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

[bambino]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Stupid-ass Odumbo let Iran "watch" themselves.

And gave them 150 billion to boot. And then watched them invade Yemen.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Go take a look at the enrichment chart posted by lustylad.

What enrichment chart? What are you talking about? I've hardly posted anything in this thread.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

What enrichment chart? What are you talking about? I've hardly posted anything in this thread.

You had posted it in Post #37 of "Why a yes vote for the Iran nuclear deal is a no brainer". A link to it was posted in Post 103 of this thread. It shows how far Iran had enriched uranium up to 2014.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You had posted it in Post #37 of "Why a yes vote for the Iran nuclear deal is a no brainer". A link to it was posted in Post 103 of this thread. It shows how far Iran had enriched uranium up to 2014.

you mean this?





the complete post ... context is everything, right?

Originally Posted by lustylad

I said it has "advanced" by leaps and bounds, not "transpired". The graphs tell the story, you grubered freelance faggot Odumbo minion from Arkansas. You already had your ass handed to you on this one in previous threads. If you're smart, you'll quit now.







.

not real sure what you think this proves except that Iran certainly was amassing Uranium. for peaceful purposes no doubt!?!

but Obama said we can trust them now because they will honor his deal. well it will be the first time they've ever honored any deal.


https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran...on-of-treaties


some highlights for your consideration, valued poster!

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

Date of Ratification: 3/5/1970
Commitments: The NPT seeks to “prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.” Under the terms of the treaty, “Each non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Association.”
Violations: For years, Iran has violated the terms of the NPT by illicitly developing its nuclear program without consulting the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In response to heightened international pressure, Iran eventually declared parts of its nuclear program in 2003, although the announcement was shrouded in misinformation regarding past nuclear activities. Iran further blocked IAEA access to requested sites. Despite multiple UN Security Council Resolutions condemning Iran and levying sanctions, Tehran has continued on its path of non-compliance, failing to meet crucial, mutually-agreed deadlines with the IAEA.


Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and their Destruction

Date of Ratification: 11/3/1997
Commitments: To refrain from developing, acquiring and using nuclear weapons and to safely dispose of any and all existing chemical weaponry
Violations: Although Iran claims to have terminated its chemical weapons program after the Iran-Iraq War, U.S. intelligence maintains that Iran has since held onto its chemical agents and accelerated its program. In 2001, U.S. General Tommy Franks said that Iran remained the “holder of the largest chemical stockpile” in his area of responsibility. Today, Iran stands accused of aiding the Syrian regime in its development of chemical weapons, and arming Bashar al-Assad with chlorine bombs and rocket launchers that have been used to fire rockets with chemical agent warheads. Iran has staunchly supported the Assad regime in the face of its gross human rights violations and chemical weapons deployment.


UN ORGANIZATION VIOLATIONS

note that this agreement you thinck is so great is a UN based agreement ... i'm just sayin'..


On Disarmament and Weapons of Mass Destruction:

The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)

Member Since: 1958

Member of the Board of Governors: 2002-2003
Mission: To serve as the “global focal point for nuclear cooperation,… [develop] nuclear safety standards,… [and verify] through its inspection system that States comply with their commitments”
Iran’s Record: The Iranian regime has consistently obstructed the mission of IAEA by developing nuclear capabilities without reporting its actions. In 2002, Iran was elected to the governing board of the IAEA, the same year that Iranian dissidents exposed Iran’s clandestine nuclear program. Although Iran announced parts of its program the following year, it has continued to obstruct the mission of the IAEA, refusing to allow full transparency into its nuclear program. Iran has continued to undermine the goals of the IAEA with delayed and incomplete information regarding its program. To date, the IAEA is unable to conclude that Iran’s nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

Member Since: 1997
Member of the Executive Council: 2014-2016
Mission: To prevent “chemistry from ever again being used for warfare, thereby strengthening international security”
Iran’s Record: Iran has been a member of the OCPW since ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997. Although one of the OCPW’s primary goals is to provide “assistance and protection to States Parties against chemical threats,” Iran has aided the government of Syria as it employed chemical weapons against its own citizens, killing nearly 1,500 people.

