The MOU

[gatomontes99]

BBC

1. "The immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon"

2. US and Iran to "respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs"

3. They "commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent"

4. Immediately, the US "will begin the removal of its naval blockade... and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days"

5. In the Strait of Hormuz, Iran "will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days"

6. The US undertakes "with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of" Iran

7. US to "terminate all types of sanctions against" Iran

8. Iran "reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons", but other parts of the programme are still to be negotiated. The two parties "agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs"

9. Pending the final deal, the US and Iran "agree to maintain the status quo"

10. Upon signing, and until the termination of sanctions, US Treasury will "issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services"

11. US undertakes "to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets" of Iran

12. "An executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation" of this memorandum

13. After signing - subject to implementation of points 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 - the US and Iran "will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs"

14. "The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC (United Nations Security Council) resolution"

********

I am a little concerned that Iran is not barred from having any fissonable material. However, if this leads to Iran normalizing with the Western world, it will be worth it. If they go back to their old ways, it won't. 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

BBC

1. "The immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon"

2. US and Iran to "respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs"

3. They "commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent"

4. Immediately, the US "will begin the removal of its naval blockade... and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days"

5. In the Strait of Hormuz, Iran "will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days"

6. The US undertakes "with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of" Iran

7. US to "terminate all types of sanctions against" Iran

8. Iran "reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons", but other parts of the programme are still to be negotiated. The two parties "agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs"

9. Pending the final deal, the US and Iran "agree to maintain the status quo"

10. Upon signing, and until the termination of sanctions, US Treasury will "issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services"

11. US undertakes "to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets" of Iran

12. "An executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation" of this memorandum

13. After signing - subject to implementation of points 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 - the US and Iran "will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs"

14. "The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC (United Nations Security Council) resolution"

********

I am a little concerned that Iran is not barred from having any fissonable material. However, if this leads to Iran normalizing with the Western world, it will be worth it. If they go back to their old ways, it won't. 

In other words, Iran wins 
 

Trump:

- caused a global economic crisis that wiped out billions and billions of value and ruined countless lives of allover US amd the world

- wasted a trillion dollars (and counting) of US taxpayer dollars,

-wasted the lives of US servicemen,

-wasted half the US stockpile of critical munitions

- alienated allies 

FOR NOTHING 

[SpankyMcFarland]

300 billion with a b sounds like winning to me for the IRGC. Which kinda rhymes. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 FOR NOTHING 

What you are missing is that a "deal" is indeed a work of art, not a material object.  The art of the deal is subject to opinions, and as such it will be easy, I think, for the stakeholders to form a positive opinion of it.

 

Edit: Form in my use here, has two meanings: I can "form" an opinion in my adherents and individuals can also "form" their opinions based on their biases and available information from trusted sources.

Edited 8 hours ago by Michael Hardner

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

In other words, Iran wins 
 

Trump:

- caused a global economic crisis that wiped out billions and billions of value and ruined countless lives of allover US amd the world

- wasted a trillion dollars (and counting) of US taxpayer dollars,

-wasted the lives of US servicemen,

-wasted half the US stockpile of critical munitions

- alienated allies 

FOR NOTHING 

There is no other way to interpret it than a US loss.

Trump has whined for years that Obama returned $1.7B of frozen assets. Now Trump's going to unfreeze all their assets + send them $300B. 

Wow. All of this global and local suffering, and it looks like we'll end up exactly where we started before he ripped up the monitoring deal. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Hodad

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

In other words, Iran wins 
 

Trump:

- caused a global economic crisis that wiped out billions and billions of value and ruined countless lives of allover US amd the world

- wasted a trillion dollars (and counting) of US taxpayer dollars,

-wasted the lives of US servicemen,

-wasted half the US stockpile of critical munitions

- alienated allies 

FOR NOTHING 

What are you smoking? 

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

300 billion with a b sounds like winning to me for the IRGC. Which kinda rhymes. 

Ok, then what is the carrot you would use? There has to be a carrot. We have to have a way to create normalized relations with them. We can just keep bombing them every time they get out of line. 

So what carrot would you use to entice Iran to behave like humans? 

[gatomontes99]

There needs to be some context here. The MOU is an agreement to have an agreement. The details of the final agreement and it's enforcement mechanisms will be the deciding factors. 

