RayC

On 3/19/2026 at 7:54 PM, mikeymike100 said:

I am fully aware of the 'settlement', but it was essentially a temporary lease on a nuclear program, not a permanent solution, and it deliberately ignored the most dangerous aspects of Iran's behavior, it was deeply flawed.

The IAEA confirmed compliance with the narrow technical rules of the JCPOA, but that doesn't make the deal a strategic success.

First, the Sunset Clauses meant that by 2030, Iran would have been legally allowed to enrich uranium at an industrial scale—the deal just kicked the can down the road.

Second, the negotiation deliberately ignored Iran's ballistic missile program and its regional proxies. While the West unfroze billions for Tehran, that money flowed directly to the IRGC, Houthis and Hezbollah, destabilizing the region, as there were zero condition on how it was spent.

Finally, a deal that doesn't account for the delivery systems (missiles) or the regional aggression (proxies) isn't a 'settlement'—it’s a tactical retreat.

True negotiation requires both sides to agree on a total framework of peace, not just a temporary pause on one specific lab while the rest of the war machine keeps grinding.

Obama and Kerry thought a flawed deal that stopped a nuke was better than a no deal. They believed they could handle the proxies and missiles separately thru sanctions, well that didn't work out to good!

In reality Iran used the 'nuclear peace' years to build the most sophisticated ballistic missiles and drones in the ME.

You state that, "The IAEA confirmed compliance with the narrow technical rules of the JCPOA"

To state the obvious, that was the IAEA's mandate: No more, no less. Why expect either the IAEA and/or Iran to go over and beyond the terms of the Agreement?

The JCPOA had the support of the UN PS plus Germany and the EU, and had the effect of halting Iran's progress towards attaining nuclear weapons. I'd call that success and far from flawed. Moreover, although the Agreement was time-stamped, there was nothing to prevent negotiations continuing - or strengthening - the Agreement. Nothing that is until Trump's withdrawal of the US.

The idea that Iran would effectively leave itself at the mercy of Israel and Saudi Arabia by agreeing to voluntarily giving up any military deterrent (it's missile systems, etc) as you suggest was - and is - a complete non-starter. No other nation would be expected to agree to such terms so why expect Iran to do so?

Although sanctions make things more financially difficult for Iran, it still continues to fund Hezbollah. The presence or absence of a JCPOA type deal does not prevent it. Indeed, how exactly could Iran be preventing from sending funds to Lebanon and Palestine unless their budget was managed by, and, from a third party (presumably the US).

In reality, we had a deal. While it couldn't be claimed to have been perfect or to have permanently solved any major problems, it did at least prevent existing problems from getting worse which was a lot better than the situation since 2018. The irresponsible behaviour of Trump by withdrawing from the Agreement and his behaviour now - without seemingly having any idea of what the final outcome either should look like or is likely to be - is unfortunately proof of that.

On 3/20/2026 at 7:21 AM, Prubangboy said:

On 3/20/2026 at 6:35 AM, SAFETY FIRST said:

I liked his music

I saw the glitter band without him in the early aughts. He definitely had the tunes.

I saw him and the Glitter band in 1981. For sheer entertainment, It remains one of the best gigs I've ever been to.

The Glitter band were excellent musicians and a very tight backing band.

18 hours ago, BritManToo said:

No, I argue that after 15 years in jail, and confined to a wheelchair, he is no longer a threat to anyone.

Where you support the mass murder of innocent women and children and the murder of unborn babies.

Seems to me you are the sick person

Public protection is not the only reason for jailing individuals, although who's to know whether Glitter no longer presents a danger to young children in some perverted way; there are also the elements of rehabilitation, deterrence and punishment to consider.

Glitter reoffended when released and looks past rehabilitation. Unfortunately, there are others like him at large and imo a strong deterrent message needs to be sent. Wrt punishment, I find it difficult to have much sympathy for Glitter and to use the old saying, 'He's got what he deserved'.

I agree with @Effective altruism ; he should spend the rest of his days in a cell.

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Actually it would be given my spending habits when there.

We don't all buy a miniature bottle of Hock at Co-Op and swig it on a park bench.

Why do you spend so much money (and time?) in a place that you so clearly abhor?

1 hour ago, JimHuaHin said:

So cheap!!!

My new Australian passport cost me A$611 (Baht 12,831) earlier this year.

Did you lose your old one? For that price, I'd expect it to last a lifetime.

The mixed messaging continues. Will those ar Labour's central office never learn?

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

Caligula? Nero?

Shhh. We don't 'The Don' thinking that he has competition. Who knows, who - or what - he might appoint next!

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

You are a few thousand years off

And you are even further off offering a coherent counter argument to my original post.

35 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Using that logic, Marc Antony in 33BC

The UK-backed coup brought Rezi Pahlavi to power in Iran in 1953: The European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1951 and has been recognised as being instrumental in shaping the development of modern Europe.

