Iran has breached the stockpile limit under the nuclear deal

uzipukki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,323
The treaty was nullified in 2018 so why would Iran care about it in 2019..?
 
Last edited:

Richter1887

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,681
Here's an article when Obama still had 2 years till his presidency ended on How Iran was heavily involved in Syria.
Iran boosts support to Syria
Funny you don't mention how the Saudi, Russia or the US involvement affected the country.


And lets talk about other countries other Syria. Who was it that invaded Afghanistan and was supported by a certain country in the middle east while doing so? Or how about when the western countries attacked Iran to install a puppet that lead to a series of events that brought the current government over there? Or hell, a recent war like Iraq war. That's their fault am I right?


But sure, Iran is the reason the middle east is the way it is.
 

Brood

Member
Nov 8, 2018
177
Funny you don't mention how the Saudi, Russia or the US involvement affected the country.


And lets talk about other countries other Syria. Who was it that invaded Afghanistan and was supported by a certain country in the middle east while doing so? Or how about when the western countries attacked Iran to install a puppet that lead to a series of events that brought the current government over there? Or hell, a recent war like Iraq war. That's their fault am I right?


But sure, Iran is the reason the middle east is the way it is.
Yes, Whataboutism.
 

Brazil

The Dude of Prophecy
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
9,187
São Paulo, Brazil

Typhon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,130
Funny you don't mention how the Saudi, Russia or the US involvement affected the country.


And lets talk about other countries other Syria. Who was it that invaded Afghanistan and was supported by a certain country in the middle east while doing so? Or how about when the western countries attacked Iran to install a puppet that lead to a series of events that brought the current government over there? Or hell, a recent war like Iraq war. That's their fault am I right?


But sure, Iran is the reason the middle east is the way it is.
How about we just say everyone sucks here? I can not wait until the oil dries up and Iran and Saudi Arabia can figure it out on their own. They're regional rivals and they're both vying for control of the Middle East. There are no good guys here.
 

Richter1887

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,681
Your point was wrong. Own up to it.
How about we just say everyone sucks here? I can not wait until the oil dries up and Iran and Saudi Arabia can figure it out on their own. They're regional rivals and they're both vying for control of the Middle East. There are no good guys here.
I don't disagree.

My point ia that they said Iran is the reason why the middle east is destabilized which is bullshit. I would argue that US and Russia are the biggest people destroying the region with Saudi coming third and current Iran being the fourth.
 

ItsBobbyDarin

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,472
Egyptian residing in Denmark
User Banned (2 weeks): Driveby trolling, history of driveby trolling and accumulated infractions.
How many times have you edited this?
You seem to live in this fictional world where Iran is some evil bad guy, when in reality they are acting as reasonable state actor considering the circumstances.

You clearly don’t know the history of the region, or USA/CIA interference or Israelis 20 odd years of threats and begging America to destroy Iran, nope Iran is the bad guy here.

First the quote. I’ll put stock in the guardian over any American source when it comes to “wipe Israel off the map” for obvious reasons I wouldn’t trust any Israeli source either.
It’s a quote that has been mistranslate, misquoted and taken out of context by pro Israeli media that people actually believe the lie. Unfortunately right wing media is powerful.

Second Iran while not perfect was trying democracy and wanted to nationalise the oil. CIA didn’t like that so they installed a brutal shah dictator. America turned Iran into the crazy republic you see today.
USA egged I’m iraq to invade Iran causing one of the most costly wars in human life on this planet while at the same time sold weapons to both countries.
Israel begged bush to invade Iraq and Iran, bush and his neo cons promises Israel that Iran would be next but due to Iraq being a disaster and insane blow back, invading Iran was out on hold. That was earl 2000s, republicans and Israel have been waiting 20 years to destroy Iran.

As far as I’m aware Iran has never invaded anyone. USA has many bases that surround Iran, has a government and Israeli governemrnt that weekly talks about destroying or bombing Iran. Assassinates Iranian citizens on Iranian soil. Has economically isolated Iran since 1979 because the USA is still salty that Iran said fuck you our oil is for us.

You see where I’m going with this? You talk about Iran’s attitude when it’s Iran that needs something ie a nuclear weapon to stop what happened to Iraq to happen to them. Seeking protection against the USA fucking your country up is rational thought process.
Hahahahaha! Ok buddy! 😂😂😂

Iran has always been an unstable country. It was only a matter of time before they withdraw from these agreements. Iran never complied, even under the Obama administration.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,609
Sydney
Everybody it’s worse than we thought. Not only was Iran violating the deal after it was torn up by the US, they were also violating it before it existed.

There is little doubt that even before the deal’s existence, Iran was violating its terms.
 

ninjabreadman

Banned
Dec 17, 2017
260
Iran having nukes would be terrifyingly. Israel would constantly be threatened. By the time the sanctions are applied it'll be too late to stop them.
 

Tuppen

Member
Nov 28, 2017
560
They have three main options - They can do nothing and wait it out, they can engage in behavior that attempts to make the situation better, or they can actively try to make the entire situation worse (specifically for themselves). So far Iran has gone head-first into the last option.