The Conference on Disarmament (CD)

Membership Since: 1979
Mission: The Conference on Disarmament “primarily focuses its attention on the following issues: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war… new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons including radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament and transparency in armaments”
Iran’s Record: Iran has consistently obstructed good faith international efforts to cooperate with Iran on in its nuclear program. Among other breaches of transparency and cooperation, Iran has repeatedly denied the International Atomic Energy Agency entry to its Parchin site, and missed crucial deadlines on international agreements regarding its nuclear program. Iran was elected to chair the Conference in 2013, a move vehemently protested by the U.S. mission to the United Nations in light of Iran’s flagrant violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its status as the object of international sanctions. The United States and Canada elected to boycott the 2013 Conference under Iran’s leadership.


i left out all the rest as they aren't germane to this issue but as we all can see .. Iran has pretty much thumbed it's nose at every conceivable resolution on .. everything.


but we can trust them now! Obama said so!

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you mean this?





the complete post ... context is everything, right?





not real sure what you think this proves except that Iran certainly was amassing Uranium. for peaceful purposes no doubt!?!

but Obama said we can trust them now because they will honor his deal. well it will be the first time they've ever honored any deal.


https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran...on-of-treaties


some highlights for your consideration, valued poster!

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

Date of Ratification: 3/5/1970
Commitments: The NPT seeks to “prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.” Under the terms of the treaty, “Each non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Association.”
Violations: For years, Iran has violated the terms of the NPT by illicitly developing its nuclear program without consulting the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In response to heightened international pressure, Iran eventually declared parts of its nuclear program in 2003, although the announcement was shrouded in misinformation regarding past nuclear activities. Iran further blocked IAEA access to requested sites. Despite multiple UN Security Council Resolutions condemning Iran and levying sanctions, Tehran has continued on its path of non-compliance, failing to meet crucial, mutually-agreed deadlines with the IAEA.


Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and their Destruction

Date of Ratification: 11/3/1997
Commitments: To refrain from developing, acquiring and using nuclear weapons and to safely dispose of any and all existing chemical weaponry
Violations: Although Iran claims to have terminated its chemical weapons program after the Iran-Iraq War, U.S. intelligence maintains that Iran has since held onto its chemical agents and accelerated its program. In 2001, U.S. General Tommy Franks said that Iran remained the “holder of the largest chemical stockpile” in his area of responsibility. Today, Iran stands accused of aiding the Syrian regime in its development of chemical weapons, and arming Bashar al-Assad with chlorine bombs and rocket launchers that have been used to fire rockets with chemical agent warheads. Iran has staunchly supported the Assad regime in the face of its gross human rights violations and chemical weapons deployment.


UN ORGANIZATION VIOLATIONS

note that this agreement you thinck is so great is a UN based agreement ... i'm just sayin'..


On Disarmament and Weapons of Mass Destruction:

The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)

Member Since: 1958

Member of the Board of Governors: 2002-2003
Mission: To serve as the “global focal point for nuclear cooperation,… [develop] nuclear safety standards,… [and verify] through its inspection system that States comply with their commitments”
Iran’s Record: The Iranian regime has consistently obstructed the mission of IAEA by developing nuclear capabilities without reporting its actions. In 2002, Iran was elected to the governing board of the IAEA, the same year that Iranian dissidents exposed Iran’s clandestine nuclear program. Although Iran announced parts of its program the following year, it has continued to obstruct the mission of the IAEA, refusing to allow full transparency into its nuclear program. Iran has continued to undermine the goals of the IAEA with delayed and incomplete information regarding its program. To date, the IAEA is unable to conclude that Iran’s nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

Member Since: 1997
Member of the Executive Council: 2014-2016
Mission: To prevent “chemistry from ever again being used for warfare, thereby strengthening international security”
Iran’s Record: Iran has been a member of the OCPW since ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997. Although one of the OCPW’s primary goals is to provide “assistance and protection to States Parties against chemical threats,” Iran has aided the government of Syria as it employed chemical weapons against its own citizens, killing nearly 1,500 people.

The Conference on Disarmament (CD)

Membership Since: 1979
Mission: The Conference on Disarmament “primarily focuses its attention on the following issues: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war… new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons including radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament and transparency in armaments”
Iran’s Record: Iran has consistently obstructed good faith international efforts to cooperate with Iran on in its nuclear program. Among other breaches of transparency and cooperation, Iran has repeatedly denied the International Atomic Energy Agency entry to its Parchin site, and missed crucial deadlines on international agreements regarding its nuclear program. Iran was elected to chair the Conference in 2013, a move vehemently protested by the U.S. mission to the United Nations in light of Iran’s flagrant violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its status as the object of international sanctions. The United States and Canada elected to boycott the 2013 Conference under Iran’s leadership.


i left out all the rest as they aren't germane to this issue but as we all can see .. Iran has pretty much thumbed it's nose at every conceivable resolution on .. everything.


but we can trust them now! Obama said so!