By your logic, something must have happened in 1952 which meant that the return to power of the Shah had no effect on the future of Iran.

Care to share with us all what that event(s) might have been?

On 3/17/2026 at 7:15 PM, Yagoda said:

Anybody care to get out of their bubble and read a reasoned analysis of the present conflict.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/3/16/the-us-israeli-strategy-against-iran-is-working-here-is-why

Im sure this will degenerate into the usual Trump deranged nonsense, probably because the analysis is unimpeachable

"But the critics are making a different error: They are treating the costs of action as if the costs of inaction were zero. They were not. They were measured in the slow accretion of a threat that, left unchecked, would have produced exactly the crisis everyone claims to fear: a nuclear-armed Iran capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz at will, surrounded by proxy forces that could hold the entire region hostage indefinitely.

Seventeen days in, Iran’s supreme leader is dead, his successor is reportedly wounded and every principal instrument of Iranian power projection – missiles, nuclear infrastructure, air defences, the navy, proxy command networks – has been degraded beyond near-term recovery. The campaign’s execution has been imperfect, its public communication poor and its post-conflict planning incomplete. War is never clean. But the strategy – the actual strategy, measured in degraded capabilities rather than cable news cycles – is working."

The analysis may be largely correct but it rests on what appears to be one faulty assumption and overlooks one pertinent fact.

The faulty assumption is that Iran was two weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb. This claim seems to have about as much veracity as Blair's claim that Iraq possessed WMDs which could reach the UK in 15 minutes: From an embedded link in the article which you posted:

"Open-source intelligence and analysis suggests that Iran is unlikely to have made substantial progress in rebuilding their key nuclear sites since June 2025 and that the programme seems to be even more “in limbo” without clear political guidance about how to move forward. Before the strikes, US intelligence suggested that Iran’s “breakout time” (the time needed to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb) was estimated at less than two weeks. In the aftermath of last summer’s military campaign, IAEA estimates suggest, however, that that Tehran’s nuclear program was “very slow … perhaps we could say frozen, if not, almost stopped.”"

The pertinent fact which is overlooked is that all this could have been avoided if Trump had not pulled the US out of the JCPOA during his first term. The independent monitor, the IAEA, was satisfied that Iran was complying with the terms of the deal.

This war is of the US's making and the fault largely rests with one man.

Nice story. Well done to the motorcycle rider.

8 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The Gulf States wants Iran incapable of any future attacks. You can continue the blame game which doesn't solve the problem.

I provided the link above if you'd take the time to read. The news is full of these same articles. As I'm sure you're aware of.

I stand corrected but would suggest that 'careful what you wish for' might be an apt phase.

Unless this neutralisation is accompanied by regime change, imo in the medium term it is difficult to see how greater instability in the region can be avoided.

In the short term, if the bombardment intensifies there must be the possibility that Iranians will start to leave the country and that yet another refugee crisis ensues. What will the US's and Gulf States' reaction be if that happens?

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

I seriously doubt anyone really wanted this war. As you read before but were unable to comprehend, what's done is done. The Gulf States recognize this and wants Iran neutralized before we conclude the war.

Trump was obviously convinced that this war was a good thing otherwise why start it in the first place? That appears to be something beyond your comprehension.

You have already been challenged to produce evidence to support your proposition that the other Gulf States want Iran "neutralised" (whatever that means?) before ending the war but have, so far, failed to produce anything.

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

If that means the subjugation of the Iranian people he doesnt care one bit. He doesnt care about the British people so he certainly doesnt care about Iranians.

If 'he' is Trump then, for once, you are spot on.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Glad to see you've finally seen the light. You could only blame the Tories for so long.

Blaming the Tories for 14 years of (largely) misrule - especially setting the scene for the disaster that is Brexit - and accepting that this Labour government have been a crushing disappointment -and achieved little - are not mutually exclusive positions to hold.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Then Labour should base their next election campaign on a promise to have a rejoin referendum. If it's that popular they will romp home like the Tories did when they campaigned on a leave referendum.

Money. Mouth. Put.

Unfortunately, it would appear unlikely that Labour will run on a 'Rejoin' platform if Nick Thomas-Symonds is speaking on behalf of this government.

Or Liz

“Dear diary, it’s now been 2 astonishingly successful weeks since I became Trump’s military advisor and told him not to worry what his woke Admirals said about the Strait of Hormuz.”

1 hour ago, EastBayRay said:

You’re the one supporting racist dei policies and intolerant sharia law

Not really in a position to be name calling

Where have I supported racist policies and sharia Law? Rhetorical question. That's right, I haven't.

Your posts are pitiful.

15 hours ago, EastBayRay said:

You love the anti white racist dei policiies

You support British becoming minorities in their own country

You are an anti white racist clear as day

Classic liberal self loathing because you think all whites are as weak as you are

I would say that it's been lovely passing the time of day with you, Ray, but that would be a lie.

I hope that you are able to overcome your bigotry in time but it will clearly take significant effort. Good luck.