Iran stopping part of the implementation of the nuclear deal

[Cookiegod]

A few quick points to those who can think for themselves and don't want to live in fantasyland:

Even though the Iranian message might seem like an ultimatum, it isn't really one: Iran is/was required by the deal to only keep a limited amount of uranium and heavy water, and sell the rest. This is a lucrative market, and requires foreign trade partners. US sanctions will make this trade impossible, and thus gave the Iranians an easy choice: Either stop production, or be in violation of parts of the JCPOA.

Another example where US sanctions are directly aimed at hindering the implementation of the deal is the heavy water reactor IR-40 in Arak, which, in it's current form, would produce plutonium as a byproduct. Iran is obligated by the JCPOA to convert it such that the plutonium production is minimised. Iran had the core removed and filled with concrete in 2016. The redesign of the facility is being done in cooperation with a Russian company, and aimed at production of isotopes for medical use. A project that will take years. The US sanction waiver, however, runs out within 90 days.

So far, no mass media has to my knowledge acknowledged these circumstances, and current reporting is (at its most honest) by these omissions directly implying that we're dealing with some tit-for-tat measure here. It is not.

The US has failed to destroy the JCPOA entirely. It is thus doing its best to directly make the implementation of the deal impossible.

It's high time for a JCPOA 2.0 - one that is directed against US aggression and impertinence. It's sadly not going to happen.

EDIT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR-40
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/08/72134...=1557326686416
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48197628
https://www.apnews.com/afb7f68d42614c2789af28291317d333
https://www.timesofisrael.com/constr...ic-chief-says/

[Aexodus]

So essentially, the US didn’t want Iran to make money selling their heavy metals, and played double or nothing: stop Iran having nuclear and stop them making profit, and lost. And now they’re trying to save face?

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't see anything wrong here, if Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons, then so should Iran.

[Cookiegod]

So essentially, the US didn’t want Iran to make money selling their heavy metals, and played double or nothing: stop Iran having nuclear and stop them making profit, and lost. And now they’re trying to save face?

They haven't really lost. They're pretty good at castrating foreign trade of nations even without it (as can also be witnessed in e.g. Venezuela).

It is rather an attempt to cause the deal to falter completely.

I must say that after a few days now have past, my perception of the media-coverage I've seen is quite mixed. On one hand I've got to admit they were more critical of US foreign policies (even those countries that are usually total war hawks), but on the other hand they're still misrepresenting the issue on a fundamental level.
The Iranian letter isn't a reaction to the US withdrawal from the deal that happened a long time ago. It's a reaction to the very recent (I think 2 or so days prior to the letter) decision by the US to stop the waivers on exactly those deals I mentioned in the OP (the source can also be found there). It's not a tit-for-tat. It's a straight-forward question by the Iranians to the EU: What are you going to do about it?

Because the EU is torn on a very fundamental level. Both across nations and between self-interest vs US influence.

And it's very easy for the US to manipulate the EU through various member states. Only when the matter is really critical, such as the North Stream 2 project, are the big countries (mostly only Germany) able to defend themselves.

I'm going on a tangent here, but it's rumoured that the French blackmailed the Germans to back the copyright reform when they almost toppled the project.

[Cyclops]

I suspect Trump has been trying to beat up apparent foreign policy successes for domestic consumption, and given Iran has been demonised for decades they make a suitable bad guy for stupid superhero cartoon victories. That said this also serves the interests of Trumps's masters

The two countries the US is publicly smashing hardest atm are both oil producers who US Big Oil don't like. Trump appears to be a puppet with the Koch bros et al hands right up his skirt. They have their boy Pompeo in at State, and he's essentially running the world for the profit of the Swamp. What a weak and worthless president.

[Gigantus]

Trying desperately to look good while screwing over everyone else appears to have become the hallmark of the US. True to the the 'America first' official slogan I presume.

[Prodromos]

It's America's fault that Iran can't avoid being an international pariah while developing nuclear weapons, conducting ballistic missile tests, waging aggression on America and most of its Middle Eastern neighbors, and promising to annihilate the Jewish state. Actually, that's true. Although, France, Britain, the Netherlands and many other European countries seem to be giving up on the Ayatollahs. This development, along with Iran's threats to attack US troops in the region, serves only to further isolate the Islamic regime.

[Gigantus]

Threats to attack US troops? Got a link to see content\wording of it?

[Prodromos]

nbcnews. com/news/military/u-s-officials-iran-official-ok-d-attacks-american-military-n1003421

[Gigantus]

Thanks, appreciated. Quotes underneath from the article.

The U.S. decision to surge additional military forces into the Middle East was based in part on intelligence that the Iranian regime has told some of its proxy forces and surrogates that they can now go after American military personnel and assets in the region, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence.

The intelligence shows that an Iranian official discussed activating Iranian-backed groups to target Americans, but did not mention targeting the militaries of other nations, the officials said.

