Iran makes new nuclear threats that would reverse steps in pact

[webfact]

Iran makes new nuclear threats that would reverse steps in pact

By Babak Dehghanpisheh and Tuqa Khalid

 

Abbas Araqchi, Iranian deputy foreign minister for political affairs (R), Behrouz Kamalvandi, Iran's Atomic Energy Organization spokesman (L) and Iran's government spokesman Ali Rabiei attend a news conferenece in Tehran, Iran July 7, 2019. Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS

 

GENEVA/DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Monday to restart deactivated centrifuges and ramp up enrichment of uranium to 20% purity in a move away from the 2015 nuclear deal, but the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards insisted the world knows Tehran is not pursuing nuclear arms.

 

The threats to ramp up enrichment, made by Tehran's nuclear agency spokesman, would go far beyond the small steps Iranhas taken in the past week to nudge stocks of fissile material just beyond limits in the pact that Washington abandoned last year.

 

They would reverse the major achievements of the agreement, intended to block Iran from making a nuclear weapon, and raise serious questions about whether the accord is still viable.

 

Iran omitted important details about how far it might go to returning to the status quo before the pact, when Western experts believed it could build a bomb within months.

 

Iran has passed the 3.67% uranium enrichment cap set by its landmark 2015 nuclear deal and may enrich at even higher levels according to the spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation. Emily Wither reports.

 

But Major General Hossein Salami, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, denied Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon.

 

"Why do they globally sanction us about the nuclear issue when the world knows that we are not pursuing a weapon? In reality they are sanctioning us because of knowledge," Salami was quoted as saying by the semi-official Tasnim news agency.

 

"Nuclear weapons have no place in Islam. Islam never approves of weapons of mass destruction," he added.

 

Despite the Iranian threat to boost enrichment, the United States said its renewed sanctions against Tehran were working and warned Iranian leaders not to underestimate U.S. resolve.

 

"President Trump's maximum pressure campaign against Iran is working," White House national security adviser John Bolton told a pro-Israel group in Washington. "We're just getting started. ... The president's goal is to get a new deal that would be negotiated in the best interests of the United States."

 

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who spoke to the same group, added a warning: "Iran should not confuse American restraint with a lack of American resolve," reiterating Washington's resolve to protect U.S. personnel and citizens in the Middle East.

 

Nuclear diplomacy is one aspect of a wider confrontation between Washington and Tehran that has threatened to spiral into open conflict since the United States tightened sanctions from May.

 

Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation (IAEA), confirmed that Tehran had enriched uranium beyond the 2015 deal's limit of 3.67% purity, passing 4.5%, according to news agency ISNA.

 

The IAEA - the U.N. nuclear watchdog - confirmed it had verified Iran's enrichment was beyond 3.67%.

 

Iran has said it will take another, third step away from the deal within 60 days. Kamalvandi said options included enriching uranium to 20% purity or beyond, and restarting IR-2 M centrifuges dismantled under the deal.

 

Such threats put new pressure on European countries, which insist Iran must continue to comply with the agreement even though the United States is no longer doing so.

 

French President Emmanuel Macron was sending his top diplomatic advisor to Iran on Tuesday and Wednesday to try to help defuse tensions, a presidential official said. The White House said Trump had spoken to Macron on Monday to discuss efforts to ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

 

CENTRIFUGES

The sanctions imposed by Washington threaten to eliminate the benefits Iran was meant to receive for agreeing to curbs on its nuclear programme with world powers. The confrontation has brought the United States and Iran close to the brink of conflict, with President Donald Trump calling off air strikes last month minutes before impact.

 

Enriching uranium up to 20% purity would be a dramatic move, since that was the level Iran achieved before the deal, although back then it had a far larger stockpile than it is likely to be able to rebuild in the short term.

 

It is considered an important intermediate stage on the path to obtaining the 90% pure fissile uranium needed for a bomb.

 

One of the main achievements of the deal was Iran's agreement to dismantle its advanced IR-2M centrifuges, used to purify uranium. Iran had 1,000 of them installed at its large Natanz enrichment site before the deal. Under the deal, it is allowed to operate only up to two for testing.

