Iran Allow IAEA to Monitor Sites in Teheran.

[Godboy]

Iran allows International Atomic Energy Agency to use monitoring equipment at its nuclear sites after meeting in Tehran

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) of Iran reaffirmed “the spirit of cooperation,” as Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors access to cameras at Iranian nuclear facilities.

www.rt.com

This appears to be coming at an appropriate time as the pullout from Afghanistan indicates much less US influence in the region.
Contrary to America's expressed wishes of Iran allowing monitoring, in fact US propaganda against Iran is being demolished as Iran allows more openness and compliance the IAEA and the wishes of other concerned countries.

This is the dumbest horseshit ive seen all week. Are you seriously this naive?

 

[Donald H]

This is the dumbest horseshit ive seen all week. Are you seriously this naive?

Wouldn't it be the IAEA that you're calling naive?

It is what it is and so why wouldn't it be good news to all Americans?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Iran allows International Atomic Energy Agency to use monitoring equipment at its nuclear sites after meeting in Tehran

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) of Iran reaffirmed “the spirit of cooperation,” as Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors access to cameras at Iranian nuclear facilities.

www.rt.com

This appears to be coming at an appropriate time as the pullout from Afghanistan indicates much less US influence in the region.
Contrary to America's expressed wishes of Iran allowing monitoring, in fact US propaganda against Iran is being demolished as Iran allows more openness and compliance the IAEA and the wishes of other concerned countries.

Allow access to cameras? WTF?
How stupid are you?

 

[Donald H]

Allow access to cameras? WTF?
How stupid are you?

Are you suggesting that I'm stupid to believe what the IAEA said?
If you can't be sensible then don't waste my time.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Are you suggesting that I'm stupid to believe what the IAEA said?
If you can't be sensible then don't waste my time.

I’m not suggesting your stupid for trusting the IAEA. I’m saying it point blank.
So entertain us some more and tell us what the 15 cameras in Iran will accomplish.

 

[Donald H]

I’m not suggesting your stupid for trusting the IAEA. I’m saying it point blank.
So entertain us some more and tell us what the 15 cameras in Iran will accomplish.

You'll have to enquire to the IAEA on that.
I'm going to just ignore you if you can't carry on an adult discussion.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You'll have to enquire to the IAEA on that.
I'm going to just ignore you if you can't carry on an adult discussion.

I’d be crushed if someone who thinks 15 remote cameras in Iran will stop Iran from getting nukes.

 

[Donald H]

I’d be crushed if someone who thinks 15 remote cameras in Iran will stop Iran from getting nukes.

IN the opinion of the IAEA they are better than none. Maybe the best approach now would be to enhance the surveillance to make it foolproof?

There's likely no other way to make progress other than US/Zionist regime bombs.

All the parties to the former agreement except those two are now opposed to starting a war. And the reaction by Iran couldn't be contained even by starting a nuclear war.

The US/Zionists had a better agreement with the original one but the US burnt it's bridges and lost credibility with all other parties by doing so. It will be very difficult to convince Iran to agree on something that would be better than what existed.

Can you argue for war as the solution? That's one way of expanding the discussion. Or would you have any better ideas you would like to present?

 

[Weatherman2020]

IN the opinion of the IAEA they are better than none. Maybe the best approach now would be to enhance the surveillance to make it foolproof?

There's likely no other way to make progress other than US/Zionist regime bombs.

All the parties to the former agreement except those two are now opposed to starting a war. And the reaction by Iran couldn't be contained even by starting a nuclear war.

The US/Zionists had a better agreement with the original one but the US burnt it's bridges and lost credibility with all other parties by doing so. It will be very difficult to convince Iran to agree on something that would be better than what existed.

Can you argue for war as the solution? That's one way of expanding the discussion. Or would you have any better ideas you would like to present?

Hilarious. Da JOOS!
What a pathetic racist asshole you are.

 

[Concerned American]

US/Zionist regime

Your post is not worthy of a response as you have clearly shown yourself to be a RACIST BIGOT.

 

[ESay]

Actually, there are only two choices. Seeking an agreement with the ayatollahs to curb the nuclear program. Or preparing for military solution if Iran passes some point. Both choices are bad and don't offer any guarantees.

 

[Donald H]

Actually, there are only two choices. Seeking an agreement with the ayatollahs to curb the nuclear program. Or preparing for military solution if Iran passes some point. Both choices are bad and don't offer any guarantees.

