After Months of Ranting About Taking Iran’s Uranium, Trump Asks, ‘Why Bother?’

ThatRobGuy said:

Is it time to perhaps acknowledge the reality that world powers that adhere to fundamentalist Islam present some challenges that are unique to them and don't allow for any (ideologically) "pure" solutions?

Click to expand...

From reports I've read, the Mullahs are no longer in charge. Trump was even praising Iran's new leaders earlier this week.

Lukaris said:

When Trump abandoned the JCPOA doubts emerged if Iran was compliant when Israeli agents seized secret Iranian documents showing ongoing military oriented nuclear activity.

Click to expand...

Why are you still repeating this misinformation?

These documents have nothing to do with JCPOA.

The majority of the documents were created between 1999 and 2003, after which the AMAD Project was halted and Iran's nuclear weapons research program was cancelled.

The US had previously known of Iran's nuclear weapons research before 2004, and the documents contained no revelations about recent nuclear activity.

Valletta said:

The fissionable material is not the easy part. It is the same process to go from 60% to 90% but it was difficult, much more difficult, at the beginning. The one-step I was talking about was going from 60 to 90.

Click to expand...

A second step would be to design and build a nuclear device. You can't just put a fuse in a big pile of uranium.

Valletta said:

The fissionable material is not the easy part. It is the same process to go from 60% to 90% but it was difficult, much more difficult, at the beginning. The one-step I was talking about was going from 60 to 90. Iran obviously doesn't need that high of enrichment for anything but a nuclear weapon. Iran has a history of hiding things, what specifically U.S. intelligence knew about their missile delivery system or technical expertise in assembling has not been revealed.

Click to expand...

To fashion the 90% enriched material into a workable bomb, various shapes would have to be considered, (depending upon the design). Extensive testing would be required, (much of which could be simulated). They’d also have to have a program to fit such a device onto one of their ballistic missiles, since their air force ain’t going to be capable of delivering a “bomb” any time soon.

The technology to get from 0.72% U235 to 90%+ is mostly all the same.

Pommer said:

To fashion the 90% enriched material into a workable bomb, various shapes would have to be considered, (depending upon the design). Extensive testing would be required, (much of which could be simulated). They’d also have to have a program to fit such a device onto one of their ballistic missiles, since their air force ain’t going to be capable of delivering a “bomb” any time soon.

The technology to get from 0.72% U235 to 90%+ is mostly all the same.

Click to expand...

When the Obama deal was in the final stages Khamenei made a public announcement banning foreign inspectors from even speaking with their nuclear scientists. Those scientists had the knowledge to assemble a nuclear weapon.

Bradskii said:

I have no idea what you mean by not abiding 'in good faith'. They were either abiding to the deal or they were not. And I've seen nothing to indicate that they weren't. Especially in regard to uranium. In fact, just the opposite. From here:

“The JCPOA would absolutely not have allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons,” Nephew (international and public affairs senior research scholar at Columbia University who worked as a special envoy for Iran and for the State Department under the Biden administration) said. “First of all, there were prohibitions; then there were transparency requirements; and, then, there were the risks of snapback and punishment” if Iran violated the terms.'

What you have said sounds a lot like Trump might have said at some point. Vague generalisations with no specific facts noted which could be refuted. And I don't want reasons why you think 'they weren't abiding by the previous deal in good faith'. I'd like to know what aspects of the agreement they actually were flouting.

You need to do better.

Click to expand...

Iran has never had a good track record in this area.

Iran repeatedly violated its NPT treaty (which was the predecessor to the JCPOA), which it signed in 1970. It ran a secret enrichment program for nearly 20 years before it was exposed in 2000's

-They went back on provisions in the Algiers accords, and tried to add conditions post-hoc
-Made commitments to the UN not to fund proxy groups (we know how that turned out)
-Provided chemical weapons precursors to Syrian forces, violating CWC commitments.
-The whole reason the JCPOA took 2 years to get pen to paper (instead of the original 4 months they were anticipating) was because Iran kept playing the "get a concession, then move the goalposts".

The same was true of the Hostage Crisis negotiations.