Allowing Iran to rejoin the global market might be the drug that will make their terroristic tactics to costly to resume. If they are selling oil, at market rates, to the Western Countries, they will make more money than selling it to China at below market values. Which also means China won't have this oil advantage that they got from buying Iranian oil. That could be a win win. Add another win because now the oil market will have even more oil supply so we will see lower oil prices. 

I really want to see the final wording on the $300B investments and the nuclear programs. I just need to know what the triggers are that allow M.E. countries to invest in Iran. There has to be a hard line at any terrorism or supported terrorism.

Then, I am extremely leery of allowing them to have any nuclear program at all. I don't trust them with power plants. Their past behavior just does not lend itself to trusting them to make orange juice, much less handling enriched uranium. If....IF...we allow them to make nuclear power plants, the enrichment HAS TO BE enriched outside of Iran AND no mining of uranium. Hell, it should even be manned by expats exclusively. Send people from other countries to operate the facilities so there can be no funny business.

Finally, Iran could very well break this deal in October. I would not put it past them to misbehave in October just to affect our elections. 

 

[BeaverFever]

25 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

What are you smoking? 

The truth. You should try it sometime. Notice how you can’t even TRY to rebut any of those facts?

[BeaverFever]

27 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

What are you smoking? 

Ok, then what is the carrot you would use? There has to be a carrot. We have to have a way to create normalized relations with them. We can just keep bombing them every time they get out of line. 

So what carrot would you use to entice Iran to behave like humans? 

So bomb them and they pay them $300B so you can stop bombing them?  LMAO. 

 

Remember Trump was calling for unconditional surrender “or an entire civilization is going to die”. He didn’t say anything about carrots. 

[BeaverFever]

5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The MOU is an agreement to have an agreement.

Wow what an achievement 

 

5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Allowing Iran to rejoin the global market might be the drug that will make their terroristic tactics to costly to resume

Well since you suddenly have a newfound interest in “context” the context is that in 2018  tore up the agreement Obama had in place and WAS WORKING because he claimed Iran can’t be trusted and doesn’t deserve incentives only threats - sticks only not carrots.   Tearing uo that agreement allowed Itan to accelerate its uranium enrichment from 3% to 60%.  
 

Now you are paying them $300 billion to return to the Obama status quo, maybe with even fewer sanctions, and with more uranium. All it cost you was a trillion plus taxpayer dollars, a global economic crisis that wiped out maybe another trillion of wealth, the lives of a few servicemen, half your inventory of certain strategic munitions  and the reputation of the United States as invulnerable superpower. Great job!

17 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

they are selling oil, at market rates, to the Western Countries, they will make more money than selling it to China at below market values. Which also means China won't have this oil advantage that they got from buying Iranian oil.

There is no reason to assume they will sell to the western markets instead of China. 
 

18 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Add another win because now the oil market will have even more oil supply so we will see lower oil prices. 

Which is needed because of the crisis you crawled in the first place that drove up oil prices. When you stupidly set the house on fire against everyone’s advice you don’t get to take a victory lap because you helped eventually put out the fire and save the smouldering basement. 

 

 

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

The truth. You should try it sometime. Notice how you can’t even TRY to rebut any of those facts?

You know why? Because it was too easy.

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

caused a global economic crisis that wiped out billions and billions of value and ruined countless lives of allover US amd the world

Wages are outpacing inflation, despite false reporting to the contrary:

Those numbers are inflation adjusted.

Lie #1 disproven

**********

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

- wasted a trillion dollars (and counting) of US taxpayer dollars,

Over 108 days, the war in Iran cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $113.3 billion — counting from the first strike on February 28 through June 16, 2026. The clock has been stopped and the count preserved as a record.

Lie #2 disproven

*********

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

-wasted the lives of US servicemen,

No one's life was wasted. The Iranian regime planned to make and use nuclear weapons. It sucks that anyone lost their life. But preventing nuclear Holocaust is never a waste. 

Lie #3 debunked

**********

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

-wasted half the US stockpile of critical munitions

That is not even remotely true. We used a lot of the key things we needed in Iran. But, we largely used the low tech stuff in Iran because Iran couldn't stop them. The high tech stuff is untouched. There are 7 munitions types that we used that are low. But they are low because we don't keep excess just lying around. We keep what we need, plus a little more. So, yes, when we use them the inventory is lower than we want and we have to buy more. CSIS

Lie #4 disproven

*********

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

- alienated allies 

No one was alienated. A few scared little pussìes hid under their beds in the beginning. Now that they see what was accomplished, they have come around. They were not, however, allies. They were leeches that only wanted us to be their enforcer for their purposes. They had no interest in helping us with our interests. So screw them. 