The charts show how much enriching of Uranium Iran had done before the Iran deal was signed. So you can see they had enriched up to weapons grade level (20% U-235). A major constraint was they had to get rid of any enriched Uranium above 3.67%. In addition can to turning off all of the high-speed centrifuges Iran is not allowed to enrich pas 3.67%. The USA is not trusting Iran. There is plenty of technology that can and is being used to detect cheating.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-sp...p-iran-in-line

Plus:

The IAEA will have multilayered[87] oversight "over Iran's entire nuclear supply chain, from uranium mills to its procurement of nuclear-related technologies".[88] For declared nuclear sites such as Fordow and Natanz, the IAEA will have "round-the-clock access" to nuclear facilities and will be entitled to maintain continuous monitoring (including via surveillance equipment) at such sites.[88][89] The agreement authorizes the IAEA to make use of sophisticated monitoring technology, such as fiber-optic seals on equipment that can electronically send information to the IAEA; infrared satellite imagery to detect covert sites, "environmental sensors that can detect minute signs of nuclear particles"; tamper-resistant, radiation-resistant cameras.[57][90] Other tools include computerized accounting programs to gather information and detect anomalies, and big data sets on Iranian imports, to monitor dual-use items.[87]

If Iran tries to enrich past 3.67% U-235 it would be detected.

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

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The charts show how much enriching of Uranium Iran had done before the Iran deal was signed. So you can see they had enriched up to weapons grade level (20% U-235). A major constraint was they had to get rid of any enriched Uranium above 3.67%. In addition can to turning off all of the high-speed centrifuges Iran is not allowed to enrich pas 3.67%. The USA is not trusting Iran. There is plenty of technology that can and is being used to detect cheating.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-sp...p-iran-in-line

arya .. sure of that?

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/asset...2014_FINAL.pdf


ISIS Analysis of IAEA Iran Safeguards Report

David Albright, Paulina Izewicz, Andrea Stricker, and Serena Kelleher-Vergantini

On September 5, 2014 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its report on the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in Iran and the status of Iran’s compliance with the United Nation Security Council resolutions.

Key Findings:

1) Several key issues in the safeguards report indicate ongoing efforts by Iran to delay cooperation on resolving the outstanding issues over possible military dimensions (PMD) of its nuclear program; particularly its statement that the issues are“mere allegations and do not merit consideration;”

2) Iran did not meet the implementation deadline for the third step of a set of measures under the IAEA/Iran Framework for Cooperation, implementing one prior to and two after the deadline, and has not yet proposed a fourth set of measures as requested by the IAEA;

3) Iran is continuing to undertake modification activities at the Parchin military site, which complicate future verification efforts by the IAEA if it is ever granted a visit;

4) Iran is not enriching uranium in a recently developed IR-8 centrifuge at the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. An IR-8 casing is installed there but it does not contain a rotor assembly and thus cannot operate. Iran claims this centrifuge has significantly higher enrichment output than previous models;

5) Iran has not produced uranium hexafluoride enriched above 5 percent and its entire stock enriched up to 20 percent has been either downbleded or fed into the conversion process producing an oxide form. However, Iran possesses a significant quantity of near 20percent LEU oxide which can be reconverted back to hexalufluorideform;

6) As of the end of the last reporting period, Iran had put only a small fraction of the near 20 percent LEU oxide into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor.As of August, only about 15 percent of the near 20 percent LEU oxide has been made into fuel assemblies for the TRR.

7) On August 17, 2014, Iran informed the IAEA that it would blend down into natural uranium about 4,118 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride enriched up to 2 percent;

8) Iran so far has fed 1,505 kg of UF6enriched up to 5 percentU-235 into the conversion process for the production of UO2at the Enriched UO2Powder Plant (EUPP).

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

arya .. sure of that?

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/asset...2014_FINAL.pdf


ISIS Analysis of IAEA Iran Safeguards Report

David Albright, Paulina Izewicz, Andrea Stricker, and Serena Kelleher-Vergantini

On September 5, 2014 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its report on the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in Iran and the status of Iran’s compliance with the United Nation Security Council resolutions.