That's been their negotiating MO for some time now.
1) Make an agreement that provides immediate relief (sanctions lifted, pressure reduced)
2) Use the post-agreement period to advance goals
3) When compliance is demanded, introduce new grievances or conditions


As I've noted before in other threads, the ex "supreme leader" even characterized negations as the thing that gets everyone else out of their hair for a while so they can work on the stuff they really want to work on.

And I've noted before in other threads, that under the JCPOA there were sites that were off-limits to inspectors, sunset provisions that allowed them to spin things up again quickly, and sites that required inspectors extended notice of impending inspections (which we all know means "we've got some time to tidy up before they get here")


Saying "The JCPOA would absolutely not have allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons" (while still allowing some forms of enrichment to take place and allowing them to store certain materials in other "friendly" countries) is like if you locked me into an agreement that said I couldn't carry a loaded weapon, but that had carve-outs saying "I'm still allowed to have an unloaded gun in my house, and I can store bullets at my sympathetic neighbors house".

wing2000 said:

....really? You can't see the strategic loss the United States has incurred by going to war with a 2nd tier military and then being forced to negotiate an end to a conflict that failed to acheive our objectives?

Click to expand...

That's why I noted that he's trying to repackage bad decisions.

From the outside (obviously none of us were in the super-secret meetings), it looks like what happened is that Trump's crew thought that a few "minimal risk" shows of force would have intimidated them in to immediately caving.

Which obviously wasn't the case -- which ties into what I mentioned about Islamic theocracies being unique and don't allow for "clean solutions". When a country ties their very existence to some sort of "greater mission from the creator", then the normal carrots and sticks don't apply.

ThatRobGuy said:

That's why I noted that he's trying to repackage bad decisions.

From the outside (obviously none of us were in the super-secret meetings), it looks like what happened is that Trump's crew thought that a few "minimal risk" shows of force would have intimidated them in to immediately caving.

Which obviously wasn't the case -- which ties into what I mentioned about Islamic theocracies being unique and don't allow for "clean solutions". When a country ties their very existence to some sort of "greater mission from the creator", then the normal carrots and sticks don't apply.

Click to expand...

Trump has taken the opposite approach than Obama, providing real consequences to Iran. Rest assured an agreement from the Trump administration will try to close any loopholes for Iran, but the exact wording isn't going to matter. I expect Iran to fire off some more missiles and violate the new agreement, but the key is each time to hit them disproportionately.

Valletta said:

Trump has taken the opposite approach than Obama, providing real consequences to Iran. Rest assured an agreement from the Trump administration will try to close any loopholes for Iran, but the exact wording isn't going to matter. I expect Iran to fire off some more missiles and violate the new agreement, but the key is each time to hit them disproportionately.

Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding extremely cynical, neither approach is going to be fruitful. "Nice" vs. "Forceful"/"Passive" vs. "Assertive" is largely irrelevant.

It's like trying to negotiate with a spoiled brat (10x). Corporal punishment won't improve the situation - and will just make them more hostile, giving in and "I'll buy you a toy if you behave while we're at dinner" just reinforces a bad incentive structure.

The only way to actually deal with it (and I said it a few months ago, and it wasn't a popular opinion, but I don't care lol) is a total regime change that facilitates secular governance.

ThatRobGuy said:

Iran repeatedly violated its NPT treaty...The same was true of the Hostage Crisis negotiations.

Click to expand...

This, including almost all of the rest of your post is utterly irrelevant.

ThatRobGuy said:

And I've noted before in other threads, that under the JCPOA there were sites that were off-limits to inspectors, sunset provisions that allowed them to spin things up again quickly, and sites that required inspectors extended notice of impending inspections (which we all know means "we've got some time to tidy up before they get here")

Click to expand...

Well yeah, they could have been building space lasers and a time machine and cloning an army of übermensch. Why aren't you bringing them up? Maybe because there's zero evidence for those either.

So are you arguing that it was OK to get rid of the agreement because they might not be complying in some way and secretly enriching uranium? And tear it up so it allowed them to enrich their uranium? No, of course you're not. Only an idiot would suggest that. So I really have no idea what the point of your post actually was.

