Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 7K
  • Views: 214K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
What leads you to believe that the end result of this war will be the removal of Iran's enriched uranium or a long term degradation of its ability further enrich it to weapons grade? Do you really think we'll be sending in the hundreds or thousands of ground troops that would be needed to accomplish that?
Click to expand...
Great question. My opinions on the entire thing changes somewhat based on the evolution of information and as my own increasing knowledge of iran increases. None of us really knows what the decision makers know so we are all trying to form educated opinions. I guess the easiest way to give an answer to your question is to lay it out in bullet points. My initial opinion was formed with the baseline of:

- Trump has been the most successful potus in my lifetime in building some basic levels of peace in the middle east through the Abraham accords and other interactions. No longer is israel the enemy to most of the middle east it used to be, but without the US's influence that would likely fall apart. Israel going it alone would be a disaster.
- When israel said they had reached the point that they were going with us or without us that pretty much forced our hand.
- Much of the ME was also fed up with iran and their support would be there as they were fearful of iran with a nuke.
- Crippling iran's military and infrastructure would give the region time for the increased "harmony" to take root and would further isolate them giving more opportunity to overthrow the existing regime. I never thought regime change could occur without destroying the IRG wich would take 50,000 ground troops which I'm adamently opposed to.

Based on the above, I was, and still am in favor of limited action that minimized the possibility of casualties. The biggest threat in the world to me was iran with nukes. Not just from war, but from the disaster it would have on the global economy for years if iran used a nuke. I listened to an interview bill oreilly gave describing his participation in a cabinet / situation room meeting. I don't always agree with oreilly, but I do think he is an intelligent / common sense person and his opinion and take is based on a degree of logic (I don't know if he was for or against taking action or not). His take was that trump's analysis / questions he asks / demeanor / etc. is that he is reasoned, analytical, and rooted in logic as it relates to sincerity and what trump truly believes is the best approach. That isn't altogether different than other opinions I have read from people who have met with him outside of cameras. So I give some validity to oreilly's opinion on this matter. I think it is way under-reported that iran admitted they had highly enriched uranium and as it turns out, their ballistic missle program was further along in producing long-range missles that are capable of reaching western europe. It only takes weeks to go from dirty bomb material to weapons grade material. Not years. So it seems like israel wasn't to far off on saying iran was closer that the world thought.

The primary concern I have is getting the uranium. How that takes place I don't know. It will certainly take ground troops and do we know where it is? Today trump says it is burried deep enough that it would take years to dig it up. Well I'm not in favor of spending years trying to dig it up so that is less of a concern than when this all started based on what I knew then. Now the biggest issue to deal with imo is the Strait and how that opens up. So in getting around to answering your questions - I believe we have crippled iran's military and industrial complex to the point that they are no longer a military threat to the middle east and won't be for a decade or more. That is a win to me as iran is further isolated and has been worth the effort so far. I do believe that limited use of ground troops could achieve certain strategic goals relatively quickly but a bigger concern is what to do from there. I predicted we would be out by the time of the Masters. I still think that is possible. I would like to see us take karg and use it as the bargaining chip on the strait. Long term the strait needs to be held by a coalition of ME countries where it can never be used again to hold the world's economy hostage. I think its telling that many of the ME countries (currently being hit by iran) don't want us to leave until the job is finished. That is a hell of a change from 20 years ago. Am I 100% confident things will turn out in the most ideal way? Not at all. They rarely ever do. But even if we did nothing else but get the strait opened back up and called it quits it would have been worth it, IF, the uranium is unreachable. Trump has threatened to quit and leave the strait to the rest of the world. I don't think that is realistic because that would take to long and oil prices won't fall until the strait is opened. Trump can't politically afford to have gas prices where they are for several more months. Just his way of getting europe to step up.

Sorry for the rambling reply. Have been in and out all day.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Dishonest about EVERYTHING.

Iran was not on the cusp of having nuclear weapons. They never have been. Full stop. That is the lie of all lies.

Every statement about our actions in Iran is a lie. Every timeline is a lie. Every motivation is a lie.

If the man is breathing, he is lying.