 

[gatomontes99]

57 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So bomb them and they pay them $300B so you can stop bombing them?  LMAO. 

 

Remember Trump was calling for unconditional surrender “or an entire civilization is going to die”. He didn’t say anything about carrots. 

They were supporting terrorists and developing nukes. They refused to negotiate. The bombing got them to the table and disabled all of their terroristic abilities. The investments will hopefully keep them from going back. 

37 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Wow what an achievement 

Not an achievement. A step in the right direction. 

Quote

Well since you suddenly have a newfound interest in “context” the context is that in 2018  tore up the agreement Obama had in place and WAS WORKING because he claimed Iran can’t be trusted and doesn’t deserve incentives only threats - sticks only not carrots.   Tearing uo that agreement allowed Itan to accelerate its uranium enrichment from 3% to 60%.  

The JCPOA did not allow inspectors to visit actual centrifuges. The inspectors even said they declined to ask to visit the sites because they thought Iran might get mad. Effectively, Iran was enriching uranium toward weapons grade while using the money from their oil sales and the billions Obama gave them of tax payer money to fund enrichment and terrorism. 

Iran rejects US demand for inspection of military sites

 

Quote

Now you are paying them $300 billion to return to the Obama status quo, maybe with even fewer sanctions, and with more uranium. All it cost you was a trillion plus taxpayer dollars, a global economic crisis that wiped out maybe another trillion of wealth, the lives of a few servicemen, half your inventory of certain strategic munitions  and the reputation of the United States as invulnerable superpower. Great job!

And I disproved all those lies before. You just refuse to acknowledge reality. Plus, the US is not investing in Iran. M.E. countries are. They goal is to use people that are similar to them to influence the nation into becoming more civilized.

Quote

There is no reason to assume they will sell to the western markets instead of China.

 Do I really need to explain to you the differences between Black market and market rates? China will have to pay Iran market rates or they will just sell it to someone else. Ok. It does not matter who Iran sells it too, there is more supply and Iran gets more money. We win. They win. China loses. It is good. 
 

Quote

 

Which is needed because of the crisis you crawled in the first place that drove up oil prices. When you stupidly set the house on fire against everyone’s advice you don’t get to take a victory lap because you helped eventually put out the fire and save the smouldering basement. 
 

 

Oil prices will be lower than prewar. I swear. Did you not take any economics classes? 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

What are you smoking? 

Ok, then what is the carrot you would use? There has to be a carrot. We have to have a way to create normalized relations with them. We can just keep bombing them every time they get out of line. 

So what carrot would you use to entice Iran to behave like humans? 

Behave humanely, perhaps? A lot of human behaviour is inhumane. I don’t think bombing campaigns set a good example other than convincing more Iranians that everybody is as bad as the mullahs. 

[gatomontes99]

22 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Behave humanely, perhaps? A lot of human behaviour is inhumane. I don’t think bombing campaigns set a good example other than convincing more Iranians that everybody is as bad as the mullahs. 

Lmao...oh really? The death to America ayatollah just wanted us to do what? Bake him a cake? Be serious. 

Edited 4 hours ago by gatomontes99

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

In other words, Iran wins 
 

Trump:

- caused a global economic crisis that wiped out billions and billions of value and ruined countless lives of allover US amd the world

- wasted a trillion dollars (and counting) of US taxpayer dollars,

-wasted the lives of US servicemen,

-wasted half the US stockpile of critical munitions

- alienated allies 

FOR NOTHING 

It also gave most countries/ companies billions of extra dollars in extra profit from the extremely high fuel prices...including our government 

Every conflict has a price, yet some how this one is different, i mean come on...

Who was alienated.....How was Canada alienated ? a better question would be why western countries did not offer to help get rid of the worlds largest terrorist country and why they left the US hanging in the wind....

do you think Iran is going to more concerned about supporting terrorism today and if not why are we not still bombing them...Is the world ready for Iran to have a nuclear weapon ? 

Why should the US even compilate repaying Iran for any damages ? 