It certainly wasn't to answer the question I gave you:

'And I don't want reasons why you think 'they weren't abiding by the previous deal in good faith'. I'd like to know what aspects of the agreement they actually were flouting.'

Bradskii said:

Yes. You even supply the answer as to why:

So prior to the JCPOA, as you have just posted, there were doubts about Iran's honesty in regard to uranium enrichment and their progress to develop a nuclear weapon. Why in heaven's name do you ask why the JCPOA was necessary when in almost the next paragraph you explain the reason why? Are you not following the logic of your own posts?

Good grief. Obviously doubts emerged. You'd have to be a lunatic with an IQ lower than ambient room temperature not to realise that once Iran was no longer constrained by the agreement they were free to do as they wished. Trump abandoning the agreement was the cause of them restarting the process to obtain nuclear weapons.

Again, I am struggling not to write that down in all upper case, italicised and in bold letters twice the normal size. If we were having this discussion in a pub then security would have been called and I would have been asked if I could please keep the noise down, as I would literally be shouting that out at this point.

Well, I don't really think there were pieces of the agreement to be found in the waste paper basket under the Resolute Desk. But that's effectively what Trump did. The agreement was cancelled as far as he was concerned, freeing Iran to do as they pleased.

They had no reason to renegotiate anything. Trump had given them carte blanche to do as they wished. What would you expect them to do? Ask pretty please for another agreement that would deny them what they wanted to do?

The only reasonable part of the post...

Click to expand...

The fact that in 2015 Saudi Arabia, the GCC ( Gulf Cooperative Council) Arab Gulf states, & Israel distrusted the JCPOA from the onset apparently might make some individuals apoplectic is unfortunate. Iran was more restricted before the JCPOA

Drawing from a 2015 in Al Jezeera




The Saudi Arabian criticism from 2015:

A nuclear deal with Tehran, from the Saudi perspective, means two things: Iran will have the ability to improve its economic standing, and the capability to create a nuclear weapon – since the deal will only take effect for a relatively short period of time, 15 years, and will not destroy Iran’s technical capabilities to maintain a nuclear programme. Both results would strengthen Iran and its allies in the region.




The GCC states were most impacted by the JCPOA & were not represented or invited to attend the Geneva treaty signing. GCC states security agreements with the US were weakened and their economies impacted by the then release of cheap Iranian oil.


Per Al Jezeera:


Nasser Ahmed Bin Ghaith, United Arab Emirates researcher ( excerpts):


The secretive nature of the talks made many uncomfortable about the outcome, as did the absence of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members. Wisdom has it that if you do not have enough cards on the negotiating table, you may not get everything you want, but if you are not even present, you will certainly get nothing.


In Geneva, everybody concerned was present except for the Gulf states, which would be directly impacted by any kind of agreement in their backyard.


It is clear that a western recognition of Iranian regional influence would come at the expense of the Gulf states, given that they are the weakest link in the regional chain of influence. In the post-deal reality, there would be three regional powers: Iran, Turkey and Israel.


By 2018, before Trump “tore up” the treaty, Saudi Arabia expressed its suspicions about Iran’s compliance & accounts of Iran’s terrorism. The Saudis warned about going nuclear. The statements from the Iranian officials are farcical.



I guess some people might need to take a sedative because in a pub they might get unhinged.

Lukaris said:

The fact that in 2015 Saudi Arabia, the GCC ( Gulf Cooperative Council) Arab Gulf states, & Israel distrusted the JCPOA from the onset apparently might make some individuals apoplectic is unfortunate. Iran was more restricted before the JCPOA

Iran will have the ability to improve its economic standing, and the capability to create a nuclear weapon – since the deal will only take effect for a relatively short period of time, 15 years, and will not destroy Iran’s technical capabilities to maintain a nuclear programme. Both results would strengthen Iran and its allies in the region.

Click to expand...

Gee, they were concerned it was only going to last 15 years? So what do you think they thought when Trump tore it up after 2! And having a domestic nuclear option (uranium at such a low enrichment that it can only be used in power plants) is not relevant. Any new deal will still include that.