Among the specific threats the U.S. military is now tracking, officials say, are possible missile attacks by Iranian dhows, or small ships, in the Persian Gulf; attacks in Iraq by Iranian-trained Shiite militia groups; and attacks against U.S. ships by the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

So it's hear say about proxy forces based on an officer discussing options and not a direct threat by Iran. Great way of laying the ground for an excuse for taking action if something like that would happen. (Anyone remembering 'Iraq has WMDs'?) Given the situation in Yemen (proxy US forces versus proxy Iranian forces) I guess that will be the most likely scenario. I shudder to think what precautions and presumptions other nations have taken vis a vis POTUS45's often used 'we consider all options' comments regarding them.

[Cookiegod]

Prodromos isn't completely off (well yes, mostly). There are indeed speculations around that Israel is going to launch another attack on Hezbollah (="Iranian proxy") and the American war posturing is them wanting to force Iran to roll over and accept that.
The leader of the Hezbollah, Nasrallah, talked in a recent speech about a threat of war he didn't receive from Netanyahu, but from Trump of all places:

24:56 US Diplomats pressuring Lebanese state to give part of our territorial waters to Israel for it's possible oil and gas resources, but we will not even give them a cup of water.

27:26 US Diplomats threaten Lebanese government with war against Israel if they do not get rid of Hezbollah's Ballistic capabilities.

https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivil..._2nd_may_2019/

Then there's Iranian foreign ministers recent interview:

FOREIGN MINISTER ZARIF: So let's not- let's not debate that because that's not my responsibility. I have enough responsibility on my shoulders to prevent a war, to try to circumvent U.S. attempts to prevent Iran from engaging in what is legally ours, and that is normal economic relations. So, I do this as a part of my job, as foreign minister to exchange people without attribution of guilt. Simply to make it possible for people to go back home.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You mentioned that part of your job is to prevent war. There have been tensions rising between the U.S. and the- the Trump Administration and the Iranian government, tensions have been rising over the past few months. Are you actually saying that we're headed on a path towards conflict?

FOREIGN MINISTER ZARIF: We do not want conflict, we do not want confrontation, but we haven't survived 7000 years by escaping. We resist, but we are not seeking confrontation. We don't believe that President Trump wants confrontation. But, we know that there are people who are pushing for one.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You--

FOREIGN MINISTER ZARIF: I don't think it will happen.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Military confrontation you don't think will happen--

FOREIGN MINISTER ZARIF: I don't think military confrontation will happen. I think people have more prudence than allowing a military confrontation to happen. But, I think the U.S. administration is putting things in place for accidents to happen. And there has to be extreme vigilance, so that people who are planning this type of accident would not have their way.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean? What kind of accident are you talking about?

FOREIGN MINISTER ZARIF: I'm talking about people who have- who are designing confrontation, whose interest--

MARGARET BRENNAN: Who's doing that?

FOREIGN MINISTER ZARIF: My 'B' team. I call--

MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean 'B' team?

FOREIGN MINISTER ZARIF: I call the group 'B' team who have always tried to create tension, whose continued existence depends on tension. Ambassador Bolton, one 'B,' Bibi Netanyahu, second 'B,' Bin Zayed, third 'B,' Bin Salman, fourth 'B.' And I'm not just making accusations. Netanyahu has said that he pressured the United States to put IRGC on- on the terror list. He has said--

MARGARET BRENNAN: Designate them as a foreign terrorist organization?

FOREIGN MINISTER ZARIF: He has said that he pushed the United States to get out of JCPOA. Ambassador Bolton has said that we need to use the Trump presidency in order to deal with Iran. Bin Zayed and Bin Salman have been the two people who President Trump said promised to replace Iranian Oil. These people want confrontation, and I believe it is important for the prudent people for the grown-ups to prevent confrontation.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-in...ce-the-nation/

You can see a stark contrast between the rhetoric of "warmongering" Iran and the tough talk you hear from the US officials regarding conflicts all across the world.

[Prodromos]

"The three officials say that in addition to learning that an Iranian official had discussed attacks on Americans, the U.S. began seeing the movement of Iranian and Iranian-backed forces in various places across the region, prompting the commander of U.S. Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie, to request additional forces move to the region... While Iran has made threats in the past, the officials said the scope of this latest set made military commanders strongly believe they needed to make both an urgent request for additional military forces and then make a public statement about sending that deterrent force to the region... 'There was enough information to indicate this had to be taken seriously,' one of the officials said." From what I gather, the situation is much more serious than just a rumor of an officer discussing contingency plans. I trust that the defense and intelligence communities have the better understanding of the situation. Iran's threats were deemed specific and "very, very credible", and triggered the deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group and bombers to the region. Of course, this recent threat is only one reason behind Iran's increasing isolation; they've also been implicated in assassinations and terrorist attacks on European soil. Europe's patience won't last forever. Seems like very poor leadership on Iran's part, but that's what happens when a government is little more than a crime syndicate. While most Iranians wallow in poverty, the ruling regime and its cronies have a stranglehold on the economy, storing up wealth for themselves and wasting billions on foreign terrorist organizations. If you're truly pro-Iran, you must be against Khamenei's regime.