[Army Guy]

46 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Behave humanely, perhaps? A lot of human behaviour is inhumane. I don’t think bombing campaigns set a good example other than convincing more Iranians that everybody is as bad as the mullahs. 

I guess sponsoring terrorism across the middle east and globe, is a normal action that we as the free world should just stand by and watch it all unfold, not to mention all the inter national laws they have broken.....along with the pursuit of nuclear weapons considering there proclaimed targets would be Israel.... At what point does the free world say hey you've crossed the line...stop that our we will kick you in the face....What do you think the free world reaction would be if they did nuke Israel....

And do you think of the millions that protested and thousands that were killed in those protest really now think the US is the bad guys right now...

[John Johnston]

Trump and his minions are sure trying to pretzel this abject failure. Lets see if America is smart enough to see once again that they have been taken. How many times is this now? 

Slow learners. 

[herbie]

Or to paraphrase the term used by General McArthur:

Trump to Sign America's Instrument of Surrender

by next year he'll stage an event at the white House to celebrate the 52nd anniversary of America's Victory in Vietnam and you'll swallow that load too.

[Legato]

2 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Trump and his minions are sure trying to pretzel this abject failure. Lets see if America is smart enough to see once again that they have been taken. How many times is this now? 

Slow learners. 

It's almost a negative 12 to the power of inevitable.

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Lmao...oh really? The death to America ayatollah just wanted us to do what? Bake him a cake? Be serious. 

The Americans killed a lot more than mullahs and Lord knows how much damage they caused across the country. The historical record is clear; people don’t warm to mayhem like that.

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I guess sponsoring terrorism across the middle east and globe, is a normal action that we as the free world should just stand by and watch it all unfold, not to mention all the inter national laws they have broken.....along with the pursuit of nuclear weapons considering there proclaimed targets would be Israel.... At what point does the free world say hey you've crossed the line...stop that our we will kick you in the face....What do you think the free world reaction would be if they did nuke Israel....

And do you think of the millions that protested and thousands that were killed in those protest really now think the US is the bad guys right now...

Until Israel and America both officially admit that Israel has nuclear weapons, neither country is in a position to lecture Iran on the subject. 

https://mondoweiss.net/2026/05/there-is-a-long-history-of-members-of-congress-calling-out-israels-nuclear-arsenal-it-is-now-time-to-take-action/

 

 

[Army Guy]

6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Until Israel and America both officially admit that Israel has nuclear weapons, neither country is in a position to lecture Iran on the subject. 

https://mondoweiss.net/2026/05/there-is-a-long-history-of-members-of-congress-calling-out-israels-nuclear-arsenal-it-is-now-time-to-take-action/

 

 

With the exception of the US has any nation used nukes to solve any conflict and are you suggesting that Iran be given the same responsibility...we are talking about the globes largest supporter of terrorism, do you really trust them with that weapon....most of the world does not....same goes for many other nations...

[SpankyMcFarland]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

With the exception of the US has any nation used nukes to solve any conflict and are you suggesting that Iran be given the same responsibility...we are talking about the globes largest supporter of terrorism, do you really trust them with that weapon....most of the world does not....same goes for many other nations...

Imagine if a country that was in peace negotiations with the US  slaughtered everyone at a State of the Union address. Think how rational the Americans would be after that.

We are told the Iranians are deranged fanatics and yet their pronouncements during the war were more reliable than the endless contradictory nonsense from Trump. Furthermore, America couldn’t move fast enough to conclude a deal with these people who apparently can’t be reasoned with.
 

Edited 1 hour ago by SpankyMcFarland

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

You know why? Because it was too easy.

Lol nope 

 

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

Wages are outpacing inflation, despite false reporting to the contrary:

Those numbers are inflation adjusted.

Lie #1 disproven

 

1) you posted screenshots of rhe stock market. As you republicans were so fond of saying when the stocks went uo under biden “the stock market isn’t the economy”

2) Americans didn’t all get wage increases when the Trumpflation started and the Trumpflation isnt backed into annual inflation figures yet. Furthermore if it’s a “lie” then according to you there was no inflation problem nder Biden either and yet Trump’s campaign and the screeching MAGAs was heavily centred upon supposed runaway inflation under Biden. You can’t have it both ways 

 

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Over 108 days, the war in Iran cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $113.3 billion — counting from the first strike on February 28 through June 16, 2026. The clock has been stopped and the count preserved as a record.