 

Still, the threatened measures also appear intended to be sufficiently ambiguous to hold back from fully repudiating the deal. Kamalvandi did not specify how much uranium Iran might purify to the higher level, nor how many centrifuges it would consider restarting. He did not mention other more advanced centrifuges, including the most advanced, the IR-8.Iran has said all the steps it is contemplating are reversible.

 

'PIRACY, PURE AND SIMPLE'

European countries do not directly support the U.S. sanctions, but have been unable to come up with ways to allow Iran to avert them.

 

In a separate standoff, Iran's foreign minister accused Britain of "piracy" for seizing an Iranian oil tanker last week. Britain says the ship, which was boarded by Royal Marines as it was entering the Mediterranean off Gibraltar, was bound for Syria in violation of European Union sanctions over the conflict there.

 

"Iran is neither a member of the EU nor subject to any European oil embargo. Last I checked, EU was against extraterritoriality. UK's unlawful seizure of a tanker with Iranian oil on behalf of #B_Team is piracy, pure and simple," Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted on Monday, using 'B team' as a derisory term for the Trump administration.

 

Iran says the deal allows it to respond to the U.S. breach by reducing its compliance, and it will do so every 60 days.

 

Zarif also tweeted that world powers will not be able to negotiate a better deal than the 2015 nuclear deal.

 

"#B_Team sold @realDonaldTrump on the folly that killing #JCPOA thru #EconomicTerrorism can get him a better deal," Zarif wrote, referring to the deal by its acronym for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

 

"As it becomes increasingly clear that there won’t be a better deal, they're bizarrely urging Iran's full compliance. There's a way out, but not with #B_Team in charge."

 

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Landay and Arshad Mohammed in Washington; Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Peter Graff and David Alexander; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-09

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[ezzra]

Food for thoughts, neverminds what Trump/US or israel or other countries regarding Iran belligerent conduct for just one moment, Iran leadership has never and doesn't stop issuing clear and unambiguous threats or annihilation destructions and war, and this is NOT having nukes weapons yet, can you just imagine if Iran HAS the nukes mounted and ready to go what will be the level of bullying threats than?...

[YetAnother]

34 minutes ago, webfact said:

but the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards insisted the world knows Tehran is not pursuing nuclear arms.

the world of diplomacy; dealing with these nut jobs and the trumps,erdogans,dutertes and on and on????

[Lacessit]

IMHO the nuclear stuff is a diversion from America's real agenda - Iran's support of terrorist groups which could destabilise the Middle East and oil supply.

How many nuclear powers are there? Israel, India, Pakistan to name a few. The USA doesn't say diddly squat about them.

America is pressuring Iran. The Iranians are responding in kind.

[ezzra]

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMHO the nuclear stuff is a diversion from America's real agenda - Iran's support of terrorist groups which could destabilise the Middle East and oil supply.

How many nuclear powers are there? Israel, India, Pakistan to name a few. The USA doesn't say diddly squat about them.

America is pressuring Iran. The Iranians are responding in kind.

Strange to compare an axis of evil country who's bent on world domination at any costs actively supporting and facilitating state terrorism to a relatively peaceful countries, are there any fools out there who still believe that Iran is pursuing nukes for research purposes?...

[dexterm]

What pact?

USA has reneged on it and bullied most other parties into doing same. So you can't blame Iran for saying "Deal's off" too.

 

If the USA really wanted a non nuclear Iran, it had an agreement that was working, which it unilaterally abandoned.

 

But of course it's not really about nuclear enrichment. This is all about protecting the tail that wags the US dog...yet again provoking a war on another pretext..just like deja vu all over again.

 

When the body bags start coming home, just remember that Trump started this schmozzle.

Edited July 9, 2019 by dexterm

[Tug]

I’m not to worryed yet it’s when Iran kicks out the inspectors is when the scat will hit the fan now it’s mostly rhetoric

[expatfromwyoming]

It is quite ironic that Iran's nuclear program was launched in the 1950s with the scientific and funding help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. The foresight!!!!!!

[expatfromwyoming]

The theocracy  have dug in its heels because of a perception that the outside world - namely USA- is trying to deny technology and discriminating against a country that—unlike Israel, Pakistan and India who refuse to sign—signed the global treaty on non-proliferation. Perhaps getting those 3 rogue and dangerous countries to sign the treaty may be a good start in any agreement with Iran.

