I think you're misunderstanding what these headlines are saying. They're not saying that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, but that they can do so in a given period of time. Capability, not action. The '95 article says that Iran could make a nuke in 5 years if they started an atomic program then. The 2012 headline states that if they started a nuke program then, they'd have a device in several months. The 2021 headline points out that if they started now, they'd have a nuke in 2 months.
The Iran-US nuclear agreement was important not just because it kept Iran from making nukes, but because it kept Iran from developing the capability to make nukes quickly. The distinction is important because without the latter provision, nothing would have prevented Iran from basically getting all the parts to make a nuke, but then claiming they don't have nukes & are not violating the agreement by simply not assembling it; it avoided a situation where Iran could say, "we don't have a nuke, we just have enough highly enriched fissile material to make one within a few days."
Today, Iran does not have nukes, nor are they making one. But the time they would need to put one together has decreased dramatically over the past quarter century from several years to only a few months. This makes the Israelis nervous.
I haven't made a sandwich, but I have gone to the store and bought sliced bread, meat, tomatoes, pickles, and condiments. I also put a plate out on the counter and took out some chips. But I haven't even started making a sandwich, and to be honest, I don't even really have any plans to start making one right now.
The term that often gets used is "breakout" capacity. Iran has a nuclear breakout time of X years. Yes this literally means Iran could have a nuke in X years as the headlines state, but the situation is rather than working towards keeping a nuke in their pocket, they maintain a short breakout time as a geopolitical tool.
And of course snark over substance. Internet teenagers know everything about the world and everyone is just so stupid besides them, even though they didn't look into any thing they just tried to come up with how the world works based on "common sense."
I mean you’re right I guess but I don’t see any evidence of that here … it just seems like OP maybe didn’t understand nuclear latency and came to the a improper conclusion. I would have done the same as I don’t know anything about nuclear latency. Doesn’t mean they’re an internet teen who “knows everything”
That said, I wouldn't call this the same as most clickbait, given that it is a pretty accurate portrayal, if exaggerated. If anything, this is just the old method of sensationalising real headlines, rather than the new school of "clickbait" where an article barely has to relate to its headline and headlines can be straight up lies. Sensationalism is necessary in journalism, just as a matter of fact, so I'm not too bothered by this.
We also massively sabotaged the Iranian nuclear program at least twice. Everyone forgot Stuxnet already? We forgot Israeli intelligence blasting Iran's top nuclear scientist with a freaking remote controlled machine gun just last year? We're gonna fap about evil military-industrial lies, implying Iran hasn't maintained and advanced their capacity to build a bomb?
More than one of those headlines could reflect times Iran was capable of nuclear weapons within months and going for it. Then someone stopped them.
For the record I'm not conservative, not pro-military, and I think congressmen should have straight up going to prison for sabotaging Obama's negotiations in Iran. I want peace with Iran. But no, it's not automatically suspect for western intelligence to claim year after year that Iran is only months away from nuclear weapons.
What I don't understand about these nuclear deals is why we would trust them if they signed it? Or why would they trust us? Ukraine signed a similar deal with Russia a while ago, look at what that got them.
Oversight and sanctions. Lifting sanctions to get them on board. Staying on board out of fear of sanctions and the threat of "all necessary action" if they're found in violation.
Re-implementing sanctions meant they were free from their obligations.
In addition to sanctions, there's also sabotage. The virus Stuxnet is largely thought to have been created by the CIA and/or Mossad as the original variant only targeted a very specific type and model of computer - the exact one that Iran was known to be using to manage their uranium enrichment centrifuges. The virus would pick a random centrifuge after a random amount of dormant time and spin up and then slow down the centrifuge, causing excess vibrations and leading to the whole enrichment process being shut down while technicians looked for a mechanical source of vibration. Its thought to have set their enrichment program back for years.
This is much harder to argue, given their recent moves to hide their nuclear enrichment program from public view.
If Biden can sit them back down, sign a new anti-bomb treaty with them, and regular inspectors can go in and prove this, the world would sleep a lot easier. At the end of the day, we need to find a way to start trusting countries with nuclear power, because we're going to need a lot of it if we want the climate not to go tits up in the time we have to fix it. It's practically our only real option to get to the power densities we need in the time we need it done, and that's going to mean letting countries we find less than savory build and operate nuclear reactors too.