Lie #2 disproven

Sorry, writing hastily. A trillion is the economy cost, 100 Billion+ is the direct cost to taxpayers. Still a hell of a lot money that’s A BILLION DOLLARS A DAY!  You guys screech about small public expenditures for basic services and supports for people in need but a billion dollars a day for nothing and you’re like “oh well”. Hilarious. 

 

 

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No one's life was wasted. The Iranian regime planned to make and use nuclear weapons. It sucks that anyone lost their life. But preventing nuclear Holocaust is never a waste. 

Lie #3 debunked

There is no evidence “Iran planned to make and use nuclear weapons” especially prior to 2018 when Trump tore up JCPOA without replacement for no concrete reason except “Iran bad, Obama bad”. And nothing in this deal prevents Iran from pursuing a nuclear program except they pinkie promise not to use all the uranium they got to enrich over the past 9 years thanks to Trump. Certainly nothing in this MOU provides any of the assurances that the JCPOA did. 
 

Furthermore even if Iran WAS pursuing a nuclear program not only did this misadventure not stop that, but Iran was still YEARS away from developing a nuclear weapon. Plenty of time for the carrots and deals without military action. We were not “minutes til midnight”. 
 

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

That is not even remotely true. We used a lot of the key things we needed in Iran. But, we largely used the low tech stuff in Iran because Iran couldn't stop them. The high tech stuff is untouched. There are 7 munitions types that we used that are low. But they are low because we don't keep excess just lying around. We keep what we need, plus a little more. So, yes, when we use them the inventory is lower than we want and we have to buy more. CSIS

Lie #4 disproven

What is thai gibberish you’re spouting?  America doesn’t have a “just for iran” stockpile and this is not just “low tech stuff”.  You didn’t attack Iran with cheap weapons you were going to throw away anyways. Patriots, THAAD, tomahawks, etc. those are all KEY FRONT-LINE systems that the  US needs against every and any enemy.  It will take YEARS to replenish them,  it says so right in your link and that article is a couple months old.
 

You MAGA clowns really need to start reading the articles you link to, you all have the same problem I don’t know it’s ADHD or impaired reading comprehension or what  

 

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No one was alienated. A few scared little pussìes hid under their beds in the beginning. Now that they see what was accomplished, they have come around. They were not, however, allies. They were leeches that only wanted us to be their enforcer for their purposes. They had no interest in helping us with our interests. So screw them. 

LMAO they weren’t alienated but they are leaches who exploited and refused to help you donyou even hear yourself?  NOBODY HELPED YOU BECAUSE THEY WERE ALIENATED AND THEY KNEW THE MISSION WAS DOOMED. 

It’s true they were ALREADY alienated due to Trump’s trade wars and annexation threats but that was made ten times worse by his failed war of folly for which he added even more tariff threats  and a military drawdown in Europe. And now he is estranged from Israel the only friend he had left other than maybe the Arab Gulf states that pay massive personal bribes to him 

 

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

They were supporting terrorists and developing nukes. They refused to negotiate.

Nothing in Trump’s MOU prevents either and while they were enriching uranium (not the same as “developing nukes” but heading on that path) it is Trump’s destruction of the JCPOA that allowed and encouraged them to do that.  They also weren’t “refusing to come to the table” they were refusing to be dictated to. Maybe if Trump had offered to lift sanctions and give them $300B from the stated he wouldn’t have had to bomb them. As a reminder, Trump wa demanding “unconditional surrender” and having failed to achieve that is now paying them and lifting all sanctions because he is desperate to end this. 
 

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Not an achievement.

That’s for sure. 
 

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

The JCPOA did not allow inspectors to visit actual centrifuges. The inspectors even said they declined to ask to visit the sites because they thought Iran might get mad. Effectively, Iran was enriching uranium toward weapons grade while using the money from their oil sales and the billions Obama gave them of tax payer money to fund enrichment and terrorism. 

Iran rejects US demand for inspection of military sites

I copied and pasted the above comment of yours into ChatGPT, which confirmed that true to form, your statement is just more of the usual Republican MAGA bullshit cocktail of lies, exaggerations and out-of-context facts. Here is the unedited response from chatgpt, you should fact check it yourself:

 

The claim mixes together several different issues. Some parts are partly true, some are misleading, and some are unsupported.

Claim 1: “The JCPOA did not allow inspectors to visit actual centrifuges.”