Key Findings:

1) Several key issues in the safeguards report indicate ongoing efforts by Iran to delay cooperation on resolving the outstanding issues over possible military dimensions (PMD) of its nuclear program; particularly its statement that the issues are“mere allegations and do not merit consideration;”

2) Iran did not meet the implementation deadline for the third step of a set of measures under the IAEA/Iran Framework for Cooperation, implementing one prior to and two after the deadline, and has not yet proposed a fourth set of measures as requested by the IAEA;

3) Iran is continuing to undertake modification activities at the Parchin military site, which complicate future verification efforts by the IAEA if it is ever granted a visit;

4) Iran is not enriching uranium in a recently developed IR-8 centrifuge at the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. An IR-8 casing is installed there but it does not contain a rotor assembly and thus cannot operate. Iran claims this centrifuge has significantly higher enrichment output than previous models;

5) Iran has not produced uranium hexafluoride enriched above 5 percent and its entire stock enriched up to 20 percent has been either downbleded or fed into the conversion process producing an oxide form. However, Iran possesses a significant quantity of near 20percent LEU oxide which can be reconverted back to hexalufluorideform;

6) As of the end of the last reporting period, Iran had put only a small fraction of the near 20 percent LEU oxide into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor.As of August, only about 15 percent of the near 20 percent LEU oxide has been made into fuel assemblies for the TRR.

7) On August 17, 2014, Iran informed the IAEA that it would blend down into natural uranium about 4,118 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride enriched up to 2 percent;

8) Iran so far has fed 1,505 kg of UF6enriched up to 5 percentU-235 into the conversion process for the production of UO2at the Enriched UO2Powder Plant (EUPP).

Glad you posted this WACO. Yes, I am sure. Bullets 4 and 5 as you have them match up to what I have been saying for over a month. Iran is not allowed to operate any high-Speed centrifuges. Bullet 4 confirms that. Iran had to get rid of any enriched Uranium above 3.67% concentration of U-235. Bullet 5 clearly states that Iran got rid the U-235 that was at 20% concentration. Bullets 4 and 5 confirm that Iran is in compliance with the major constraints of the deal signed by Obama, Putin and the other 5 countries.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Glad you posted this WACO. Yes, I am sure. Bullets 4 and 5 as you have them match up to what I have been saying for over a month. Iran is not allowed to operate any high-Speed centrifuges. Bullet 4 confirms that. Iran had to get rid of any enriched Uranium above 3.67% concentration of U-235. Bullet 5 clearly states that Iran got rid the U-235 that was at 20% concentration. Bullets 4 and 5 confirm that Iran is in compliance with the major constraints of the deal signed by Obama, Putin and the other 5 countries.

you shouldn't be. those bullet points have a lot of terms like "however" and "delay" and "did not" and "have not" terms in them. or did you stop reading before those parts?

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you shouldn't be. those bullet points have a lot of terms like "however" and "delay" and "did not" and "have not" terms in them. or did you stop reading before those parts?

The most important constraints of the agreement are:

1. Iran had to get rid of any enriched uranium that contained a concentration of U-235 above 3.67% and not enrich above 3.67%.

2. Iran had to turn off all high-speed centrifuges and leave them off.

Your bullets 4 and 5 confirm that they (Iran) are in compliance.
Delays in converting some other plant is minor stuff.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The most important constraints of the agreement are:

1. Iran had to get rid of any enriched uranium that contained a concentration of U-235 above 3.67% and not enrich above 3.67%.

2. Iran had to turn off all high-speed centrifuges and leave them off.

Your bullets 4 and 5 confirm that they (Iran) are in compliance.
Delays in converting some other plant is minor stuff.

Iran is violating the deal


https://thehill.com/opinion/national...ating-the-deal


By Alan M. Dershowitz, opinion contributor — 10/18/17 08:00 AM EDT 267 The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Iran is not only violating the spirit of the no-nukes deal, it is violating its letter. The prologue to the deal explicitly states: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” This reaffirmation has no sunset provision: it is supposed to be forever.

Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that it could not verify that Iran was “fully implementing the agreement” by not engaging in activities that would allow it to make a nuclear explosive device. Yukiya Amano of the IAEA told Reuters that when it comes to inspections, which are stipulated in Section T of the agreement, “our tools are limited.” Amano continued to say: “In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T, I don’t see any (such commitment).”