It's completely fair to blame the US for leaving the deal, but Iran is responsible for how they respond. Right now, basically Iran's house is on fire, and they're trying to put it out with gasoline.
It's likely that Iran would abandon their nuclear program if they were sure that it would make them safe from foreign destabilizing actions or invasion. Since history has shown that abandoning your WMD ambitions does not provide safety they're in a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation that they and the signatories of the deal were trying to balance. Your three options for Iran are hard for them for different reasons. No 1 for economic reasons and no 2 since appeasement towards the US didn't work for their neighbor. That pretty much leaves option number 3 even though it is a bad option. Basically their house is on fire but the only thing they have is gasoline so obviously they will try to use it.
 

Anomander

Member
Oct 27, 2017
277
Any thread on Iran and half the posts belong to DrewFu. Damn, dude, you're too invested in this.
 

3bdelilah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,002
South Holland, Netherlands
While I can definitely understand the dick swinging and overall force of power, the agreement wasn't with just the US so the nuclear deal is still in effect, and technically Iran has breached that deal. But obviously it's a little more nuanced than that, what can they do after the US hitting them with sanctions without good reasons? If the EU has the intention to overthrow the US as the main international powerhouse, they have to show they don't need the US for these deals. Good for the EU, good for Iran.
 

Earthstrike

Member
Oct 28, 2017
762
I mean, people are bending over backwards to not think about the basic facts of the situation.

There existed an agreement between Iran, the U.S.A and several other countries stipulating its own terms.
There exists no way someone can fault Iran's breaking of the deal without faulting the U.S's. It's nonsensical. Iran has to stay beholden to a deal that other people broke? It's mental gymnastics.
 

Syagrius

Member
Apr 23, 2019
90
2014, huh? That far back?

Try to educate yourself on why is it that Iran would ally themselves with the Assad regime in the first place. Here’s an article that explains how the US has been actively fucking with Iran since before Obama was even born.
Oh man, this article is so one-sided. Let's say that with the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc the Czechs and the Hungarians would install heavy anti-Russian regimes. Fourty+ years of support to communist regimes and the supression the Hungarian and Prague Springs would be the cause. If I would follow the logic of this article it would excuse the Chechs and Hungarians to support Caucasian and Arab terrorists, attack Russians around the globe, taking hostages etc.

Not to say the least that Mossadeq was unpopular with Iranians, slided Iran to arbitrary rule with rigging elections and unleashing violence on the opposition and refused to negotiate a settlement which further destabilized Iran. Fear of a left-wing take-over led to the coup, not oil. A large part of the clergy even supported the coup against Mossadeq.

Now, this doesn't excuse the coup, or the other wrongful behaviour the US has showed towards Iran. But it doesn't excuse the Islamic Republic from waging terrorism or destabilisation. Especially with countries which have nothing to do with the US-Iran dispute.
 

Deleted member 29806

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 2, 2017
2,047
Germany
While I can definitely understand the dick swinging and overall force of power, the agreement wasn't with just the US so the nuclear deal is still in effect, and technically Iran has breached that deal. But obviously it's a little more nuanced than that, what can they do after the US hitting them with sanctions without good reasons? If the EU has the intention to overthrow the US as the main international powerhouse, they have to show they don't need the US for these deals. Good for the EU, good for Iran.
The deal isn‘t in effect as the EU breaches it by adhering to US sanctions. That won‘t change because EU companies fear US sanctions.
 

PrimeBeef

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,769
Hate to break it to you OP but the deal became null and void once Trump pulled the US out if it. So there is no limit on what they can stockpile.
 

DosaDaRaja

Member
Oct 26, 2017
783
Amazing.


Lol at people expecting Iran to hold up their end of the deal when other parties to the treaty are too chicken-shit to say fuck you to the US
 

Phil me in

Member
Nov 22, 2018
592
Hahahahaha! Ok buddy! 😂😂😂

Iran has always been an unstable country. It was only a matter of time before they withdraw from these agreements. Iran never complied, even under the Obama administration.
What exactly are you laughing at, yet you refute nothing I say. Why should Iran comply to the USA?
The biggest cause of destabilisation in the Middle East is the USA, yet the middle east has to do what USA says or else?
 

_Karooo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,225
Trump ripped up this deal for Sheldon Adelson. Shameful and transparent behaviour. Now he doesn't want war and is stuck in a terrible situation.
 

KorrZ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
622
Canada
If I was Iran with the current US administration I would be rushing for nuclear weapons ASAP too. It’s the only way to keep the warmongers away.
 

massivekettle

Member
Aug 7, 2018
513
Are some of you guys for fucking real? Iran should have held his end of the agreement (which it still does, breaching the limit is within the contents of the agreement) because other countries are doing so? Are you kidding me? EU can't do shit thanks to US sanctions. On paper, EU says europian companies can work in Iran, but the reality is, they can't. Companies are leaving Iran and stopping doing trade with Iran left and right because they have to choose between Iran and US.
EU staying in the agreement meant nothing for Iran, and more sanctions even from EU ain't going to have much effect. Iran's economy is fucked and is moving toward total collapse pretty fast, with or without EU.
But forgive us for not bending over and enjoying it, my dear Fox news audience.

Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, woooooo they are the evil, yet we have Trump threating to obliterate Iran 3 times a day, saying if that then there won't be Iran anymore, yada yada but that's OK with you guys. Genocide or threatening it is OK as long as the one doing it is on your side. Jesus.
When has he ever said that (recently)? If anything, he's been trying to diffuse any pressure from a potential conflict which some members of his entourage are pushing for. Trump's been guilty of many things, but even he knows a conflict with Iran is a lose-lose.
 

Brazil

The Dude of Prophecy
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
9,187
São Paulo, Brazil
Oh man, this article is so one-sided. Let's say that with the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc the Czechs and the Hungarians would install heavy anti-Russian regimes. Fourty+ years of support to communist regimes and the supression the Hungarian and Prague Springs would be the cause. If I would follow the logic of this article it would excuse the Chechs and Hungarians to support Caucasian and Arab terrorists, attack Russians around the globe, taking hostages etc.

Not to say the least that Mossadeq was unpopular with Iranians, slided Iran to arbitrary rule with rigging elections and unleashing violence on the opposition and refused to negotiate a settlement which further destabilized Iran. Fear of a left-wing take-over led to the coup, not oil. A large part of the clergy even supported the coup against Mossadeq.

Now, this doesn't excuse the coup, or the other wrongful behaviour the US has showed towards Iran. But it doesn't excuse the Islamic Republic from waging terrorism or destabilisation. Especially with countries which have nothing to do with the US-Iran dispute.
The article is one-sided for one obvious reason: its (openly stated) intent is inform the side that's not the one widely propagated by the traditional media and all of the hawkish "interested parties" that are the ones usually discussing matters relating to Iran in the public sphere.

Still, I didn't bring it up with the intent of excusing anything on Iran's part. I was pushing back against the very specifically-worded claim that Iran is the main destabilizing factor in the Middle East, which is simply not true if you actually look at the complete timeline of events in the region. With things like what's going on in Yemen right now, the identity of the main destabilizing factor should be pretty obvious even if you refuse to look to the past - but doing so makes it even more blatant. The US is the external actor in this play.
 

Jroc

Member
Jun 9, 2018
833
Can't fault them for a breaking a deal that the USA already broke, but at the end of the day the only thing I care about is stopping nuclear proliferation. The world letting Pakistan sneak a few was bad enough, but Iran going nuclear would cause a WMD race in the Middle East.

If nuclear sites need to be bombed then so be it. Once the nuclear box is opened it can't be closed. Just look at how much of a headache North Korea has become. A nuclear deal shouldn't "postpone" Iran for a decade, it should stop them outright.
 

massivekettle

Member
Aug 7, 2018
513
There are a few posts that give a primer on the history of Iran in this thread and yet you decide to quote me to demonstrate that you didn't read the thread or show how ignorant you are of that history?
I am not ignorant of history. But claiming that Iran's issues today are solely due to Western powers meddling is equally ignorant. Iran has been a bad actor in the region for decades.
 

Syagrius

Member
Apr 23, 2019
90
The article is one-sided for one obvious reason: its (openly stated) intent is inform the side that's not the one widely propagated by the traditional media and all of the hawkish "interested parties" that are the ones usually discussing matters relating to Iran in the public sphere.

Still, I didn't bring it up with the intent of excusing anything on Iran's part. I was pushing back against the very specifically-worded claim that Iran is the main destabilizing factor in the Middle East, which is simply not true if you actually look at the complete timeline of events in the region. With things like what's going on in Yemen right now, the identity of the main destabilizing factor should be pretty obvious even if you refuse to look to the past - but doing so makes it even more blatant. The US is the external actor in this play.
Countering a one-sided argument with another one-sided argument doesn't usually produce a desired outcome. Operation Ajax is not a good explanation for the current behaviour of the Islamic Republic and some claims in the article are even false(Mossadeq being a popular leader and oil as the main reason for his ouster). That being said, a lot of Iranians hold a justified resentment against the US for a bunch of other reasons, but it doesn't justify the behaviour of the Islamic Republic in any way. The Islamic Republic is responsible for their own behaviour. I gave you an example of how the Czechs or Hungarians could have behaved using the exact same justifications.

It's fair to say that the US has been a more destabilizing factor to the Middle East than the IRI. It's also fair to say that the US pulled out for unjustifiable reasons, making Iran a victim of that move. That still doesn't make the statement about the IRI damaging and destabilizing the Middle East (completely) incorrect. The Islamic Republic is still responsible for the way they act.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,074
Everybody it’s worse than we thought. Not only was Iran violating the deal after it was torn up by the US, they were also violating it before it existed.

A maximum pressure campaign? Oh no, if only there were a diplomatic foothold in place that could have been used to negotiate Iran's future in handling uranium from... Oh well, time to ready the F-16s!
 

Solace

Member
Oct 29, 2017
899
According to this, Iran was violating the deal's terms before the deal! lol

Sorry English is not mt first language but does it saying what I think it does?!
Iran was violating the terms of the deal, when the deal didn't even exist?
Obviously, I am missing something. They can't be that daft.