[ezzra]

1 minute ago, expatfromwyoming said:

The theocracy  have dug in its heels because of a perception that the outside world - namely USA- is trying to deny technology and discriminating against a country that—unlike Israel, Pakistan and India who refuse to sign—signed the global treaty on non-proliferation. Perhaps getting those 3 rogue and dangerous countries to sign the treaty may be a good start in any agreement with Iran.

You forgot to mention N. Korea as one of 'rogue' nation, get them to sign a treaty....Only deaf blind fools would believe for one moment that Iran is a peace loving nation and that some crappy piece of paper so called 'treaty' will stop Iran ambitions to go nukes, Iran is actively financing, arming and training and positioning forces in places and countries they have no business being there other than to dominate and influence, Iraqe, Lebanon, Syria, yeman, Sinai desert, Gaza to name a few, what other "Peace loving nation" dose that?...

[dexterm]

7 minutes ago, ezzra said:

You forgot to mention N. Korea as one of 'rogue' nation, get them to sign a treaty....Only deaf blind fools would believe for one moment that Iran is a peace loving nation and that some crappy piece of paper so called 'treaty' will stop Iran ambitions to go nukes, Iran is actively financing, arming and training and positioning forces in places and countries they have no business being there other than to dominate and influence, Iraqe, Lebanon, Syria, yeman, Sinai desert, Gaza to name a few, what other "Peace loving nation" dose that?...

>>what other "Peace loving nation" dose that?...

....Israel, USA and their proxies.

 

Hence Iran's need for a deterrence.

 

How about a bit of quid pro quo? What's in it for Iran to cut back its enrichment, its defensive missile program, its defence of Shia minorities scattered around the Middle East?

How about a spot of give and take like USA reining in its belligerent allies in the Middle East who are threatening Iran, which might actually encourage peace in the region?

Edited July 9, 2019 by dexterm

[jany123]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

You forgot to mention N. Korea as one of 'rogue' nation, get them to sign a treaty....Only deaf blind fools would believe for one moment that Iran is a peace loving nation and that some crappy piece of paper so called 'treaty' will stop Iran ambitions to go nukes, Iran is actively financing, arming and training and positioning forces in places and countries they have no business being there other than to dominate and influence, Iraqe, Lebanon, Syria, yeman, Sinai desert, Gaza to name a few, what other "Peace loving nation" dose that?...

The crappy piece of paper wasn’t intended to stop their ambitions... it was intended to stop their capability to produce a bomb... or rather, to limit its capability, by extending the lead time from a couple of months, to a year.

 

Meanwhile... what other country attempts to dominate and influence the geopolitical situation in its back yard? Seriously?

 

oh sorry... I see the qualifier... “peace loving nation”. Im even dubious of claims that the Vatican is a peace loving state, so the honest answer you seek must be “none”

 

 

[hugocnx]

Weapons of mass destruction have no place in Islam. What about their intent or threat to kill all Jews.

Ahhh, by the sword is not mass destruction. 

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Enriching uranium up to 20% purity would be a dramatic move

If Iran triples the number of gas centrifuges online, Iran would be about 3 months from 90% weapons grade uranium. Another diplomatic milestone for the Trump administration.

[Elfin]

6 hours ago, ezzra said:

country who's bent on world domination at any costs

Are you for real? Iran dominating the world over the USA, China or Russia??

You may have taken too much ear medicine this morning! 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Elfin

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, ezzra said:

Strange to compare an axis of evil country who's bent on world domination at any costs actively supporting and facilitating state terrorism to a relatively peaceful countries, are there any fools out there who still believe that Iran is pursuing nukes for research purposes?...

Obviously the CIA's activities in Chile are ancient history to you. If you believe the USA, as the world's biggest arms seller, is interested in world peace there's a bridge in Sydney Harbour I'd like to sell you.

I don't believe I  said Iran was pursuing nukes for research purposes. It's called realpolitik.

For someone who claims to be cynical, you aren't setting any records.

Edited July 9, 2019 by Lacessit

[nkg]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

If Iran triples the number of gas centrifuges online, Iran would be about 3 months from 90% weapons grade uranium. Another diplomatic milestone for the Trump administration.