It is well established that Tehran has consistently denied IAEA inspectors access to military sites and other research locations. This is in direct contravention to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and bipartisan legislation set out by Congress, which compels the president to verify that “Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement.” Yet, according to the Institute for Science and International Security, as of the last quarterly report released in August, the IAEA had not visited any military site in Iran since implementation day.For its part, the IAEA has been complicit in allowing Tehran to circumvent the agreement and act as a law unto itself. Consider that after the deal was negotiated with the five permanent U.N. Security Council members, it was revealed that Tehran and the IAEA had entered into a secret agreement which allowed the Iranian regime to carry out its own nuclear trace testing at the Parchin complex, a site long suspected of being a nuclear testing ground, and would report back to the IAEA with “selective” videos and photos. This arrangement, which went behind the back of Congress, is especially suspect when considered in light of the Iranian regime’s history of duplicity.

To be sure, revelations about Iran testing the boundaries of the JCPOA and crossing the line into violation are not new. While many of these violations have not been disclosed by the previous U.S. administration, or by the IAEA, there is a myriad of information and analysis suggesting that Iran has previously failed to comply with several provisions of the JCPOA. It has twice been revealed that Iran exceeded the cap on heavy water mandated by the agreement, and has also refused to allow testing of its carbon fiber acquired before the deal was implemented. Moreover, it has also been reported that Tehran has found new ways to conduct additional mechanical testing of centrifuges, in clear violation of the JCPOA.

These violations are not surprising when considering Iran’s belligerent posture in the Middle East. Iran continues to exploit the instability in the region to prop up and fund terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, whose chants of “death to Israel” are now also accompanied by vows of “death to America.” For its part, the Iranian-funded Hezbollah has an estimated 100,000 missiles aimed directly at Israel. As such, it is clear that rather than combating Iran’s threatening posture, the influx of money thrust into the Iranian economy, coupled with ambiguities in the text of the agreement, have had the reverse effect of emboldening the Iranian regime and fortifying its hegemonic ambitions. Iran also continues to test its vast ballistic missile program and deny its own people fundamental human rights.

Yet, even if Iran were to comply with the letter of the nuclear agreement, it would still be able to build up a vast nuclear arsenal within a relatively short timeframe. The approach adopted by the Trump administration, articulated in a statement delivered by the president several days ago, is justified by the realities on the ground. By announcing that he is decertifying Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement, President Trump is giving Congress 60 days to act. Not only is President Trump giving the United States back some of its leverage, but he is also sending a powerful message to the rogue leaders in Iran and North Korea, who are believed to have cooperated on missile technology, that the era of containment and deterrence policies is over. The United States is returning to its original mission of prevention.

Interestingly, in the aftermath of President Trump’s address, the Saudi Press Agency reported that King Salman called the U.S. president to offer his support for America’s more “firm strategy” and commitment to fighting “Iran’s aggressive activities.” Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, offered similar praise for the new U.S. posture, saying in a statement that President Trump “has created an opportunity to fix this bad deal, to roll back Iran’s aggression and to confront its criminal support of terrorism.” It is no secret that these two previously discordant states are now cooperating in unprecedented ways as they try to counter the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. When Israel and the Gulf States are on the same page, the world should listen.

There are those that argue that by decertifying, President Trump has undercut American credibility and sent a message to the world that it can’t count on one American president following through on deals made by his predecessor. But the fault for that lies squarely with President Obama who refused not only to make his deal a binding treaty, but also to seek any congressional approval, both of which would have assured greater continuity. He knew when he signed the deal that it could be undone by any future president. The goal, of course, is not to undo the deal but rather to undo its sunset provision and to make Iran keep the commitment it made in the prologue: Never obtain “any nuclear weapons.”


Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy.” Follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh and on Facebook @AlanMDershowitz.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Iran is violating the deal


https://thehill.com/opinion/national...ating-the-deal


By Alan M. Dershowitz, opinion contributor — 10/18/17 08:00 AM EDT 267 The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Iran is not only violating the spirit of the no-nukes deal, it is violating its letter. The prologue to the deal explicitly states: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” This reaffirmation has no sunset provision: it is supposed to be forever.

Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that it could not verify that Iran was “fully implementing the agreement” by not engaging in activities that would allow it to make a nuclear explosive device. Yukiya Amano of the IAEA told Reuters that when it comes to inspections, which are stipulated in Section T of the agreement, “our tools are limited.” Amano continued to say: “In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T, I don’t see any (such commitment).”