And you damned well know it.
Click to expand...
We disagree
 
"Trump has been the most successful potus in my lifetime in building some basic levels of peace in the middle east through the Abraham accords and other interactions. No longer is israel the enemy to most of the middle east it used to be, but without the US's influence that would likely fall apart. Israel going it alone would be a disaster."

Mothers Day Lol GIF by reactionseditor
 
“- Trump has been the most successful potus in my lifetime in building some basic levels of peace in the middle east through the Abraham accords and other interactions.“

Peace in the Middle East aside from a year and a half on non-stop military strikes in Gaza and Iran and Iran’s retaliatory attacks in Iraq, Israel, UAE, Dubai, Bahrain and the Persian Gulf. 🥳
 
1moretimeagain said:
“- Trump has been the most successful potus in my lifetime in building some basic levels of peace in the middle east through the Abraham accords and other interactions.“

Peace in the Middle East aside from a year and a half on non-stop military strikes in Gaza and Iran. 🥳
Click to expand...
Dude is a either a full-blown cult member, a moron, or both.
 
1moretimeagain said:
“- Trump has been the most successful potus in my lifetime in building some basic levels of peace in the middle east through the Abraham accords and other interactions.“

Peace in the Middle East aside from a year and a half on non-stop military strikes in Gaza and Iran. 🥳
Click to expand...
I mean the guy thinks the Biden administration was the most corrupt administration ever.
 
ChileG said:
And you know this because the biggest liars in our nation’s history and their propaganda mouthpieces said so!
Click to expand...
No, because common sense, facts, and a simple understanding of who you are making the deal with say so. Anyone who believes that deal would have prevented iran from having nukes is a straight up idiot. In fact it cleared a path for them to do so if they just waited a little while. Just to refresh your memory of how bad it was.

Arguments against the deal generally centered on the belief that it empowered Iran, provided only temporary restrictions, and failed to address non-nuclear threats. Key criticisms included:

1. "Sunset Clauses" and Temporary Restrictions
  • Time-Limited Constraints: Critics argued that the deal was not a permanent solution, but merely "kicked the can down the road". Key restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium production were set to expire ("sunset") in 10 to 15 years, allowing Iran to legally expand its nuclear program afterward.
  • Pathway to Nuclear Capability: By 2031, or sooner, Iran would be permitted to use advanced centrifuges, build heavy-water reactors, and produce high-enriched uranium without the restrictions imposed by the deal.
2. Sanctions Relief and Funding of Proxies
  • "Signing Bonus" for Terrorism: The deal unfroze billions of dollars in Iranian assets, with estimates ranging from $29 billion to over $100 billion. Critics argued this influx of cash was used to fund Iran’s military and proxy groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and Houthi rebels in Yemen.
  • Enriching an Adversary: Opponents felt the deal relieved pressure on an "extremist anti-American terror state" without demanding changes to its regional behavior.
3. Weak Inspection Regime
  • Limitations on Access: Critics claimed the deal did not allow for "anytime, anywhere" inspections, particularly of military sites, which they believed were critical for detecting illicit activity.
  • 24-Day Delay: The agreement included a "snapback" mechanism and a dispute resolution process that could take up to 24 days to grant access to suspicious sites, providing time to hide potential cheating.

  • 4. Omission of Other Threats
  • Ballistic Missiles: The JCPOA did not include restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program, which could be used to deliver nuclear weapons.
  • Regional Aggression: The agreement failed to address Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East, including its support for the Assad regime in Syria.
5. Verification and Trust
  • Past Misdeeds: Opponents argued that Iran, having a history of deception regarding its nuclear program, could not be trusted to comply with the deal's terms.
  • Not a Treaty: The deal was not ratified as a treaty, leading to criticism that it was a personal political act by the Obama administration rather than a formal, binding agreement.
Conversely, supporters of the deal, including President Obama and European partners, argued it was the best way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran without resorting to war. They contended it successfully reduced Iran's nuclear stockpile, allowed for unprecedented inspections, and established a "snapback" mechanism to reimpose sanctions if necessary.
 