Was that your only point? I thought you'd more concerned that Trump considers it will be a good thing if Iran maintains and improves it's missile technology. Because (in his own words) if others have missiles, then so should Iran.

Bradskii said:

'And I don't want reasons why you think 'they weren't abiding by the previous deal in good faith'. I'd like to know what aspects of the agreement they actually were flouting.'

Click to expand...

First, let me just point out the absurdity that we even have to make an agreement that's in the nature of "we'll do these things for you, just please don't blow up a quarter of the planet" in the first place. (As I noted, we don't have to have such and agreement with Canada, Finland, and Norway...it's almost like there's something different about fundamentalist Islam...hmmm)

That aside...

Even before the US withdrew, there were a series of grey-area activities where Iran arguably bumped up against limits without clearly shattering them. Iran produced heavy water in excess of the deal's cap on more than one occasion, then exported the surplus, treating the limit as a soft ceiling it could overshoot and then "correct."

There were also disputes over advanced centrifuge research and development, where Iran was accused of pushing R&D on machines like the IR-6 and IR-8 further than the agreement's careful sequencing intended.

They didn't dismantle the core of the plutonium reactor at Arak as some read the deal to require, and officials later boasted about this on state TV.

Section T of the JCPOA, which banned weapons-relevant activities like detonation modeling was vague enough that alleged violations were hard to pin down, which is itself a kind of line-treading -- as in operating in the space the text didn't clearly police.


Why should we (or any other nation) be obligated to give relief to a government entity that's the worst human rights violator on the planet just so they don't blow the place up because they think they'll get to have sex with 70-something virgins if they go out swinging (based on the words of a warlord pedophile they revere)?

Sorry, but this whole thing is stupid. Their ideology is stupid and dangerous, and us making concessions to it on the basis of "being nice" just gives it a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve.


My "spoiled brat child" analogy I've used before is 100% applicable. The JCPOA agreement was the equivalent of that spineless parent in a store, pleading with their child to behave by offering to buy them a toy. (which just means the brat will learn the pattern, and demand a toy every time in exchange for compliance)

ThatRobGuy said:

First, let me just point out the absurdity that we even have to make an agreement that's in the nature of "we'll do these things for you, just please don't blow up a quarter of the planet" in the first place. (As I noted, we don't have to have such and agreement with Canada, Finland, and Norway...it's almost like there's something different about fundamentalist Islam...hmmm)

Click to expand...

Well done. Good to know that you're aware of the difference between Iran and those countries. Yeah, Canada at al are what we call 'friendly countries' (and they still are despite the best efforts of Trump - Italy being the latest to be insulted). And Iran isn't. Friendly, that is. So Canada is not likely to develop a nuclear bomb and ship it across the border the next time they get a northerly breeze. Which makes me wonder why on earth you are still puzzled that you need to deal with countries like Iran differently.

Try and think about what you are saying. You don't deal with Canada and Iran the same because..? Yes, that's right. Iran are the bad guys. And if they developed a nuke then they wouldn't be worrying about which way the wind was blowing if they set it off in NY.

So you really have two options. You can bomb the living daylights out of them or you can try what we call 'diplomacy'. That's where you sit down with the opposition and you get them to agree to what you want (not to nuke NY) and you offer something in exchange that they want. Returning some funds, reducing sanctions, not having the crud bombed out of them...things like that.

ThatRobGuy said:

That aside...

Click to expand...

Indeed. Go continue...

ThatRobGuy said:

Even before the US withdrew, there were a series of grey-area activities where Iran arguably bumped up against limits without clearly shattering them. Iran produced heavy water in excess of the deal's cap on more than one occasion, then exported the surplus, treating the limit as a soft ceiling it could overshoot and then "correct."

There were also disputes...

Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah. We just had this argument. There were doubts by some people that the agreement wasn't being followed to the letter. I think I asked you for details of where the specific contents of the agreement were definitely been shown to have been breached. We've had zip. The IAEA have said (and this has been shown to you) that Iran was complying. If they weren't then they would immediately have had additional sanctions put upon them and they risked military action being taken against them. And not just by the US.

