The MOU

[CdnFox]

13 hours 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. 

I'll be honest I think it's a horrible deal

There's a lot that isn't in here that should be. I noticed that it specifically refers to Lebanon but not Israel. It feels like they didn't get anything, I ran had already promised not to develop nuclear weapons and was very obviously developing nuclear weapons. Seriously, what was the point of the war? Not money they're talking about giving them is insane

I'm not anti-trump but this was absolutely horrible and it's very clearly a defeat for America and a win for iran.  I think trump's going to wear this one for a while. 

[Nationalist]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'll be honest I think it's a horrible deal

There's a lot that isn't in here that should be. I noticed that it specifically refers to Lebanon but not Israel. It feels like they didn't get anything, I ran had already promised not to develop nuclear weapons and was very obviously developing nuclear weapons. Seriously, what was the point of the war? Not money they're talking about giving them is insane

I'm not anti-trump but this was absolutely horrible and it's very clearly a defeat for America and a win for iran.  I think trump's going to wear this one for a while. 

You might be right.

But if, as we see already, oil and gas prices drop, it'll work for republicans.

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You might be right.

But if, as we see already, oil and gas prices drop, it'll work for republicans.

Should - should actually drop quite a bit, iran will be looking to make up for lost time. 

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Lol nope 

 

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”

You said people were wiped out, implying the markets crashed and they lost their savings. I proved that did not happen. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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 

Lol

Your whataboutism is supposed to be a counter point? Ok. Sure.

 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

 

The only source for that $1T number is a single Harvard professor. A cursory look at her numbers and she double counted munitions and counted regular maintenance. Clearly she was trying to pump up the numbers. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 
 

That is all pure fantasy. Every Democrat in the House and Senate has publicly stated that Iran wanted nukes. 

 

 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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”. 
 

Everyone that has seen the intelligence says they were weeks away. If they were years away, Rubio still laid out why it had to happen now. They had ramped up missile production. If it hadn't happened now, it would have been far more expensive to stop them.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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.
 

Thoae are 1990's tech. We used them in Iraq. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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  

 

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. 

Yeah, no. They did not help because they were never our allies. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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 

 

You are all over the place. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 
 

First, yes, the MOU sets the goal of no nukes. They can't make or buy a nuke. 

Second, the JCPOA is universally known for being ineffective.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s for sure. 
 

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.

 

I disproved your alleged “disproving”

 

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. 
 

So they largely proved me correct, except point one neglected to talk about undeclared sites. The undeclared sites are where they enriched uranium. 

The ⁠International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has identified past secret nuclear activities at three specific undeclared Iranian sites: Turquzabad, Varamin, and Lavisan-Shian. Environmental samples detected processed uranium at these locations, and investigations revealed evidence pointing to former explosive experiments and testing for a military nuclear program.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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

So?

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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 

Excess supply from the ships sitting in the gulf will cause a market crash. It will eventually recover.

 

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

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.
 

Imagine a country that has already slaughtered thousands of it's own citizens just because, then sponsors terrorism around the globe at a scale not seen ever....and then wonder why we should care what happens to this regime....it's people need to bring in this change until then they are stuck with the cards they are dealt.....

You need to stop thinking Iran is the sane one in  this conflict, they are not, they have terrorized the globe for decades because they are filled with hate....they are not the good guys here, they are evil, regardless of who started this conflict...

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So conservatives support driving hardworking families to the brink of financial ruin to increase corporate profits and government revenues now?  I mean we knew about the corporate profits part but the government revenue part is new ideological ground foe the right. I guess the reality isnthat today’s conservative doesn’t really believe in anything except making up any old arguments to endorse whatever conservative does and oppose whatever a liberal does, consistency be dammed. 

 

 

Is that a joke?  In your bubble you think Canada and Europe still hold USA and Trump especially in high esteem?  And then in the same breath you claim they deliberately ignored America’s pleas for help?

 

Because they’re not stupid and they can see how incompetent and unprepared the Trump administration is and how dangerous it would be to follow them into that quagmire under their leadership.
 

Because the Trump administration wants to cut and run from this disaster and get the whole money-sucking, economy-destroying fiasco behind them before the midterms   Iran may play nicely for a while while they catch a breather and count their newfound oil revenues and $300 Bn Trump gift but there’s a reason Israel is pissed about this MOU.   
 

Because Trump desperately wants an exit ASAP. 

SHow me where i said any of that ? and stop pretending the government is not making a tidy profit off these fuel prices....And thats all you got right now is guesses....that and twisting my words around...

This is reality, Europe and Canada require the US for many things, one their large military....and two their economy.... we need them, they don't really need us for much....SO those nations that did not offer any military support are now starting to pay the piper, US withdrawing troops for Europe...moving them to other theaters...gone is not only that military assistance, but also bils that the US puts into their economy. The US does not care what others think of them, they hold all the cards, they are in charge........and NATO needs the US to be a viable force...

Because Iran is not just a US problem....it is a global problem and if all the other nations can muster is a few whimpers then the globe will have to deal with what ever the US deals out...I guess terrorism is not all that much of a security matter after all. 

It is just an MOU it is not binding in anyway....just like Carneys MOU, it is an agreement to have an agreement...The globe had a chance to neutralize Iran once and for all, and it failed...And Canada was a part of that...

Trump knows now who his allies really are...i would not be surprised to see the US taken on a smaller role in NATO, forcing Europe to defend itself....for the most part...