 

You make it sound so straightforward! Are you a nuclear scientist?

 

I'd like to see some evidence of your "3 months from 90%" claim. It doesn't sound credible to me.

[jany123]

7 hours ago, ezzra said:

are there any fools out there who still believe that Iran is pursuing nukes for research purposes?.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

Low enriched uranium (LEU)Edit

Low enriched uranium (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of ²³⁵U; for instance, in commercial light water reactors(LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5% ²³⁵U. Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the latter concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.^[4]

 

They aren’t pursuing a nuke for research purposes, they are enriching uranium for research purposes.... semantics change meanings.

 

Regardless of the validity of this claim ( that they are enriching for research) it’s is still a fact that they need to enrich, to use it for research.... so credence should be given vs outright dismissal of the claim, as it can be demonstrated to be true. (Whereas claims that they are pursuing a nuclear weapon cannot be proven true)

 

the simplest solution to avoid escalation is for the trump to revert to the terms of the deal agreed by the last US administration, then offer further sanction relief for entering into further talks on additional limitations to its weapons capabilities, creating a new and separate deal with stricter compliance’s, vs terrorizing a country that had been in complete compliance with agreed restrictions.

 

MAGA... the central policy of a redefined axis of evil.

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by jany123

[rabas]

30 minutes ago, nkg said:

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

If Iran triples the number of gas centrifuges online, Iran would be about 3 months from 90% weapons grade uranium. Another diplomatic milestone for the Trump administration.

 

You make it sound so straightforward! Are you a nuclear scientist?

 

I'd like to see some evidence of your "3 months from 90%" claim. It doesn't sound credible to me.

It is  simple. A centrifuge does not care what percentage of U₂₃₅ gas goes in, 1% or 90%, it will enrich it. It also doesn't care what the Uranium will be used for, bomb, reactor, or political blackmail. If you want higher grade U₂₃₅, just run fewer in parallel and more in series. Maybe by just turning a valve. Not enough centrifuges? Store the effluent and recirculate, or in Iran's case, just take some out of storage.

 

I do not know about 3 months but it's clear Iran insists on maintaining a running factory fully capable of producing high grade bomb fuel whenever they decide to do so. If you don't trust me, here is the Federation of American Scientists on the subject. The FAS was started by scientists that worked on the original Atom bomb.

 

Centrifuges raise serious nuclear weapons proliferation concerns because exactly the same machines that are used to enrich uranium for a nuclear reactor can enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb. In general, a nuclear reactor needs a small degree of enrichment of a large amount of material and a bomb needs a large degree of enrichment of a small amount of material. Exactly the same centrifuges can do either job; the only change required is how they are piped together into a cascade. Moreover, a single typical large commercial nuclear power plant may have ten times more separative work than is needed to produce one uranium bomb per year, so even a modest commercial enrichment facility has a significant nuclear weapons production capability.

https://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/fuelcycle/centrifuges/centrifuge.html

 

[pacovl46]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

What pact?

USA has reneged on it and bullied most other parties into doing same. So you can't blame Iran for saying "Deal's off" too.

 

If the USA really wanted a non nuclear Iran, it had an agreement that was working, which it unilaterally abandoned.

 

But of course it's not really about nuclear enrichment. This is all about protecting the tail that wags the US dog...yet again provoking a war on another pretext..just like deja vu all over again.

 

When the body bags start coming home, just remember that Trump started this schmozzle.

Exactly!!!

[natway09]

If that clown in the White House had stopped trying to be the Worlds Policeman 

none of this would have eventuated

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, ezzra said:

You forgot to mention N. Korea as one of 'rogue' nation, get them to sign a treaty....Only deaf blind fools would believe for one moment that Iran is a peace loving nation and that some crappy piece of paper so called 'treaty' will stop Iran ambitions to go nukes, Iran is actively financing, arming and training and positioning forces in places and countries they have no business being there other than to dominate and influence, Iraqe, Lebanon, Syria, yeman, Sinai desert, Gaza to name a few, what other "Peace loving nation" dose that?...

And what about Saudi Arabia and the suporting bad actors in Iraq, Syria, libya, Sudan, Yemen, Bahrain, Lebanon, and Egypt. You expect Iran just to do nothing against its enemies?

