Trump pulls U.S. out of Iranian nuclear deal. Is a war with Iran inevitable? - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14917356
@Zamuel


That hit is probably going to be internal.

I did tell this forum (not so long ago) that, the EU (and other sanctioners) would come around to the US POV given a little time. -and- that internal protests would pressure the Iranians into recalling IRG forces (not yet but it's coming as protests expand). I've also said that Iran needs a military distraction.


The son of the late Shah (now living in LA) also predicts it. He calls for more pressure on Iran

#14917358
daf wrote:@Zamuel The son of the late Shah (now living in LA) also predicts it. He calls for more pressure on Iran https://youtu.be/5jhy0E35zqU

This guy is a US Citizen I suppose? To bad, a (strong) constitutional monarchy would be the ideal government for Iran. If it were free of political and religious domination, and without governmental powers, the restoration of the Shah would be a perfect solution. Iran is used to definitive leadership and now has plenty of good democratic experience under it's belt too.

Zam
#14917389
Godstud wrote::lol: And you side with an Apartheid state, an Imperalist superpower without morality, and a Wahabist state(which also kills homosexuals). Don't preach to me about morality.


:lol:

I liked the part where he tried to say you love Islam for not supporting another atrocious war on another country that poses no threat to the US or nuclear-armed apartheid-Israel.

Pompeo’s Outrageous Speech on Iran
Speaking at the Heritage Foundation this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo practically declared war on Iran. His unprecedented threats against Iran went even beyond what President Trump had said in the past.

Commenting on the speech (full transcript here), JStreet wrote: “With their decision to violate the historic JCPOA arms control agreement, the president and his ‘war cabinet’ have created a strategic disaster of their own making and undone the major accomplishments of the previous administration. They have made the US, Israel and the world less safe.”

Short history of Iran’s nuclear activities: 1957 to the JCPOA
After 12 years of intensive talks, initially between Britain, France and Germany (the EU-3), and finally between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany (P5+1), Iran and the leading world powers reached a landmark agreement. The nuclear deal (officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) was the result of the efforts of the greatest experts in nuclear non-proliferation, including experts from the IAEA and departments of energy and intelligence service of all those countries.

Iran’s nuclear programme had started in 1957 with the help of the United States as a part of the Atoms for Peace program, when a “proposed agreement for cooperation in research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy” was announced.

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Mohammad Reza Shah’s government started an ambitious nuclear program. It established the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre in 1967, with a US-supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, which was fueled by highly enriched uranium.

Iran was one of the first countries to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. The NPT allows all member states to engage in peaceful nuclear activity, including full range of processing, so long as they refrain from manufacturing nuclear weapons.

In return, the five recognized nuclear states (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France) promised to move towards the elimination of their nuclear weapons in “good faith”. Not only have they not fulfilled this requirement, on the contrary, they have continued to develop more and more deadly and sophisticated nuclear weapons, and they have also been joined by India, Pakistan, Israel and recently by North Korea.

In 1974, with US backing, the Shah approved plans to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations, producing 23,000 megawatts of electricity. US and European companies competed against each other to help build those reactors.

In 1975, the Erlangen/Frankfurt firm signed a contract worth up to $6 billion to build the first nuclear power station in Bushehr. President Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Iran the chance to buy and operate US built power stations, including a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.

After the Islamic Revolution, all those programmes were suspended, including the Bushehr power station that was nearly complete.

The start of the eight-year long Iran-Iraq war further delayed the resumption of the nuclear program. Eventually, in 1981 during the presidency of the late Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Iranian officials decided that the country’s nuclear development should continue.

They turned to the Western countries that had promised to build reactors in Iran to resume their work, but all of them refused to cooperate.

In 1983, IAEA officials were keen to assist Iran in various aspects of reactor fuel fabrication, chemical engineering and design aspects of pilot plants for uranium conversion, corrosion of nuclear materials, LWR fuel fabrication, and pilot plant development for production of nuclear grade UO2. However, contrary to NPT regulations, the United States directly intervened to discourage IAEA assistance to Iran.

Finally, Iran turned to China, but under US pressure China too dropped her nuclear commerce with Iran.

However, Iran was successful to persuade Russia to complete the Bushehr reactor, which was completed after long delay and at great cost to Iran. Faced with this situation, Iran decided to conduct her own work on nuclear enrichment, in which she succeeded.