It is well established that Tehran has consistently denied IAEA inspectors access to military sites and other research locations. This is in direct contravention to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and bipartisan legislation set out by Congress, which compels the president to verify that “Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement.” Yet, according to the Institute for Science and International Security, as of the last quarterly report released in August, the IAEA had not visited any military site in Iran since implementation day.For its part, the IAEA has been complicit in allowing Tehran to circumvent the agreement and act as a law unto itself. Consider that after the deal was negotiated with the five permanent U.N. Security Council members, it was revealed that Tehran and the IAEA had entered into a secret agreement which allowed the Iranian regime to carry out its own nuclear trace testing at the Parchin complex, a site long suspected of being a nuclear testing ground, and would report back to the IAEA with “selective” videos and photos. This arrangement, which went behind the back of Congress, is especially suspect when considered in light of the Iranian regime’s history of duplicity.

To be sure, revelations about Iran testing the boundaries of the JCPOA and crossing the line into violation are not new. While many of these violations have not been disclosed by the previous U.S. administration, or by the IAEA, there is a myriad of information and analysis suggesting that Iran has previously failed to comply with several provisions of the JCPOA. It has twice been revealed that Iran exceeded the cap on heavy water mandated by the agreement, and has also refused to allow testing of its carbon fiber acquired before the deal was implemented. Moreover, it has also been reported that Tehran has found new ways to conduct additional mechanical testing of centrifuges, in clear violation of the JCPOA.

These violations are not surprising when considering Iran’s belligerent posture in the Middle East. Iran continues to exploit the instability in the region to prop up and fund terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, whose chants of “death to Israel” are now also accompanied by vows of “death to America.” For its part, the Iranian-funded Hezbollah has an estimated 100,000 missiles aimed directly at Israel. As such, it is clear that rather than combating Iran’s threatening posture, the influx of money thrust into the Iranian economy, coupled with ambiguities in the text of the agreement, have had the reverse effect of emboldening the Iranian regime and fortifying its hegemonic ambitions. Iran also continues to test its vast ballistic missile program and deny its own people fundamental human rights.

Yet, even if Iran were to comply with the letter of the nuclear agreement, it would still be able to build up a vast nuclear arsenal within a relatively short timeframe. The approach adopted by the Trump administration, articulated in a statement delivered by the president several days ago, is justified by the realities on the ground. By announcing that he is decertifying Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement, President Trump is giving Congress 60 days to act. Not only is President Trump giving the United States back some of its leverage, but he is also sending a powerful message to the rogue leaders in Iran and North Korea, who are believed to have cooperated on missile technology, that the era of containment and deterrence policies is over. The United States is returning to its original mission of prevention.

Interestingly, in the aftermath of President Trump’s address, the Saudi Press Agency reported that King Salman called the U.S. president to offer his support for America’s more “firm strategy” and commitment to fighting “Iran’s aggressive activities.” Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, offered similar praise for the new U.S. posture, saying in a statement that President Trump “has created an opportunity to fix this bad deal, to roll back Iran’s aggression and to confront its criminal support of terrorism.” It is no secret that these two previously discordant states are now cooperating in unprecedented ways as they try to counter the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. When Israel and the Gulf States are on the same page, the world should listen.

There are those that argue that by decertifying, President Trump has undercut American credibility and sent a message to the world that it can’t count on one American president following through on deals made by his predecessor. But the fault for that lies squarely with President Obama who refused not only to make his deal a binding treaty, but also to seek any congressional approval, both of which would have assured greater continuity. He knew when he signed the deal that it could be undone by any future president. The goal, of course, is not to undo the deal but rather to undo its sunset provision and to make Iran keep the commitment it made in the prologue: Never obtain “any nuclear weapons.”


Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy.” Follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh and on Facebook @AlanMDershowitz.

Professor Dershowitz knows the law as well as anyone. The Iran deal is not a legal matter. The Iran deal a science matter. Professor Dershowitz shoots himself in the foot with the last sentence that he wrote in the last paragraph. By definition in order to get a nuclear/atomic bomb you must have "weapons grade" uranium. (That is uranium enriched to a concentration of at least 20% U-235). As part of the Iran nuclear deal, Iran gave up its "weapons grade" uranium. This was confirmed in YOUR link that was posted in post #606. It was Bullet #5. One of the authors of your link was Albright, who IBH used as source multiple times in this thread. If you are willing to give up your weapons grade Uranium then you will not obtain a nuclear weapon. That is just science 101. This deal has multiple constraints. You can cherry pick on the minor ones if you want, the major constraints of deal are being followed by Iran. Iran gave up it weapons grade uranium, they are not enriching past 3.67% and they are not running the high-speed centrifuges. Albright confirmed all of this in your link.

