Thats true.

However The Iran Deal was marketed by the media and Obama as preventing events like these.

well their centrifuges predeal had a habit of blowing up. So did their nuclear scientists
Can we say for sure that the Iran Deal even really bought us a delay in the breakout date with its one decade of no centrifuges? I dont think thats a given. It might have taken them longer than 2025 with the constant threat of Mossad and the CIA running wetwork (and network wetwork) and the threat of getting carpet bombed all while domestically unstable and clinging to power. Versus this scenario where they have enough cash and oil money to swim in scrooge mcduck pools of green

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 6 2018 11:26am

political marketing = lies, inherently. i can't honestly think of an example that something lived up to the hype. even Trump's "wins" came 2 years in and he boasted it would be done in the first 100 days, along with a pile of shit we haven't seen at all.

i am having a hard time finding these unicorns that honestly think the Obama deal stopped all nuclear research. I mean long range missile development are baked right in the cake. At worst they're freely allowed to work on the delivery system, which opens up re-arming cold war era soviet nukes that are still out there somewhere.

the common leftist opinion seems to be that they were 1-2 years away for sure, and this is postponing that somewhat. i dont find many people still fooled by the Iran was changing and stopped all nuclear development narrative, at least since Israel dropped their intel.



can we say for sure that they aren't more likely today to buy a black market nuke from any number of soviet curtain countries, pakistan, or NK as a result of the deal. if Iran was learning to make pizza trial and error we just forced them to go to lil cesaers for a 5$ hot n ready if they're that hungry.

they're starting to leak info about their capabilities to work as a deterrent. so maybe they're going to go the NK route and move fast but fail alot. i honestly don't know what their plans are for a nuke, and if they plan on using one in any satellite wars, or if it was a deterrent to prevent regime change all along like NK.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 6 2018 11:35am

If it was that easy to transfer nuclear weapons between continents our nonproliferation efforts would all be in vain Iran Deal or not. We're still vigilant about watching nuked and keeping spies inside weapons programs.

The problem with a NK path for Iran is that there is no China to protect them and no China to be coerced by the prospect of absorbing their refugees. Their only benefactor is thousands of miles away and not very protective of them. NK was able to pursue nukes due to both being a totally closed country impervious to most spycraft, and for having China leveraging them as a check upon western encroachment, and for having Seoul under constant threat. We're free to bomb bomb iran like McCain sung. Israel is an existential threat to Tehran not vice versa, no matter what netenyahu says. Irans only leverage is our desire for peace and low appetite for war- and todays revelation about Obamas appeasement show how even that could be exploited.

We lifted our sabotage program and threat of bombing and economic pressure. We gave then billions of obamabucks and access to international markets to sell their oil, making them rich. They reinvested that money back into military development and nuclear infrastructure, huge jumps in spending now that they arent impoverished. All we officially bought was a ten year reprieve on enrichment as they pinky swore, but they'd have a 12 month breakout date by 2025.

I think the deal accomplished more with what it gave away- peace and more normal relations- than what it tried to buy. Iran might actually be closer to a nuke

what.

you think China wants North Korean refugees?

They dont, thats the leverage the DPRK has over them
china has made sure the kims dynasty is internally stable because they really dont want to clean up a mess on their doorstep. Hence theres always been an ambiguity over how much control China has over north korea, its not total control at least

Ok we're back on the same page, i thought you had it opposite of that. i realize the Chinese organ selling market is big money, im sure that's where the refugees would be headed if they weren't so malnutrition starved with faulty organs.

i find that analysis accurate in your post, i think many people along the same lines as Ghot read it as China being completely in control. it makes it easier for them to simplify the relationship and see china as the boogeyman they fear.

Lying about a nuclear armed terrorist group is far different than whatever youre talking about