4 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Why would they? The only reason they further refined the uranium was because Trump tore up the agreement leaving them free to do whatever they wanted.

Prior to the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in May 2018, Iran’s nuclear program was strictly curtailed and under rigorous international oversight, with the IAEA consistently verifying full Iranian compliance. Under the terms of the deal, Iran had capped its uranium enrichment at 3.67%, limited its stockpile to 300 kilograms, and restricted both the number and the technological sophistication of its operational centrifuges. These constraints, coupled with the IAEA's intrusive 24/7 monitoring and the implementation of the Additional Protocol, successfully extended Iran's estimated "breakout time" to produce enough fissile material for a weapon to over a year, effectively freezing the program's potential for military development.

There were no unrestricted inspections, to pretend as much is to lie.

Again, had the JCPOA remained in effect, Iran would now be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, unsanctioned, with the US and UN's blessing.

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There were no unrestricted inspections, to pretend as much is to lie.

Again, had the JCPOA remained in effect, Iran would now be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, unsanctioned, with the US and UN's blessing.

• Unannounced (or "Short-Notice") Inspections: The IAEA had the authority to conduct inspections at short notice, as little as a few hours. These are designed to catch potential violations that might be hidden during the standard windows of a scheduled inspection.

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There were no unrestricted inspections, to pretend as much is to lie.

Again, had the JCPOA remained in effect, Iran would now be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, unsanctioned, with the US and UN's blessing.

You are playing on words you know what the poster was meaning !!

The JCPOA never mandated "unrestricted" or "anytime, anywhere" inspections of all Iranian military or suspected nuclear sites. Instead, the deal allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to request access to undeclared locations.

So, basically back to the old Obama deal, Trump tore up in his little white supremacist tantrum. 🤣

Lots of reporting by MSM as well as posts in SM (Twitter, Bluesky). Vance is saying one thing, Iran is saying the opposite. I don't think they're even close to resolving the nuclear issue. I don't think they're even close to starting to seriously discuss the nuclear issue. However, I think they've made more progress than anyone is letting on and I'm honestly surprised that they are still there and still talking. So that's a win for the world at the moment.

By the way, that part of Lake Lucerne and that particular resort is stunningly beautiful. If I were on the negotiating team you would have a hard time pulling me away from there to return to Washington.

41 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

You are playing on words you know what the poster was meaning !!

The JCPOA never mandated "unrestricted" or "anytime, anywhere" inspections of all Iranian military or suspected nuclear sites. Instead, the deal allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to request access to undeclared locations.

Exactly, that's why it was useless.

Had it not been useless, Obama would have taken it to Congress and had it ratified as a treaty in the Senate, such that no president could just tear it up.

56 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

• Unannounced (or "Short-Notice") Inspections: The IAEA had the authority to conduct inspections at short notice, as little as a few hours. These are designed to catch potential violations that might be hidden during the standard windows of a scheduled inspection.

But only in approved areas, correct?

Without anytime, anywhere inspections, the agreement was useless.

And because had the JCPOA remained in effect, Iran would now be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, unsanctioned, with the US and UN's blessing, it was worse than useless.

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly, that's why it was useless.

Had it not been useless, Obama would have taken it to Congress and had it ratified as a treaty in the Senate, such that no president could just tear it up.

Ok !! you know what Obama was thinking !!!! maybe that should have happend but you are guessing !!

45 minutes ago, Front Row said:

Lots of reporting by MSM as well as posts in SM (Twitter, Bluesky). Vance is saying one thing, Iran is saying the opposite. I don't think they're even close to resolving the nuclear issue. I don't think they're even close to starting to seriously discuss the nuclear issue. However, I think they've made more progress than anyone is letting on and I'm honestly surprised that they are still there and still talking. So that's a win for the world at the moment.

By the way, that part of Lake Lucerne and that particular resort is stunningly beautiful. If I were on the negotiating team you would have a hard time pulling me away from there to return to Washington.

I will be interested to know exactly who will lead the discussion on the nuclear issue. Obama had Ernist Moniz the Energy Secretary who is a nuclear physicist. I heard that Witkoff and Jared are relying on crashed course to learn nuclear matters. Vance's Chief of Staff has just resigned. That will complicate matters as Jacob Reses deal with diplomacy, complicated matters to logistic for Vance. He also counsel Vance. Then you have Trump who should be closely monitoring and guiding Vance but instead he has been throwing a spanner in the negotiation with his contradictory stance and incoherent outburst. Vance will need close coordination with allies to present a united front but he has cultivated a contentious relationship with allies. It is not looking good for Vance in the upcoming negotiation. It will dragged on for many months with Trump sniping at his heels.