The United States imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran and forced other countries to follow suit. Iran was taken to the Security Council, which also imposed crippling sanctions that cut Iran’s oil exports by half and cost Iran billions of dollars in lost revenue.

Iran continued with her nuclear programme and increased the number of her centrifuges, despite threats of war, crippling sanctions, cyber sabotage, the assassination of her nuclear scientists by Israeli agents, etc.

It was only after President Barack Obama agreed that as a member of the NPT Iran was entitled to a peaceful nuclear programme that intense negotiations started, resulting in the JCPOA.

While establishing her right to engage in nuclear activity, Iran accepted the harshest conditions as confidence-building measures. The agreement reduced Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile by 98 percent and restricted the level of enrichment to 3.67 percent.

Given that an enrichment level of more than 90 percent is needed to build a nuclear bomb, the deal makes it impossible for Iran’s uranium to be weaponized.

Under the deal, Iran also reduced the number of its centrifuges from 20,000 to a little over 5,000, far below the number that would be needed for manufacturing a single bomb, even if she wanted to do so. Iran closed the Arak reactor, which was capable of producing plutonium, and agreed to severe restrictions on research and development activities in other facilities.

In short, the agreement made it virtually impossible for Iran to build a single bomb.

Some of Pompeo’s intolerable conditions
1) Pompeo demands that: “First, Iran must declare to the IAEA full account of prior military dimension of its nuclear programme, and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity”.

This is something that was pursued under PMU or Possible Military Use during the talks. The IAEA studied all those allegations, including taking soil samples from Parchin military base where the Israelis had claimed that nuclear activity had been conducted. The IAEA decided that there had been “no diversion” of nuclear material for military use.

Iran has agreed to abandon work on nuclear weapons in perpetuity, and all the talk about so-called “sunset clauses” is baseless. In addition to being a member of the NPT, Iran has also joined the “Additional Protocol”, which requires continuous, unannounced inspections of all her nuclear sites, and she has also given an undertaking never to produce nuclear weapons.

The prohibitions do not stop at the end of the “sunset clauses”, but will continue in perpetuity.

The IAEA that is the only legal body in charge of monitoring the deal has, on eleven separate occasions, certified that Iran has fully complied with the terms of the deal.

2) “Second, Iran must stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing. This includes closing its heavy water reactor.”

Demanding that Iran should stop enrichment goes against NPT rules. As for “never pursuing plutonium reprocessing”, this is precisely what Iran has agreed to do under the JCPOA, and has destroyed her heavy water reactor.

3) “Third, Iran must also provide to the IAEA full unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country.”

This is again another provision of the JCPOA, which the IAEA has used on many occasions.

4) “Iran must end its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt the launching or development of nuclear-capable missiles.”

This is yet another misleading and illegal demand. Like any other country, Iran has the right to defend herself (UN Chater Art 51) and as she is unable to acquire advanced military equipment that the United States has readily sold to all Iranian neighbours, Iran’s missiles are her only means of deterring a military aggression.

Iran does not have intercontinental ballistic missiles as she has limited the range of her missiles to 2,000 kilometres. They are not designed to carry nuclear weapons, and in any case Iran does not have nuclear warheads.

5) Pompeo accused Iran of spreading terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc.

Iran has been fighting against ISIS and other terrorists in Iraq and Syria at the invitation of the governments of those countries. It is up to the Syrian government to ask Iran to withdraw her forces from that country, not for a US Secretary of State to dictate to other countries what they should and should not do.

All experts agree that the mantra of “Iran-backed Houthis” is exaggerated propaganda, as Iran’s contacts with the Houthis and influence over them is minimal.

It is Saudi Arabia and members of her coalition who, with American support, have been bombing Yemen, killing and wounding tens of thousands of innocent people and creating the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe there.

What this is really about: Obsession with revenge and regime change
President Trump and his three senior officials, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani, seem to be preparing the ground for a disastrous war with Iran.

Their hostility towards Iran does not seem to have anything to do with Iran’s nuclear programme, but has everything to do with an obsession for regime change.