[Morch]

14 hours ago, dexterm said:

What pact?

USA has reneged on it and bullied most other parties into doing same. So you can't blame Iran for saying "Deal's off" too.

 

If the USA really wanted a non nuclear Iran, it had an agreement that was working, which it unilaterally abandoned.

 

But of course it's not really about nuclear enrichment. This is all about protecting the tail that wags the US dog...yet again provoking a war on another pretext..just like deja vu all over again.

 

When the body bags start coming home, just remember that Trump started this schmozzle.

 

Did Iran actually say "Deal's off"? Most of the Iranian rhetoric is aimed at preserving the deal. If the deal is "off", international sanctions snap back. On top  of the current USA sanctions. No veto right by China and Russia.

 

That you "know" what it's "really about" is dubious. You're a single issue poster, and that the beginning and end of most your "contributions".

 

So far, there is no war. And there aren't enough forces in place, domestic or international support to facilitate one. Obviously, no body bags either, other than in your fantasies.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, expatfromwyoming said:

The theocracy  have dug in its heels because of a perception that the outside world - namely USA- is trying to deny technology and discriminating against a country that—unlike Israel, Pakistan and India who refuse to sign—signed the global treaty on non-proliferation. Perhaps getting those 3 rogue and dangerous countries to sign the treaty may be a good start in any agreement with Iran.

 

That one warped take on things.

Are countries that did not signed the NPT and developed nuclear arms more in the wrong than countries (like Iran) who signed the NPT and breached it?

I kinda doubt that the "rogue" bit amounts to anything much other than a handy label. None are particularly shunned internationally, face sanctions etc. 

Getting countries already having nuclear arms to disarm is harder than preventing countries who don't have them from doing so. Different ballgame. Tying three non-signatories agreeing to the join the NPT with Iran's case, is one way to make sure it will go nowhere.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>what other "Peace loving nation" dose that?...

....Israel, USA and their proxies.

 

Hence Iran's need for a deterrence.

 

How about a bit of quid pro quo? What's in it for Iran to cut back its enrichment, its defensive missile program, its defence of Shia minorities scattered around the Middle East?

How about a spot of give and take like USA reining in its belligerent allies in the Middle East who are threatening Iran, which might actually encourage peace in the region?

 

Defining Iran's ballistic missile program as "defensive" is a choice. Same goes for labeling its regional efforts as "defense of Shia minorities". I think you're intentionally ignoring the Iranian regime's regional agenda in order to support the contrived point of view offered.

 

The so-called "belligerent allies" are not a direct threat to Iran. And some wouldn't even be all that "belligerent" if not for the Iranian regime's stance and actions regarding regional issues.

 

But anyway, considering the Iranians themselves refuse to tie the issues - your whole premise is pretty much nonsensical.

 

 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, jany123 said:

<snip>

 

the simplest solution to avoid escalation is for the trump to revert to the terms of the deal agreed by the last US administration, then offer further sanction relief for entering into further talks on additional limitations to its weapons capabilities, creating a new and separate deal with stricter compliance’s, vs terrorizing a country that had been in complete compliance with agreed restrictions.

 

MAGA... the central policy of a redefined axis of evil.

 

 

I'll skip the enrichment part. Seems like everyone's a nuclear scientist now, and it's hardly relevant anyway.

 

The "simplest" solution isn't simple at all. Do you see Trump "reverting" in such a manner? Not unless there was a way to spin it as something else, and a grand achievement to boot. Which could have been fine, if it wasn't for the Iranian regime holding a pretty similar stance.

 

Iran repeatedly rejected tying the issues pertaining to its nuclear program and other matters (such as its ballistic program and regional involvement). Iran also rejected the option of renegotiating the terms of the JCPOA.

 

So "simple"...yeah.

 

As for the "redefined axis of evil" crapola - about as credible as "MAGA". Guess some on either side of the divide need their dosage of daft slogans.

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Defining Iran's ballistic missile program as "defensive" is a choice. Same goes for labeling its regional efforts as "defense of Shia minorities". I think you're intentionally ignoring the Iranian regime's regional agenda in order to support the contrived point of view offered.

