges in this period.[45][66][67] The non-operating centrifuges will be stored in Natanz and monitored by IAEA, but may be used to replace failed centrifuges.[71][72] Iran will not build any new uranium-enrichment facilities for fifteen years.[65]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action

Your link fails to mention that as part of the agreement about 9,000 slow-speed centrifuges and all 5,000 high-speed centrifuges were turned off and are under constant monitioring at the Natanz plant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action Originally Posted by adav8s28

Your source of "knowledge" is .... "wikipedia"?????????????



That reminds me of those in the early 2000's who were whining about letting the U.N. and The IAEA continue with inspections of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" ... only stupid people believed that shit! And only stupid people believe Iran's program is being continuously "monitored"!!!

This is what Iran thought of Obaminable .... and Kerry! Biden! and HillariousNoMore!