If Iran truly does want it's own nuclear weapons then they will have them. The localized attacks by the Zionist regime will only encourage Iran, rather than discourage them. That's a lesson America should have learned by now.

But as to the example of the Zionist regime, why would they desire to have nuclear weapons when the use of such weapons will direct the revenge back on them?

Nearly all small countries have a nuclear big brother as a friend and that's encouraged by the nuclear superpowers. The Zionist regime could be without nuclear weapons and be equally safe under the US umbrella. And as the situation develops, Iran could soon be under China's and/or Russia's nuclear umbrella.

Conclusion: There's really no reason why the world needs to live in fear of the Zionist regime starting WW3. There are established rules they have to play by the same as the nuclear powers. A direct strike on the enemy is forbidden due to the M.A.D. factor.

As long as neither side pushes the envelope too fare, the world is relatively safe. However, we have learned quite recently that all bets could be off with Trump. Psychopathy in a country's leader is a very dangerous wild card.

Are we all supposed to take Trump serioiusly when he threatens the use of America's nuclear arsenal? Or can we be confident thatt there are American Generals who are willing to fall on their sword to 'eliminate' the mental illness threat?

 

[ESay]

If Iran truly does want it's own nuclear weapons then they will have them. The localized attacks by the Zionist regime will only encourage Iran, rather than discourage them. That's a lesson America should have learned by now.

But as to the example of the Zionist regime, why would they desire to have nuclear weapons when the use of such weapons will direct the revenge back on them?

Nearly all small countries have a nuclear big brother as a friend and that's encouraged by the nuclear superpowers. The Zionist regime could be without nuclear weapons and be equally safe under the US umbrella. And as the situation develops, Iran could soon be under China's and/or Russia's nuclear umbrella.

Conclusion: There's really no reason why the world needs to live in fear of the Zionist regime starting WW3. There are established rules they have to play by the same as the nuclear powers. A direct strike on the enemy is forbidden due to the M.A.D. factor.

As long as neither side pushes the envelope too fare, the world is relatively safe. However, we have learned quite recently that all bets could be off with Trump. Psychopathy in a country's leader is a very dangerous wild card.

Are we all supposed to take Trump serioiusly when he threatens the use of America's nuclear arsenal? Or can we be confident thatt there are American Generals who are willing to fall on their sword to 'eliminate' the mental illness threat?

Talking about 'the Zionist regime' is meaningless. Israel has a right to existence as any country does. And the sooner Iran and other countries accept this simple fact is better for them in the first run.

I am also concerned that Iran will get into China's orbit. That depends on how far Beijing will be willing to go in their confrontation with the US and what they will offer to Tehran.

I supported signing the nuclear deal with Iran. It was far from ideal. But it gave an opportunity to 'open' Iran and encourage it to international cooperation. But the US made a decision to withdraw from it. And the question is what to do further considering today's reality.

 

[Concerned American]

And as the situation develops, Iran could soon be under China's and/or Russia's nuclear umbrella.

Please keep up, Iran, China and Russia have been conducting joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean all summer. Where have you been. Iran is already under a nuclear umbrella, why do they need more?

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Good, but Israel will be denying this.

Israel did not sign the latest NPT in 2009...WHY?

Well because they don't want to divulge they actually have weapons and then be subject to inspections themselves.

But they can run around dictating that for other countries?

Rules for thee but not for me?

They can go get fucked...the hypocrites.

 

[Concerned American]

Are we all supposed to take Trump serioiusly when he threatens the use of America's nuclear arsenal?

When did Trump make this threat? Please be specific and provide links.

 

[surada]

When did Trump make this threat? Please be specific and provide links.

Did Trump Just Threaten to Attack Iran With Nukes?

He said he could destroy Afghanistan but was signaling elsewhere. The scary part is there's already a plan.

www.theamericanconservative.com

 

[surada]

Threat from nuclear weapons has grown under Trump administration

Global threat from missiles has increased despite efforts to control

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Concerned American]

Did Trump Just Threaten to Attack Iran With Nukes?

He said he could destroy Afghanistan but was signaling elsewhere. The scary part is there's already a plan.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Trump’s seemingly blasé reference to a hypothetical mass murder--do you understand the meaning of hypothetical. Every American leader, nee World leader, on earth knows this is true and it has been repeated by many--Nikita Kruschev, rocket man etc. etc. A hypothetical remark is not a threat. Try again. BTW, opinion pieces are not news.