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, Mike Pompeo boasted that “one of the first things the President did is to go build a coalition of [Persian] Gulf states and Israel to help find a platform which could uniformly push back against Iranian expansionism.”(1)

When he was still a member of Congress in 2016, Pompeo called for action to “change Iranian behaviour, and, ultimately, Iranian regime.” (2)

In the past, he has called for strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.(3)

Some of his hostility towards Iran seems to have been based on his hatred of Islam. In 2015, Pompeo, then a Congressman, attacked Barack Obama, who, according to him, took the side of the “Islamic East” in its conflict with the “Christian West”. “Every time there has been a conflict between the Christian West and the Islamic East, the data points all point to a single direction,” he said.

John Bolton is another strong advocate of regime change in Iran.

In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on 15 January 2018, entitled “Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal: US policy should be to end the Islamic Republic before its 40th anniversary”, Bolton condemned the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran as a “massive strategic blunder.”

However, he went on to say that American policy, “should be ending Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution before its fortieth anniversary.”

He continued: “Recognizing a new Iranian regime in 2019 would reverse the shame of once seeing our diplomats held hostage for four hundred and forty-four days. The former hostages can cut the ribbon to open the new U.S. Embassy in Tehran.” (5)

The former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, who is now a member of Trump’s legal team has also been a fervent advocate of regime change in Iran.

Speaking at a conference of the terrorist, cultish group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation, in Washington on 5 May 2018, Rudy Giuliani openly said that Washington’s policy was regime change in Iran, and he even promised that next year they would celebrate the event in Tehran. (6)

This obsession with the past and a deliberate decision to bring about a regime change in Iran will have incalculable costs.

Let’s not forget that prior to Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the authors of that war, predicted that it would be a “cake walk”, that it “would pay for itself”, and that “US forces would be welcomed with roses”.

Fifteen years after that disastrous war, American forces are still operating in that country, and the war which has cost trillions of dollars to US taxpayers has killed and wounded millions of innocent Iraqi people, shattered that country and has given rise to a number of vicious terrorist movements.

It should be clear to everyone who is familiar with the Middle East that a war against Iran will not be like Iraq, it will be much worse. It will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, will set the Middle East on fire and will do a great damage to Israel and other US allies that she seemingly wishes to support.

During his confirmation hearing at the US Senate, Mike Pompeo was asked if Russia was a unique country. He replied: “This [US] is a unique, exceptional country. Russia is unique, but not exceptional.” (7)

This kind of aggressive, bullying, threatening, demanding and illegal language has not been heard from a responsible government official since before the Second World War.

The concept of Americans being unique and exceptional and almost chosen by God, and referring to other nations as inferior, in the way that President Trump referred to the Latinos as animals, is not far removed from the concept of a superior race and Der Untermensch, or subhuman people.

If we wish to avoid the horrors of the Second World, we must put an end to this kind of arrogant mentality.

It is time for the Europeans, for all the peace-loving Americans and for millions of concerned people across the world who will be paying the cost of this misadventure to stop this madness before it is too late.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/23 ... h-on-iran/
#14917482
@Zamuel

:lol: :lol:

The idea that Iran is incapable of governing itself without a "big strong dictator" screams Western chauvinism and exceptionalism (although I didn't really expect anything else from you). Ah yes "democracy is for us, dictatorship is for them, the natives" and such natives are incapable of governing themselves because they aren't "civilized" and thus require a strong heavy hand above them. If this heavy hand isn't Westerner, a westernizing force is certainly preferable. This notion is one of my most hated. It just exhumes complete ignorance of any other culture in the world and the reason for this is because apparently the only culture that matters is Western culture and everyone should follow it's example no matter how flawed the West itself or how inapplicable a completely different culture is to another. Under this worldview, there is no other form of development outside of the West, there is no other future but the West, and there is nothing but the West.

What makes matters more ironic is that most countries which don't follow what the West says is the best form of development are often more successful than developing countries which do listen to what the West says. China didn't become the powerhouse it is now by neo-liberalizing it's economy and abandoning it's domestic industry, it did so by putting itself in direct opposition to the Western mode of development. What you are suggesting now is that there be another coup in which the American government instills a monarch which has had no training in ruling a country nor has had a government position, dispose of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister once again, then let American companies do whatever the fuck they want with Iran's own natural resources, and finally have the Iranian population be at the whims of a vanity driven monarch. But don't worry, some rich noblewomen might wear mini-skirts so it's a liberal paradise!
#14917485
daf wrote:Isn't it Ramadan? The guy drinks behind Rouhani

He is also eating.
But even though it is Ramadan, there are explanations for ths:
- the filming might have happened after Iftah time or before Seri.
- fasting is not required if the person is sick or has a disease that would make it dangerous to fast.
- maybe the guy is not Muslim at all.
#14917523
Oxymandias wrote:The idea that Iran is incapable of governing itself without a "big strong dictator" screams Western chauvinism and exceptionalism

I think the Iranian "Supreme Leader" disagrees with you. (isn't that the guy who bossed around Boris and Natasha?)

