Iran's New Conditions to End the War..

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Really?

...

I'm a native born English speaker that prefers simple English, as per above.

Beats heck outta me how they and/or you, think Iran sets the terms of their surrender.

[1blackman1]

Have they surrendered?

Isn’t the US looking for terms to essentially surrender while claiming a victory?

If this was about Iranian surrender, we would have never called a ceasefire pending negotiations. We would just continue our military campaign until Iran waived a white flag. We aren’t negotiating Iran’s surrender, we’re negotiating ours.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Have they surrendered?...

Nope. Appears they have to wait until the very end of the 6th Sense movie to figure out that they are already dead.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

...Isn’t the US looking for terms to essentially surrender while claiming a victory?...

I like your sense of tragically ironic humor.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

...If this was about Iranian surrender, we would have never called a ceasefire pending negotiations. We would just continue our military campaign until Iran waived a red flag...

Let history be your guide. It took Japan eating a couple of nukes before they got a clue. I congratulate President #47, giving them a moment in time to reconsider the value proposition of their 47 years of reigning terror in the region and the world, writ large.
Regardless, they may be a bit color blind. They should be waving the

In related news: The MAGAnanamous Trump took the extra step of simplifying the English for them, to more easily translate into their native language, perhaps...

[1blackman1]

Clearly your understanding of history is limited. And your logic is flawed.

Japan had never been successfully invaded so for them the war wasn’t over. After two atom bombs they waived the white flag and surrendered. Iran hasn’t been invaded and they know having air superiority doesn’t mean the war is won. They also know we, the American people, have no tolerance for a ground invasion or the casualties that would result. For them, the war isn’t over.

Trump isn’t giving Iran some opportunity to save themselves. They know this. He too knows this. The only people that don’t are folks get their information from faux news or untruth social.

For us, America, the war has ended. Aside from some more bombing, we’re done. We aren’t going to do anything further. We’ve surrendered. Iran hasn’t waived the white flag. We have. We’re negotiating with Iran to go back to the pre-war terms. That’s not winning. They still have their uranium Trump allowed them to accumulate and they control traffic in the strait which was openly navigable pre-war.

[offshoredrilling]

well if its a nuke Iran wants lets give them one

lets hope two are not needed this time

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

well if its a nuke Iran wants let give them one

lets hope two are not needed this time

Spoken like a real American

YIKES

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Technically, you could be more wrong, theoretically - IMMHO.
But let's level the playing field a moment.

- The US has not had boots on the ground, per se, except to rescue a WSO.

- The first bomb, "Little Boy," was dropped on Hiroshima at 8:15 AM on August 6, 1945.

- The second bomb, "Fat Man," was dropped on Nagasaki at 11:02 AM on August 9, 1945.

As such, they had a 3 day window to come to terms of their fate.

There is a gulf of difference between done and paused, as it relates to bombing and further actions to coax the current regime to come to grips with their actual fate.

Trump has, Mercifully and MAGAnanimously, already told them they would have two weeks to come to terms with their actual fate. Coincidentally, perhaps, giving the US 2 weeks to rest, restock, resupply, gut check NATO members, lock and load.

Regardless... For us, Americans, we have no desire to allow a terrorist regime pursuing a nuclear weapon, much less gorilla-ising the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, through their web of terrorist proxies.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Clearly your understanding of history is limited. And your logic is flawed.

Japan had never been successfully invaded so for them the war wasn’t over. After two atom bombs they waived the white flag and surrendered. Iran hasn’t been invaded and they know having air superiority doesn’t mean the war is won. They also know we, the American people, have no tolerance for a ground invasion or the casualties that would result. For them, the war isn’t over.

Trump isn’t giving Iran some opportunity to save themselves. They know this. He too knows this. The only people that don’t are folks get their information from faux news or untruth social.

For us, America, the war has ended. Aside from some more bombing, we’re done. We aren’t going to do anything further. We’ve surrendered. Iran hasn’t waived the white flag. We have. We’re negotiating with Iran to go back to the pre-war terms. That’s not winning. They still have their uranium Trump allowed them to accumulate and they control traffic in the strait which was openly navigable pre-war.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Back in 2015 when the JCPOA was signed, your Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chucky Schumer disagreed with you - and agreed with me instead! History has proven we were both correct. As Chucky warned, Iran took the billions it received in sanctions relief and used that money to "redouble its effort to create even more trouble in the Middle East".

Lest we forget...

Here's Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer back in 2015 explaining why he opposed the JCPOA negotiated by Obama:


I have spent the last three weeks.... carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered...

... there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.

Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.

Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections...

Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.

Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.

If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.

In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond...

... the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources...

... When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.

... if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power...

For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsr...-the-iran-deal

@lustylad, I disagree with you and Senator Chuck. The JCPOA was a good deal for the USA and the six other countries that signed it. The deal was preventing Iran from obtaining a atomic bomb for at least 15 years from 2014. It did so by preventing Iran from enriching Uranium from the ground to a 90% concentration of the uranium isotope U-235. Lets briefly recap the deal.


From the enrichment charts you posted some years back, Iran had enriched to a 20% concentration of U-235 before the deal was signed in 2014.


Iran had give up this 20% concentration of U-235 (they could sell it or dilute it). Iran was only allowed to enrich Uranium to a concentration level 3.67% of U-235. This is far from the 20% concentration that they already had. (BTW, a 20% concentration of U-235 is considered "Weapons Grade" ) but this is far from getting an atomic bomb . You need 90% concentration to get the atomic bomb).


Iran had 20,000 centrifuges spinning Uranium before the deal was signed. The deal forced Iran to turn off 19,000 centrifuges. These 19,000 centrifuges were moved to the Natanez plant and were under constant monitoring 24/7 in real time. Post #83 in this thread goes over that.


The bottom line is Iran was not going to get an Atomic bomb under the JPCOA agreement. There was abundance of technology installed to detect cheating, If Trump had stayed with the agreement instead of braking it, they would not be at the 60% concentration of U-235 that they still have today. The bombings in 2025 destroyed only two of the three nuke plants that Iran had. Iran would still be at and enrichment concentration of 3.67% if Trump had not broke the agreement. Keeping Iran at a 3.67% enrichment concentration outweighs any negative that you or Senator Chuck brought up.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal

[pxmcc]

^^informative post sir..