Enigma94 said:
It did nothing and yet ten years after it was signed Iran had no nuclear weapon in spite of your and Israel's ilk bleating about how they are constantly weeks away from having one. So your cult leader bombs them and has you bleat some more about how their program was "obliterated" and wouldn't be able to produce a nuke for years, only to have several months pass before they are supposedly yet again weeks away from a nuke making going to war a necessity. I'm sure you were pushing the narrative of no new wars during the last election, yet here you are pushing another war that will fix a problem that you supposedly fixed several months ago that hadn't been a problem in the decade since the "horrible deal" was signed. You are a pox on our country and humanity and will believe anything you are told to believe.
Click to expand...
blah blah blah blah Your only counter argument is iran is trustworthy and wouldn't pursue nukes "because they gave their word", but required 24 day notice before allowing limited inspections, and it is irrelevent that in 2031 Obama was cool with them going full on nuclear. Yea, an idiot.
 
CFordUNC said:
Use of AI or ChatGPT-generated responses in absence of one's own ability to form or articulate original thought is the clearest signal of surrender on a subject.
Click to expand...
I didn't use it to form the argument. i used it to list the limitations. Its called efficiency. Been a while, have you formed an original thought on this yet? Or are you still in cheerleader mode? Can you find iran on a map?
 
Callatoroy said:
No, because common sense, facts, and a simple understanding of who you are making the deal with say so. Anyone who believes that deal would have prevented iran from having nukes is a straight up idiot. In fact it cleared a path for them to do so if they just waited a little while. Just to refresh your memory of how bad it was.

Arguments against the deal generally centered on the belief that it empowered Iran, provided only temporary restrictions, and failed to address non-nuclear threats. Key criticisms included:

1. "Sunset Clauses" and Temporary Restrictions
  • Time-Limited Constraints: Critics argued that the deal was not a permanent solution, but merely "kicked the can down the road". Key restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium production were set to expire ("sunset") in 10 to 15 years, allowing Iran to legally expand its nuclear program afterward.
  • Pathway to Nuclear Capability: By 2031, or sooner, Iran would be permitted to use advanced centrifuges, build heavy-water reactors, and produce high-enriched uranium without the restrictions imposed by the deal.
2. Sanctions Relief and Funding of Proxies
  • "Signing Bonus" for Terrorism: The deal unfroze billions of dollars in Iranian assets, with estimates ranging from $29 billion to over $100 billion. Critics argued this influx of cash was used to fund Iran’s military and proxy groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and Houthi rebels in Yemen.
  • Enriching an Adversary: Opponents felt the deal relieved pressure on an "extremist anti-American terror state" without demanding changes to its regional behavior.
3. Weak Inspection Regime
  • Limitations on Access: Critics claimed the deal did not allow for "anytime, anywhere" inspections, particularly of military sites, which they believed were critical for detecting illicit activity.
  • 24-Day Delay: The agreement included a "snapback" mechanism and a dispute resolution process that could take up to 24 days to grant access to suspicious sites, providing time to hide potential cheating.

  • 4. Omission of Other Threats
  • Ballistic Missiles: The JCPOA did not include restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program, which could be used to deliver nuclear weapons.
  • Regional Aggression: The agreement failed to address Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East, including its support for the Assad regime in Syria.
5. Verification and Trust
  • Past Misdeeds: Opponents argued that Iran, having a history of deception regarding its nuclear program, could not be trusted to comply with the deal's terms.
  • Not a Treaty: The deal was not ratified as a treaty, leading to criticism that it was a personal political act by the Obama administration rather than a formal, binding agreement.
Conversely, supporters of the deal, including President Obama and European partners, argued it was the best way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran without resorting to war. They contended it successfully reduced Iran's nuclear stockpile, allowed for unprecedented inspections, and established a "snapback" mechanism to reimpose sanctions if necessary.
Click to expand...
So what was the solution that evaded Obama 12 years ago? What should the US have done?
 
CFordUNC said:
I'm so amused at the shameless abject hypocrisy of the notion that the only country to ever actually use nuclear weapons on another country, and the only country besides Russia and Israel that seems to believe it is our God-granted birthright to repeatedly bomb and invade other countries when we don't like their leaders- has the gall to believe it has the moral authority to tell other countries that they can't pursue nuclear weapons themselves.
Click to expand...
of mice and men GIF
Maybe your mother would explain it to you if you come up from the basement.
 