10 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I will be interested to know exactly who will lead the discussion on the nuclear issue. Obama had Ernist Moniz the Energy Secretary who is a nuclear physicist. I heard that Witkoff and Jared are relying on crashed course to learn nuclear matters. Vance's Chief of Staff has just resigned. That will complicate matters as Jacob Reses deal with diplomacy, complicated matters to logistic for Vance. He also counsel Vance. Then you have Trump who should be closely monitoring and guiding Vance but instead he has been throwing a spanner in the negotiation with his contradictory stance and incoherent outburst. Vance will need close coordination with allies to present a united front but he has cultivated a contentious relationship with allies. It is not looking good for Vance in the upcoming negotiation. It will dragged on for many months with Trump sniping at his heels.

Its hard to negotiate against no!! and with trump abusing the negotiations

22 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I will be interested to know exactly who will lead the discussion on the nuclear issue. Obama had Ernist Moniz the Energy Secretary who is a nuclear physicist. I heard that Witkoff and Jared are relying on crashed course to learn nuclear matters. Vance's Chief of Staff has just resigned. That will complicate matters as Jacob Reses deal with diplomacy, complicated matters to logistic for Vance. He also counsel Vance. Then you have Trump who should be closely monitoring and guiding Vance but instead he has been throwing a spanner in the negotiation with his contradictory stance and incoherent outburst. Vance will need close coordination with allies to present a united front but he has cultivated a contentious relationship with allies. It is not looking good for Vance in the upcoming negotiation. It will dragged on for many months with Trump sniping at his heels.

“Only the best people.”

You ask an important question. I’m guessing it will be someone in totally over their head.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly, that's why it was useless.

Had it not been useless, Obama would have taken it to Congress and had it ratified as a treaty in the Senate, such that no president could just tear it up.

I suspect Obama assumed no US president would ever be so dumb as to tear up a deal that stopped an enemy from having nuclear weapons........but then along came Trump....whoops.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

But only in approved areas, correct?

Without anytime, anywhere inspections, the agreement was useless.

And because had the JCPOA remained in effect, Iran would now be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, unsanctioned, with the US and UN's blessing, it was worse than useless.

What?

On 6/23/2026 at 8:34 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

They need not just IAEA inspectors , but US inspectors in Iran.

The United States cannot rely solely on a UN body to verify American security goals.

The United States is a member state of IAEA, and American experts routinely serve as inspectors, holding technical positions, and conducting safeguards inspections globally.

9 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

What?

He is a mini Trump.

4 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

Ok !! you know what Obama was thinking !!!! maybe that should have happend but you are guessing !!

I'm not guessing.

Unless you think Obama is a dumba**, that knows nothing about how treaties work.

57 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

I suspect Obama assumed no US president would ever be so dumb as to tear up a deal that stopped an enemy from having nuclear weapons........but then along came Trump....whoops.

Except that the deal allowed Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and barred the US from doing anything about it.

Why do you keep leaving that part out? whooops indeed

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I'm not guessing.

Unless you think Obama is a dumba**, that knows nothing about how treaties work.

JCPOA is not a treaty.

47 minutes ago, Purdey said:

The United States is a member state of IAEA, and American experts routinely serve as inspectors, holding technical positions, and conducting safeguards inspections globally.

But the JCPOA did not mandate anywhere anytime inspections,

But we all know that, yes?

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

JCPOA is not a treaty.

Of course it's not. Had the JCPOA not been a piece of cr*p that put Iran on track to develop a nuclear weapon, Obama could have put it to the Senate and had a treaty no one could tear up.

Obama loved him some Iran.

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Except that the deal allowed Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and barred the US from doing anything about it.

Why do you keep leaving that part out? whooops indeed

Under the terms of the deal, Iran had capped its uranium enrichment at 3.67%, limited its stockpile to 300 kilograms, and restricted both the number and the technological sophistication of its operational centrifuges.

Where does the deal say they can develop a nuclear weapon?........that seems like a bit of loophole in a deal constructed to prevent the development of a nuclear weapon.......I'm surprised that the US, China, EU, UK didn't spot that clause.