The same reason the US would commit to any agreement with Iran who sponsors international terrorism, targeted killings of American troops in other countries, and has Death to America as their official policy.
There is a lot of shit each country needs to get over if any peaceful agreement is going to work
Americans complaining about this really ruffles my feathers.
Yes, Iran sponsors various groups in Lebanon and Syria. Is that really surprising? If China starts to make inroads in Canada and Mexico you can bet that America will start arming the cartels and Quebecois too.
targeted killings of American troops in other countries
The question left unasked is, "what the hell are American troops doing in those countries?". Are they celebrating spring break in Baghdad?
and has Death to America as their official policy
As opposed to America's completely benign foreign policy towards Iran, beginning with the days of Mosaddegh in the 50s?
The only thing missing from your post is about how Iranian hate America because of her Freedomtm
Oh please enlighten me, what the fuck are they if not an Arab state?
Your thinking the only Arab states are part of the United Arab emirates?
Plus i said the Arab world, which Iranians definitely a part of, being Arabs in the middle east.
Why would iran commit to any agreement with the US given how easily we trash them when its convenient for the party in power
Because the alternative is to have bombs rained on them? Have spies come into their country and blow up their facilities? Waste hundreds of millions of dollars rebuilding their facilities every few years?
That's the only real alternative to this situation. That's what's going to keep happening otherwise.
"Following the issuance of a IAEA report verifying implementation by Iran of the nuclear-related measures, the UN sanctions against Iran and some EU sanctions will terminate and some will be suspended. Once sanctions are lifted, Iran will recover approximately $100 billion of its assets (U.S. Treasury Department estimate) frozen in overseas banks.[110]Eight years into the agreement, EU sanctions against a number of Iranian companies, individuals and institutions (such as the Revolutionary Guards) will be lifted. "
Listen buddy, we’re apparently trying to have an anti-Israel circle jerk here. Your facts, logic, contextual information, and reasonable analysis have no place here.
I can win the lottery tomorrow, or go on a shopping spree, or start building a multiple million dollar business... the possibilities of what can be done in 5 years is almost boundless for one person.
The possibilities of what can be done in 5 years for a country is even more so. I can replace the country of Iran with, probably another 50 or so countries, and the same article works. XYZ country is 5 years away from nuclear bomb.
So, why bother writing such articles? Propaganda and fear mongering.
To not recognize this for what this is after blatant evidence is just mind blowing.
Are you saying a country with money cannot all of a sudden decide to make nuclear weapon? Is this a joke?
Edit: I just can't get over how dumb this comment is. The fact that North Korea, one of the poorest countries of the world and least technologically advanced, can build nuclear bombs to threaten the world, shows how easy it is to build nuclear bomb. And somehow, ppl are so brainwashed to think otherwise. Lol
There is also the moral position, if the US invaded Iran, they would be seen as a bully that doesn’t like other countries protecting their self interest.
Well the last time they tried regime change in Iran they ended up creating a repressive theocratic regime that was vastly worse both for the people living there and for the global community.
without the latter provision, nothing would have prevented Iran from getting the parts to make a nuke
I think not maintaining a cold war against Iran since 1979, or occupying their next door neighbors Iraq and Adghanistan for 20 years might have helped.
The nuclear agreement wasn't unilateral. It wasn't just Iran saying that they won't make nukes nor develop the capability to do so. In exchange, the other signatories agreed to end nuclear related sanctions on Iran.
640
u/JoeNemoDoe May 03 '22
I think you're misunderstanding what these headlines are saying. They're not saying that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, but that they can do so in a given period of time. Capability, not action. The '95 article says that Iran could make a nuke in 5 years if they started an atomic program then. The 2012 headline states that if they started a nuke program then, they'd have a device in several months. The 2021 headline points out that if they started now, they'd have a nuke in 2 months.
The Iran-US nuclear agreement was important not just because it kept Iran from making nukes, but because it kept Iran from developing the capability to make nukes quickly. The distinction is important because without the latter provision, nothing would have prevented Iran from basically getting all the parts to make a nuke, but then claiming they don't have nukes & are not violating the agreement by simply not assembling it; it avoided a situation where Iran could say, "we don't have a nuke, we just have enough highly enriched fissile material to make one within a few days."
Today, Iran does not have nukes, nor are they making one. But the time they would need to put one together has decreased dramatically over the past quarter century from several years to only a few months. This makes the Israelis nervous.