This deal ends in 2025. Whoever is president then will then have a chance to work out a deal that is similar to what Dershowitz is talking about. At this point in time Iran is in compliance with the major constraints of the deal Obama, Putin and the five countries signed with Iran.

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/asset...2014_FINAL.pdf

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Professor Dershowitz knows the law as well as anyone. The Iran deal is not a legal matter. The Iran deal a science matter. Professor Dershowitz shoots himself in the foot with the last sentence that he wrote in the last paragraph. By definition in order to get a nuclear/atomic bomb you must have "weapons grade" uranium. (That is uranium enriched to a concentration of at least 20% U-235). As part of the Iran nuclear deal, Iran gave up its "weapons grade" uranium. This was confirmed in YOUR link that was posted in post #606. It was Bullet #5. One of the authors of your link was Albright, who IBH used as source multiple times in this thread. If you are willing to give up your weapons grade Uranium then you will not obtain a nuclear weapon. That is just science 101. This deal has multiple constraints. You can cherry pick on the minor ones if you want, the major constraints of deal are being followed by Iran. Iran gave up it weapons grade uranium, they are not enriching past 3.67% and they are not running the high-speed centrifuges. Albright confirmed all of this in your link.

This deal ends in 2025. Whoever is president then will then have a chance to work out a deal that is similar to what Dershowitz is talking about. At this point in time Iran is in compliance with the major constraints of the deal Obama, Putin and the five countries signed with Iran.

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/asset...2014_FINAL.pdf

that article was from 2014. this is 2019. and who did Iran give all that weapons grade uranium to? the US? i don't think so. So who did get it? tell us, we are all ears.

as an aside, most people think the Iran deal is a Treaty which is why they are "so upset" Trump voided it. part of that "Subvert the Constitution" cry the media puts forth daily. at least YOU know it was never a formal Treaty, don't ya?

if this was such a great deal why didn't the former Muslin in Chief take it to the Senate to be ratified as an actual Treaty?

Obama subverted the Constitution many times. Trump has not, not even once.

oh and one more thing .. if you are gonna repost my link ... try NOT to screw it up, ok?


http://www.isisnucleariran.org/asset...2014_FINAL.pdf

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

that article was from 2014. this is 2019. and who did Iran give all that weapons grade uranium to? the US? i don't think so. So who did get it? tell us, we are all ears.

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/asset...2014_FINAL.pdf

Iran could have sold, given away or diluted the "weapons grade Uranium" down to Natural Uranium (which is mostly U-238). Trumps buddy Putin was probably a major buyer.

From the link under "Summary of Provisions":

Iran had enriched uranium to near 20% (medium-enriched uranium).[65][66][67] These enriched uranium in excess of 300 kg of up to 3.67% will be down blended to natural uranium level or be sold in return for natural uranium, and the uranium enriched to between 5% and 20% will be fabricated into fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor or sold or diluted to an enrichment level of 3.67%.

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

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Iran could have sold, given away or diluted the "weapons grade Uranium" down to Natural Uranium (which is mostly U-238). Trumps buddy Putin was probably a major buyer.

From the link under "Summary of Provisions":

Iran had enriched uranium to near 20% (medium-enriched uranium).[65][66][67] These enriched uranium in excess of 300 kg of up to 3.67% will be down blended to natural uranium level or be sold in return for natural uranium, and the uranium enriched to between 5% and 20% will be fabricated into fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor or sold or diluted to an enrichment level of 3.67%.

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

LOL. First off your link doesn't work.

And second, what you did post is full of "will be's". No confirmation of being done.

So your point is?

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And second, what you did post is full of "will be's". No confirmation of being done.

So your point is?

Did you read the any of the prior posts (the last 10)? Or did you come to the last post and expect to know what went on in the last 10?

The Iran deal was signed in June 2014. A safe guards (IAEA) Iran report was done in September 2014. In that report it was confirmed that Iran got rid of its "weapons grade uranium). See Post 606 bullet #5.

The point being made in the last post was that Iran had options for how they could get rid of their "weapons grade uranium". They could have sold it or diluted it down. The last post was answering a question that was raised prior to that.

The link that did not work, was a copy of the link in post #572 and it works in post #572. Maybe a character got truncated.

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