Trump: Iran has agreed to hand over its uranium

[jacksonlamb]

Inspectors are necessary.

 

[konradv]

Really?? We just blew their ass away and you want to say. HI IM AN AMERICAN HERE TO INSPECT.

View attachment 1245323

Obama did it, but Trump decided to throw that agreement into the trash, sacrificing American and Iranian lives unnecessarily.

 

[kyzr]

Obama did it, but Trump decided to throw that agreement into the trash, sacrificing American and Iranian lives unnecessarily.

That agreement expired, Trump's doesn't.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

It's not a win for liberal democrats however; ever get this feeling they want Iran to come out on top to support their validations? It's not exactly a "feeling" though is it?

They want a nuclear attack on Israel and the US both. They can barely hide it.

 

[Zavulon]

Of course, it's just plain and obvious Trump's lie. Iran is not going to hand over its Uranium. They are not even going to discuss it.

 

[konradv]

They want a nuclear attack on Israel and the US both. They can barely hide it.

MAGA lies.

 

[kyzr]

Of course, it's just plain and obvious Trump's lie. Iran is not going to hand over its Uranium. They are not even going to discuss it.

Then we see how much pain and punishment Iran wants to endure...

 

[Zavulon]

Then we see how much pain and punishment Iran wants to endure...

They are ready to lose up to, at least, 30% of their population to keep their country independent (and nowadays only nukes can guarantee independence). America, as far as I can understand, is not ready to lose even one million soldiers and/or civilians just to please some freaking Middle East dictators or get distracted from some dirt.

 

[Lockback]

MAGA lies.

Get some new material.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Get some new material.

.

It needs a new programmer.

.

 

[Zavulon]

They want a nuclear attack on Israel and the US both. They can barely hide it.

Even when they get the Minimal Deterrence Capability, it will be a capability to destroy few American cities (with killing 0.1 - 1 mln american civilians), without a chance to survive massive American retaliation.
Those who are ready to exchange one American life on 100-1000 Iranian lives don't work in a government or serve in the military. They commit suicide bombing with conventional bombs (which is a way more effective, if you prefer kill enemies to protecting your people).

And as Iranians (as all sane people) prefer defending their own kind to killing random foreigners, they will use nukes only in one situation - if their very survival is questioned.
In all other scenarios it will just prevent significant American attack on them for no reason. If they are too provocative and, say, decided to destroy Israel or start an Islamic Revolution in Bahrain - America may decide to take their chances and attack Iran anyway.

 

[toomuchtime_]

They are ready to lose up to, at least, 30% of their population to keep their country independent (and nowadays only nukes can guarantee independence). America, as far as I can understand, is not ready to lose even one million soldiers and/or civilians just to please some freaking Middle East dictators or get distracted from some dirt.

In other words, you see Iranian nukes, if they had them, as terror weapons. So does the rest of the world, which is why the ayatollahs will not be allowed to have them.

 

[Zavulon]

In other words, you see Iranian nukes, if they had them, as terror weapons. So does the rest of the world, which is why the ayatollahs will not be allowed to have them.

It depends on your definition of the word "terror", but yes, nukes (whatever country has them), since 1945 use as deterrence thing. "If you do this - we'll do that, and if you don't want those consequences for you - you'd better not to do this".

 

[konradv]

Get some new material.

Ditto!

 

[konradv]

Then we see how much pain and punishment Iran wants to endure...

No concern for the pain and punishment we’ll have to endure because Trump is crashing the economy?

 

[toomuchtime_]

It depends on your definition of the word "terror", but yes, nukes (whatever country has them), since 1945 use as deterrence thing. "If you do this - we'll do that, and if you don't want those consequences for you - you'd better not to do this".

Not true. As Iran would use them, nukes would clearly be terror weapons used to discourage any attempts to interfere with the ayatollahs' imperialist ambitions, but the US and Russia have long considered nuclear weapons to be a strategic resource in a war.

How can you know so little about your own country?

 

[luiza]

Our excellentCheekies have just shut the Strait again .
Teaching Trumpfy to be more polite .
This must signal an all time low for Big Mouth .
Americans desperately pretending not to be part of the farce .
To be known as The Arse and his Farce.

 

[Zavulon]

Not true. As Iran would use them, nukes would clearly be terror weapons used to discourage any attempts to interfere with the ayatollahs' imperialist ambitions, but the US and Russia have long considered nuclear weapons to be a strategic resource in a war.

How can you know so little about your own country?

I do know a lot about both Russia and America. And I've read some books from Herman Kahn's "On the thermonuclear war" (1960) to Trenin's "From Deterrence to Intimidation" (2023).

And what I do know, that with few nukes you can only play game of "Minimal Deterrence" -

"If you attack us endangering our very existence, we'll nuke you, and you'll suffer significant, but survivable losses. If you don't attack us, we won't attack you. But we do understand that if we are doing something really provoking, like attacking your valuable allies, you may prefer to suffer that damage, but destroy us".

That's the very reason why North Korea is not attacked by the USA - all their REMs doesn't worth even 50% chance of one destroyed American city. And that's why Northern Korea didn't invade Southern Korea - they do know that South Korea is very important for America, and, to defend it, America may decide to take 50% chance of losing one or few American cities, but eliminate North Korea.

That's what is called "The steady balance of fear" and "Strategic uncertainty".

 

[kyzr]

They are ready to lose up to, at least, 30% of their population to keep their country independent (and nowadays only nukes can guarantee independence). America, as far as I can understand, is not ready to lose even one million soldiers and/or civilians just to please some freaking Middle East dictators or get distracted from some dirt.

Looking at it from the other side, Iran's population has been waiting for the opportunity to get rid of the theocracy and get a more modern less suicidal government.

 

[kyzr]

No concern for the pain and punishment we’ll have to endure because Trump is crashing the economy?

Simply a moronic statement as the economy sets records, with only higher growth projected when Kevin Warsch gets in as Fed chair.