I kind of like using AI for this. For example, comparing the JCPOA to the current status quo --

Nuclear Constraints and Breakout Time

The most concrete argument in favor of the JCPOA is its impact on Iran's nuclear breakout time—the amount of time it would take Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Under the deal, Iran's breakout time was stretched to over twelve months. Today, following the deal's collapse, Iran's breakout time has been reduced to approximately one week or less, as reported by the IAEA in late 2024. Under the JCPOA, Iran was restricted to enriching uranium to no more than 3.67% purity; Iran is now enriching uranium to 60% and, as of May 2025, possessed over 400 kg of uranium enriched to that level—a nearly 50% increase from just months prior.

The deal also blocked both pathways to weapons-grade fissile material: uranium enrichment and plutonium separation. The plutonium-related provisions were considered so valuable that even the Trump administration issued sanctions waivers for several years after withdrawal to allow the UK and China to continue modifying Iran's Arak reactor, which could otherwise have produced enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons per year.

Verification and Transparency

The JCPOA established what RAND characterized as "the strongest inspections system ever negotiated". Iran agreed to implement the Additional Protocol, granting the IAEA expanded access to its nuclear facilities and potentially to undeclared sites. The IAEA confirmed multiple times that Iran was complying with the agreement while it was in effect.

After the U.S. withdrawal and Iran's subsequent steps away from the deal, Iran suspended implementation of the Additional Protocol in February 2021 and has increasingly limited the IAEA's ability to inspect its facilities. The IAEA has noted that the currently delayed inspection process would make it difficult to detect any breakout promptly. In short, the international community has lost much of the visibility it once had into Iran's nuclear program.

Diplomatic Multilateralism and U.S. Credibility

The JCPOA was a multilateral agreement involving the P5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany) and the EU. By unilaterally withdrawing in 2018, the United States placed itself—rather than Iran—in a position of noncompliance, which risked isolating the U.S. from its allies. RAND analysts warned at the time that walking away from the deal would "send a clear message that the United States can't be trusted to keep its word" and would "degrade our long-term commitment to end the spread of nuclear weapons". European allies tried to maintain the deal through mechanisms like INSTEX, but those efforts largely failed.

The Current Situation: Escalation and Conflict

The post-JCPOA trajectory has been marked by significant escalation. U.S.-Iran tensions culminated in a military conflict beginning in mid-2025, with the U.S. and Israel launching strikes on Iran's nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. As of March 2026, the situation has devolved into an ongoing war, with 1,500 people killed in Iran, the Strait of Hormuz closed to most shipping, and oil prices soaring above $100 per barrel. The U.S. and Iran remain far apart on ceasefire terms, with Iran's military leadership stating it "can never get along" with the U.S. and refusing to negotiate directly.

Counterarguments

It should be noted that critics of the JCPOA raised legitimate concerns. The deal contained sunset provisions that would have lifted certain restrictions over time, which critics argued merely delayed Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently resolving them. The deal also did not address Iran's ballistic missile program or its support for regional proxy groups. Additionally, some argued that sanctions relief under the JCPOA emboldened Iran's regional behavior—its defense budget rose and its "malign activities" in the Middle East increased during the JCPOA period.

Summary

FactorUnder the JCPOACurrent Status
Breakout time​
Over 12 months​
One week or less​
Enrichment level​
Capped at 3.67%​
Up to 60%, with stockpiles growing​
IAEA inspections​
Robust verification under Additional Protocol​
Significantly limited; Additional Protocol suspended​
Multilateral unity​
P5+1 aligned on enforcement​
U.S. largely isolated; allies unable to maintain deal​
Military conflict​
No direct U.S.-Iran military confrontation over nuclear program​
Ongoing military conflict as of 2026; Strait of Hormuz disrupted​
Iran's economy​
Grew 12.5% in 2016–17 under sanctions relief​
Heavily sanctioned; reliant on workarounds via China and crypto​

On balance, proponents argue the JCPOA provided verifiable constraints on Iran's nuclear program, maintained international transparency, and preserved diplomatic channels—all of which have deteriorated significantly since the U.S. withdrawal. The current situation, marked by a near-zero breakout time, limited inspections, and active military conflict, illustrates the risks that JCPOA supporters warned about when the U.S. left the deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top