[Abdülmecid I]

Assassinating or attempting to assassinate terrorists (even if they are euphemistically described as "dissidents") cannot possibly be described as terrorism, because the targets of the operations are not innocent civilians, but members or leaders of terrorist groups responsible for the murder of hundreds of Iranian civilians. The Iranian Parliament (neither the Ayatollahs nor the officer corps) labelling the United States Central Command as terrorists is a response to President Trump (neither the Congress nor the Senate) designating, together with the authoritarian kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, an entire branch of the Iranian Armed Forces as a terrorist organisation, in a completely unprovoked manner. Both moves are of minimal substance and mainly serve to promote the career of politicians, American or even Israeli, who have invested a lot of their popularity upon war-mongering. That being said, Washington's initiative was especially ironical, considering that the Revolutionary Guards were and are actively fighting against foreign and domestic jihadists in Syria, who were funded and equipped by external powers, like the Gulf Monarchies, Great Britain, Turkey, Israel or even America itself. To be frank, all this talk about terrorism or even the nuanced differences between Islamic doctrines is largely irrelevant, as the crux of the matter lies in the competition for the resources and markets of the Middle East, as well as the fact that Washington still remains salty of the revolutionary authorities overthrowing the regime of one of their most reliable allies and then nationalising the local oil industry, previously dominated by international corporations. The rest about who holds the moral advantage is nothing but smokescreen.

[Prodromos]

I disagree. One of the prime objectives of tyrants is to even out the moral [battle]field, by denying Western moral superiority and portraying the conflict in purely materialist terms, as if it were merely two rival packs of apes fighting over meat and territory. It's true that both the United States and Iran are simply fighting for their respective interests; however, this neglects the fact that Iran's interests consist in promoting a world order based on tyranny, fear, ignorance and moral and material poverty, whereas America's interests are to create a world where every human being is recognized as made in God's image, free and equal. We have but one message to the world's tyrants: we'll win, you'll lose. It's easy to send a teenage protestor to a rape chamber, but we'll see how tough Khamenei's goons are when the Marines come knocking.

[Gigantus]

Trump is doing his best to reduce western moral superiority, that is if you equate the US with the 'western' label. There is nothing morally superior in living out the 'America first' slogan by way of threats at the slightest resistance. 'Might is right' just does not go very well with morality, conjecturing 'Iraq 2.0' as you imply does neither. I'll skip responding to the 'America's interest is to create...' sermon.

[Beorn]

I disagree. One of the prime objectives of tyrants is to even the moral field, by denying Western moral superiority and portraying the conflict in materialist terms, as if it were merely two rival packs of apes fighting over meat and territory. It's true that both the United States and Iran are simply fighting for their respective interests, but this neglects the fact that Iran's interests consist in promoting a world predicated on tyranny, ignorance, fear and moral and material poverty, whereas America's interest is to create a world where every human being is recognized as made in God's image, free and equal. There's only one message to the world's tyrants: we'll win, you'll lose. It's easy to send a teenage protestor to a rape chamber, but we'll see how tough Khamenei's goons are when the Marines come knocking.

Are you a real person? I'm genuinely intrigued

[Caduet]

I disagree. One of the prime objectives of tyrants is to even the moral field, by denying Western moral superiority and portraying the conflict in materialist terms, as if it were merely two rival packs of apes fighting over meat and territory. It's true that both the United States and Iran are simply fighting for their respective interests, but this neglects the fact that Iran's interests consist in promoting a world predicated on tyranny, ignorance, fear and moral and material poverty, whereas America's interest is to create a world where every human being is recognized as made in God's image, free and equal. There's only one message to the world's tyrants: we'll win, you'll lose. It's easy to send a teenage protestor to a rape chamber, but we'll see how tough Khamenei's goons are when the Marines come knocking.

After decades of American world hegemony, people have seen the results of our dominance enough to know what you are saying is total bull. One of our earliest acts as a blossoming world leader was propping up the judaeo-bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union, which genocided tens of millions of people and led to us propping up a string of dictators and murderers and culminated in our invasion of Iraq and our subsequent humiliating defeat to Iran there. It would be wonderful if America lived up to the ideals ytou espouse, unfortunately that is impossible when enslaved to the foreign policies of israel and Saudi Arabia.

Also we've sent the Marines to knock on Iran's door before. It went as well as any invasion of Iran could go. If Iran could hand us our asses so well in Syria and Iraq, we stand absolutely no chance on their home turf. Unless we start using nukes, but I doubt that will happen.

[Cookiegod]

I disagree. One of the prime objectives of tyrants is to even the moral field, by denying Western moral superiority

Such good guys. Such moral superiority.

I'm going to spare you the video and picture where those brave freedom fighters kill that "regime" boy's head of.

[Gaidin]

Also we've sent the Marines to knock on Iran's door before. It went as well as any invasion of Iran could go. If Iran could hand us our asses so well in Syria and Iraq, we stand absolutely no chance on their home turf. Unless we start using nukes, but I doubt that will happen.

Are you comparing a special operations mission to what would be more like this? Just asking for a friend.

[Caduet]

I posted a relatively small scale blunder, you posted a huge scale blunder. Israeli warmongers insist Iran won't end up like Iraq if we keep things small scale. Just showing we manage to screw up both ways.