 

The so-called "belligerent allies" are not a direct threat to Iran. And some wouldn't even be all that "belligerent" if not for the Iranian regime's stance and actions regarding regional issues.

 

But anyway, considering the Iranians themselves refuse to tie the issues - your whole premise is pretty much nonsensical.

 

 

Which ones wouldn't be all that belligerent? And just as importantly, which ones still would? And given the reports from sober sources about MbS and MbZ, I think it's pretty clear that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are direct threats to Iran. And Iran's meddling in the affairs of other countries makes a lot more sense since it's clear that their local adversaries do the same.

[meand]

If Iran was gifted a nuke tomorrow, nothing would change. They certainly would not use it. In my estimation the USA is the worst country in the world to have their hands on nuclear weapons. 

 

I only mention that because everyone and their mother seems to think Iran getting a nuke would somehow spell the end. Just like everyone else who has nukes, they can't use them without devastating, counterproductive repercussions. 

 

I think when Iran makes public statements they assume everyone knows they wont/do not plan to use nukes any differently than other nations who have them. Yet the problem is people do not see it that way even though it is the truth. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, meand said:

If Iran was gifted a nuke tomorrow, nothing would change. They certainly would not use it. In my estimation the USA is the worst country in the world to have their hands on nuclear weapons. 

 

I only mention that because everyone and their mother seems to think Iran getting a nuke would somehow spell the end. Just like everyone else who has nukes, they can't use them without devastating, counterproductive repercussions. 

 

I think when Iran makes public statements they assume everyone knows they wont/do not plan to use nukes any differently than other nations who have them. Yet the problem is people do not see it that way even though it is the truth. 

 

And yet Europe, China, Russia and the USA (not to mention Iran's neighbors) feel very differently about it. Guess they are all less informed or less able to analyze things than yourself.

 

Iran getting nuclear weapons would mean its regional push will increase. This, in turn, can lead to other confrontations. If you think that's an imaginary scenario (as opposed to the bogus bit about "using" a nuke), guess you're just too invested in your hyperbolic anti-USA rhetoric.

 

And, of course, you're assuming Iran will have strict checks and balances with regard to nuclear weapons. Given how things are run in Iran, that's not a particularly viable proposition. Assuming rational reasoning is fine, ignoring Iran being a theocracy is not.

 

Maybe the problem is that many countries simply do not trust Iran as much as you do. If they did, they'd make a JCPOA without the strict inspections regime. Or accept Iran's NPT breaching excuses as valid.

[jany123]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

The "simplest" solution isn't simple at all. Do you see Trump "reverting" in such a manner? Not unless there was a way to spin it as something else, and a grand achievement to boot. Which could have been fine, if it wasn't for the Iranian regime holding a pretty similar stance.

 

Iran repeatedly rejected tying the issues pertaining to its nuclear program and other matters (such as its ballistic program and regional involvement). Iran also rejected the option of renegotiating the terms of the JCPOA.

 

So "simple"...yeah.

 

As for the "redefined axis of evil" crapola - about as credible as "MAGA". Guess some on either side of the divide need their dosage of daft slogans.

maybe I should have said “most logical”... or “best for the regions stability”... or “morally right”.. but I didn’t, so ok.

 

However... I did not say it was “simple”, but rather, the “simplest solution”. You appear to argue against the point, without providing an indication of what you would consider a simpler solution (which I’d be more than happy to kick around with you)... but as far as this thread goes, it’s still the simplest solution that I’ve seen suggested, even if it has to wait 18 months to be achieved.

 

as to your rest... the JCPOA doesn’t need renegotiating, it needs reinstating. That Iran refused to tie further demilitarization to the JCPOA, is fine... I’m not now suggesting that they could, would or should. What I said / suggested was that a new and separate deal could be negotiated... that would be a winning spin for the trump, wouldn’t it?...  “Peace in our time”, he could cry, whilst stepping from his plane. 

 

alternatively, the USA carrying thru and implementing secondary sanctions against its allies... well... there’s nothing whatsoever simple about that mess. The number of catastrophic permutations to that equation are frightening.

 

And... I thought the “redefined axis of evil” bit was funny.... I might continue to use that... I’m happy to see anyone describe MAGA as daft, and if contrary daftness is needed to encourage that sentiment, that’s cool...  so thanks for that