2 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Under the terms of the deal, Iran had capped its uranium enrichment at 3.67%, limited its stockpile to 300 kilograms, and restricted both the number and the technological sophistication of its operational centrifuges.

Where does the deal say they can develop a nuclear weapon?........that seems like a bit of loophole in a deal constructed to prevent the development of a nuclear weapon.......I'm surprised that the US, China, EU, UK didn't spot that clause.

The guy is trolling, bating he has repeated the same thing over and over

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Of course it's not. Had the JCPOA not been a piece of cr*p that put Iran on track to develop a nuclear weapon, Obama could have put it to the Senate and had a treaty no one could tear up.

Obama loved him some Iran.

So all your bs about treaty is just another of your typical trolling. Looks like your dear leader taking a page of Obama's JCPOA but only worse. He sure gave Iran an early Christmas presents in plane loads of billions. Make Iran great again must be his new catchphrase

4 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Under the terms of the deal, Iran had capped its uranium enrichment at 3.67%, limited its stockpile to 300 kilograms, and restricted both the number and the technological sophistication of its operational centrifuges.

Where does the deal say they can develop a nuclear weapon?........that seems like a bit of loophole in a deal constructed to prevent the development of a nuclear weapon.......I'm surprised that the US, China, EU, UK didn't spot that clause.

When it expired.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

When it expired.

Well!

2025 as an expiry date was infinitely preferable to the Trump's version of abandoning the deal with nothing to replace it seven years earlier.

1 hour ago, MIke B Bad said:

Well!

2025 as an expiry date was infinitely preferable to the Trump's version of abandoning the deal with nothing to replace it seven years earlier.

You mean to say that a wealthy Iran, with the bomb and a delivery system would be better than what we have now?

17 hours ago, Purdey said:

The United States is a member state of IAEA, and American experts routinely serve as inspectors, holding technical positions, and conducting safeguards inspections globally.

You are correct.

When an American nuclear scientist or technical expert gets hired by the IAEA, they must take a formal oath of independence. Legally and operationally, they report directly to the IAEA leadership in Vienna (which answers to the UN), not to the United States government.

My point is that the verification team must include U.S. military and technical experts who report directly back to Washington, rather than UN bureaucrats who might sanitize the findings to preserve a diplomatic deal.

18 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

My point is that the verification team must include U.S. military and technical experts who report directly back to Washington, rather than UN bureaucrats who might sanitize the findings to preserve a diplomatic deal.

555. Trump sycophants that propagate any lie Trump tells? Yeah, that would be real helpful. Better no US involvement to ensure accuracy.

21 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

This is All immaterial, What JCPOA did dint do!! the agreement is in the past ! the question at the moment is who is telling the truth Vance or Iran

I'd say it is a liars contest. However, I'd be more likely to trust Iran regarding their position statements than Trump or Vance telling me what Iran's position is. Whatever the outcome, it will be worse than JCPOA, guaranteed.

On 6/24/2026 at 8:45 AM, MikeandDow said:

You can make a bomb with little as 10% enrichment, but the Bomb would be the size of the good year blimp and have an inconsequentially small yield in kilotons range but it would still work,

Would make me laugh if not so pitiful... A great big club the size of Florida would also work, and about equally absurd.

On 6/24/2026 at 8:56 AM, Yellowtail said:

If the JCPOA were left intact, Iran would have a bomb and a delivery system, and the US and the UN would be barred from doing anything about it.

They would not have a bomb. This lacks any sort of reading of the agreement with comprehension. Almost equally absurd is assertion US & UN barred from doing anything about it. Just who would bar them? How? What means?

3 minutes ago, Emdog said:

I'd say it is a liars contest. However, I'd be more likely to trust Iran regarding their position statements than Trump or Vance telling me what Iran's position is. Whatever the outcome, it will be worse than JCPOA, guaranteed.

Would make me laugh if not so pitiful... A great big club the size of Florida would also work, and about equally absurd.

They would not have a bomb. This lacks any sort of reading of the agreement with comprehension. Almost equally absurd is assertion US & UN barred from doing anything about it. Just who would bar them? How? What means?

Of course it is absurd ! so is oh!! they have 60% enriched Uranium they are making bombs !!! it takes a lot more than having 60% Uranium to make a Nuke, no dough Iran was on the path to making a Nuke but years away And the American new that!!