That would have happened immediately. Or certainly very soon after breaches in the agreement were confirmed. As it was, Trump tore up the deal allowing Iran to go full steam ahead on enriching uranium and waited a further 7 years before taking military action which, if the deal had been broken, would have taken place somewhere around 2020.

Not only that, but Trump went it alone. Well, except for his chums in Israel. As opposed to a coalition of the signatories of the original agreement.

You think that was a smart move? No, of course you don't. Because it was idiotic.

ThatRobGuy said:

My "spoiled brat child" analogy I've used before is 100% applicable. The JCPOA agreement was the equivalent of that spineless parent in a store, pleading with their child to behave by offering to buy them a toy. (which just means the brat will learn the pattern, and demand a toy every time in exchange for compliance)...

Click to expand...

Well, you stamping your foot in frustration at the US using diplomacy as opposed to killing people to reach the same end is noted. But it's not a spoiled child you are dealing with. It's a dangerous thug. Except you are much bigger and tougher. Now you can tell him to behave and you and your friends will let him continue to live in relative safety - and if he doesn't then y'all going to beat the living daylights out of him. Or...you can just wade in on your own with no warning and start swinging your baseball bat, with a lot of collateral damage ensuing and your friends standing back thinking 'What on earth are you doing, you moron'.

Maybe you actually prefer option B.

Lukaris said:

The fact that in 2015 Saudi Arabia, the GCC ( Gulf Cooperative Council) Arab Gulf states, & Israel distrusted the JCPOA from the onset apparently might make some individuals apoplectic is unfortunate. Iran was more restricted before the JCPOA

Drawing from a 2015 in Al Jezeera

Why Saudi Arabia and Israel oppose Iran nuclear deal

Al Jazeera spoke with four analysts about how the newly minted agreement could impact regional politics.

www.aljazeera.com

The Saudi Arabian criticism from 2015:

Mansour al-Marzouki, Saudi researcher

A nuclear deal with Tehran, from the Saudi perspective, means two things: Iran will have the ability to improve its economic standing, and the capability to create a nuclear weapon – since the deal will only take effect for a relatively short period of time, 15 years, and will not destroy Iran’s technical capabilities to maintain a nuclear programme. Both results would strengthen Iran and its allies in the region.




The GCC states were most impacted by the JCPOA & were not represented or invited to attend the Geneva treaty signing. GCC states security agreements with the US were weakened and their economies impacted by the then release of cheap Iranian oil.


Per Al Jezeera:


Nasser Ahmed Bin Ghaith, United Arab Emirates researcher ( excerpts):


The secretive nature of the talks made many uncomfortable about the outcome, as did the absence of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members. Wisdom has it that if you do not have enough cards on the negotiating table, you may not get everything you want, but if you are not even present, you will certainly get nothing.


In Geneva, everybody concerned was present except for the Gulf states, which would be directly impacted by any kind of agreement in their backyard.


It is clear that a western recognition of Iranian regional influence would come at the expense of the Gulf states, given that they are the weakest link in the regional chain of influence. In the post-deal reality, there would be three regional powers: Iran, Turkey and Israel.


By 2018, before Trump “tore up” the treaty, Saudi Arabia expressed its suspicions about Iran’s compliance & accounts of Iran’s terrorism. The Saudis warned about going nuclear. The statements from the Iranian officials are farcical.

MBS: Saudis will pursue nuclear weapons if Iran does

In interview, Saudi Arabia's crown prince says Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 'much like Hitler', wants to create own project.

www.aljazeera.com

I guess some people might need to take a sedative because in a pub they might get unhinged.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

At the risk of sounding extremely cynical, neither approach is going to be fruitful. "Nice" vs. "Forceful"/"Passive" vs. "Assertive" is largely irrelevant.

It's like trying to negotiate with a spoiled brat (10x). Corporal punishment won't improve the situation - and will just make them more hostile, giving in and "I'll buy you a toy if you behave while we're at dinner" just reinforces a bad incentive structure.

The only way to actually deal with it (and I said it a few months ago, and it wasn't a popular opinion, but I don't care lol) is a total regime change that facilitates secular governance.

Click to expand...