Replace the hat with a turban, add a beard, hmmmm … :lol:

Image

You were bleating about source material on the Shah. I just borrowed a copy of "The Fall OF Heaven" by Andrew Scott Cooper (2016). You should read this, it's a real eye opener.

Zam
#14917545
Ter wrote:https://www.debka.com/pompeo-iran-is...ns-in-history/

Sounds reasonable...
to me ...

Might sound reasonable to some, but it comes from diseased conservative mind set. It doesm't mention Islam. It doesn't mention why millions upon millions of Muslims are eager collaborators in terrorism. It doesn't mention that Mohammed, the paedophile, terrorist, prophet, genocided two Jewish tribes for failing to bow to his will.

Arabs are not sub humans, as Renan, the original anti-Semite suggested, they are people who have fallen under the domination of an evil religion. Ideally, Arabs should be treated with the same respect as Americans, British or Czechs. Israel's treatment of the Arabs is only acceptable because of their Islam. Zionists who ally with Saudi, Pakistan, Qatar or Turkey are disgusting individuals. These Muslim terrorist regimes are not attacking Iran because it is too Islamic, but because it is not Islamic enough.
Last edited by Rich on 24 May 2018 20:05, edited 1 time in total.
#14917577
@Zamuel

There is a difference between a semi-democracy and a dictatorship. If the Supreme Leader did away with Iran's democratic institutions, he would be going against the constitution, a document which the Supreme Leader is actually held accountable for instead of being able to get rid of the constitution whenever he wants like the Shah.
#14917586
TER wrote:Sounds reasonable to me

Rich wrote:diseased conservative mind set, Mohammed the pedophile - terrorist - prophet , evil religion, disgusting individuals.

Were YOU hoping to impress us with YOUR reasonable agenda Rich ?

Zam :lol:
#14917597
Uh-hu.

The ideal government for ANY country at ANY time would be ... *drumrolls* ... democracy.

Or, as Jesus says: those who rule should serve; those who are the first ones will be the last ones (and servant to all).

Or as I would put it: the only justification for rulership is to serve ones subjects.

Which is what democracy guarantees best from the known types of government, thus its the ideal form of government.

Quite frankly the only people who disagree with democracy are those who want to exploit others.
#14917612
American Democracy is a farce. The system is a complete joke. Americans are well trained by propaganda to believe their government form is superior, and it's sacrilegious to even suggest anything but 'democracy' is a reasonable form of government. American 'self-governance' is an exercise in mass delusion of perhaps of the highest magnitude ever seen.
#14917706
@Zamuel

No, I mean that it contains democratic institutions and encourages the population to engage in democratic activites such as voting (of which actually has an effect on who becomes prime minister) and governing themselves (since Iran is remarkably federalist). I use the word "semi-democracy" due to a lack of a better term, not because I implied that Iran was almost a democracy.
#14917728
Oxymandias wrote:I use the word "semi-democracy" due to a lack of a better term, not because I implied that Iran was almost a democracy.

Democracies are not controlled by "Supreme Leaders" (as much as Trump would like that.) Semi-democratic is quite apt, as is "almost a democracy."

Zam
#14917739
@Zamuel

Despite their name-sake, the Supreme Leader of Iran isn't the Supreme Leader and can be held accountable for his actions. This isn't North Korea or pre-Revolutionary Iran where it's leader is seen as a God or something beyond humanity. In Iran, there is a constitution that exists for more than show, it is there to provide accountability to the branches of government within Iran.

On second thought however, defining Iran as "almost a democracy" is correct I feel.
#14917777
Oxymandias wrote:Despite their name-sake, the Supreme Leader of Iran isn't the Supreme Leader

Wow … Abracadabra … :lol:

and can be held accountable for his actions.

Sure, by people rioting (and dieing) in the streets.

Zam
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 19

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]