False.

One of the strongest features of the JCPOA was extensive monitoring of Iran’s declared enrichment facilities and centrifuge production chain. The IAEA had continuous monitoring at key enrichment sites and oversight of centrifuge manufacturing and storage. Critics of the JCPOA generally did not argue that inspectors were barred from seeing declared centrifuges; they argued that inspectors might not detect a covert program at undeclared locations.

The real controversy concerned access to undeclared military sites, not declared enrichment facilities where centrifuges were operating.

Claim 2: “The inspectors even said they declined to ask to visit the sites because they thought Iran might get mad.”

Overstated and partly misleading.

The concern comes from comments made by then-IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano and other officials indicating that the IAEA only requests access when it has a credible safeguards reason to do so.

Critics argued that the IAEA was reluctant to force confrontations with Iran over military-site access. Iran publicly stated that foreign inspectors would never be allowed into military facilities, while Amano maintained that the IAEA had the authority to request access if necessary.

However, I am not aware of any credible source where IAEA inspectors literally said, “We didn’t ask because Iran might get mad.” That is a political interpretation of their caution, not a direct statement.

Claim 3: “Effectively, Iran was enriching uranium toward weapons grade while using the money from their oil sales and the billions Obama gave them to fund enrichment and terrorism.”

This combines several separate claims.

A. Was Iran enriching toward weapons grade during the JCPOA period (2015–2018)?

Evidence at the time indicates no. The IAEA repeatedly reported Iranian compliance with the enrichment limits established by the agreement. The major expansion of enrichment occurred after the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the subsequent collapse of the deal’s restrictions.

B. Did sanctions relief provide Iran with additional economic resources?

Yes. The JCPOA enabled Iran to regain access to frozen assets and conduct more oil sales. Critics argued that this strengthened the Iranian government and indirectly benefited organizations supported by Tehran. Supporters argued that sanctions relief was the negotiated price of obtaining nuclear restrictions.

C. Did Obama “give” Iran billions of taxpayer dollars?

This is largely misleading.

The frequently cited $1.7 billion payment was a settlement of a decades-old legal dispute involving Iranian funds from before the 1979 revolution, plus interest. Whether one views it as wise policy is debatable, but it was not generally characterized as a foreign-aid grant of new U.S. taxpayer money.

Likewise, the much larger sums often discussed in connection with the JCPOA were mostly Iranian assets that had been frozen by sanctions and then became accessible again under the agreement, not checks written by U.S. taxpayers.

Bottom line

Your linked article supports the narrower claim that Iran strongly resisted inspections of military sites and publicly declared them off limits, which was indeed a major criticism of the JCPOA.

But the broader statement that:

• inspectors could not see centrifuges,
• inspectors admitted they avoided requests merely to avoid angering Iran,
• Iran was already enriching toward weapons-grade uranium while technically inside the JCPOA,
• and Obama simply gave Iran taxpayer money,

goes beyond what the available evidence supports. The strongest fact-based criticism of the JCPOA is that it relied on a verification regime that critics considered insufficiently intrusive at suspicious military sites—not that inspectors were completely barred from Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

 

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

And I disproved all those lies before.

I disproved your alleged “disproving”

 

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Plus, the US is not investing in Iran. M.E. countries are. They goal is to use people that are similar to them to influence the nation into becoming more civilized.

1) So what Iran still gets a shit-ton of money 

2) Those other countries aren’t “similar to them” you ignorant American clown. Arguably those countries aren’t more civilized either they all have horrible human rights records and rank near the bottom with Iran. So they’re similar in that one regard. 
 

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Do I really need to explain to you the differences between Black market and market rates? China will have to pay Iran market rates or they will just sell it to someone else. Ok. It does not matter who Iran sells it too, there is more supply and Iran gets more money. We win. They win. China loses. It is good. 

I don’t believe China was paying “black market rates”  or that they “lose” in any scenario. 
 

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Oil prices will be lower than prewar. I swear. Did you not take any economics classes? 

LMAO DID YOU????  Why would they be lower than prewar?  So much oil and gas infrastructure in the neighbouring ME countries was damaged not to mention insurance and risk calculations for anyone wanting to ship or operate infrastructure all go up, the industry is saying it will be years before anything resembling “normal” happens 

 

It will be good foe Canada though, G7 out out a statement confirming they want to diversify away from ME and towards Canada