It will be fruitful. The U.S. has plenty of targets on the list, we have not hit the bridges and power plants yet (as President Clinton did in Serbia.)
Each time the regime becomes weakened and more susceptible to an uprising by the people.

Valletta said:

Each time the regime becomes weakened and more susceptible to an uprising by the people.

Click to expand...

You are concerned about regime change? That's odd. The president isn't interested all.

From here: Trump says he ‘never cared’ about Iran regime change, claims new leaders are ‘not radicalized’

“I never cared about regime change. It was never a part,” Trump said Tuesday...

Are you...disagreeing with him about the aims of this war?

Bradskii said:

You are concerned about regime change? That's odd. The president isn't interested all.

From here: Trump says he ‘never cared’ about Iran regime change, claims new leaders are ‘not radicalized’

“I never cared about regime change. It was never a part,” Trump said Tuesday...

Are you...disagreeing with him about the aims of this war?

Click to expand...

I am not running the war, but I indeed would like to see a regime change. If this regime eventually decides to launch more attacks, which I think they will, hitting them hard is essential. If they go that route and more of their military might is wiped out it becomes more likely. It's up to the people of Iran. I do disagree with Trump on a number of things, I was a conservative before Trump entered politics, and he has adopted many, but not all, conservative viewpoints.

Matt5 said:

How close is Iran to building a nuclear weapon?

The article below gives Iran a probability of successfully completing a nuclear weapon in 5 to 6 months at 84%. That just means more likely than not. It has to decide to build one. The articles gives that a probability of 40 to 50%.

[20-Feb-2026] Iran Threat Geiger Counter: A Probabilistic Approach; What is the probability that Iran will build nuclear weapons? | ISIS Reports | Institute For Science And International Security

Summarizing the various components first:

• The current probability that the Iranian regime decides to build nuclear weapons is estimated as 40 to 50 percent.
• The current probabilities that after this decision Iran succeeds in building a nuclear weapon in a specified timeframe follow:
  • In a two-to-three-month effort, a crash program to build a nuclear weapon, with the two scenarios reflecting challenges faced by Iran, has a probability of success of:
    • Five percent for the Expected case
    • 28 percent for the Optimistic case
  • In a five-to-six-month effort, this program has a probability of success of 84 percent

To get an overall probability requires multiplying the two main factors, that Iran decides to build a nuclear weapon and then does so. The overall current probabilities that Iran builds a nuclear weapon are:

• In a two-to-three-month timeframe, a crash program to build a nuclear weapon, with the two scenarios reflecting challenges faced by Iran, the probability that Iran will build a nuclear weapon is:
  • Two to 2.5 percent for the Expected case
  • 11 to 14 percent for the Optimistic case
• In the five-to-six-month timeframe, the overall probability is 34 to 42 percent.

While these probabilities are all less than 50 percent, they need to be understood in the context of risk tolerance, which is especially acute when talking about nuclear weapons in the hands of enemies. For example, would an average person get on an airplane if they were told the chance of a crash is 30 percent, or even two percent? What risk is a neighboring country supposed to tolerate?

Click to expand...

Those probabilities are derived from what exactly?

Larniavc said:

Those probabilities are derived from what exactly?

Click to expand...

Vibes, it just more or less arbitrary numbers put into the institute's model. Postwar they have had to modify their methodology somewhat. The older reports of the model is a little easier to parse through. Still no explanation how their comments boil down to a single number in each category.


It is still semi-arbitrary at best, and tendentious at worst. The game theory numbers are presented with no explanation at all, it is all more or less arbitrary.

Also note that it is the probability that they will produce a nuclear weapon that is modelled not the usage of such. Given that just the US have produced 70000 nuclear warheads (Atomic Audit | Brookings), and only used 2 (in anger). The base probability of Iran using one even if they have one is probably quite low.

Stopped_lurking said:

Also note that it is the probability that they will produce a nuclear weapon that is modelled not the usage of such. Given that just the US have produced 70000 nuclear warheads (Atomic Audit | Brookings), and only used 2 (in anger). The base probability of Iran using one even if they have one is probably quite low.

Click to expand...

This is not a situation where such probability reckoning can be legitimately applied.