8 ms·

> why do we need to have some sort of deal in the first place? Why does Iran of all countries need to have this special treatment where they threaten to build

> why do we need to have some sort of deal in the first place? Why does Iran of all countries need to have this special treatment where they threaten to build nuclear weapons unless we all do or give them something. Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty ages ago which put certain limits on what they could do. Other countries had growing concerns that Iran wasn't living up to that treaty, and those violations (plus some other stuff) resulted in a bunch of sanctions being placed on Iran. Eventually Iran got a president who requested an international agreement that would ease both the sanctions Iran was under and the fears other countries had over their nuclear program. After lots and lots of negotiations they settled on the Joint Plan of Action which did a pretty good job. I don't think Iran was being treated as all that special here and we'd see similar events play out if any country under the NPT started building up its nuclear program, especially if other countries thought that country was unstable/terroristy enough that the idea of them having a bunch of nukes was extra scary AND they also felt an agreement could be reached that would help make them less frightened.

ericmay 5d ago
Sorry I do not follow this line of reasoning at all. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then they started a nuclear program, then they wanted some sort of special treaty, and yet they aren't being treated specially or differently than other countries?
- autoexec 5d ago
  Iran signed a treaty that let them have a nuclear program but with rules. Iran didn't follow the rules so they got in trouble. New president comes in and agrees to follow rules if it means they won't be in so much trouble anymore and works with a bunch of countries on a new agreement. That's pretty much just the standard treatment isn't it? The new agreement itself was kind of impressive in some ways. It's really long. There's lots of special provisions for making sure Iran does what they're supposed to do and detailing what would happen if they don't because they had a sketchy history, but otherwise it just meant that Iran followed rules just like other countries do and they weren't punished like other rule following countries weren't. It took a new agreement to get there, but things were basically back to normal
  - ericmay 5d ago
    If it's just standard treatment can you name the other countries where they agreed to the rules, didn't follow them, and then wanted a specific treaty in order to keep them following the rules? Why not just not have a treaty and they just follow the rules? I think you're jumping through some hoops here to justify the need for the JCPOA when at the end of the day Iran needs to simply acquiesce to the international community and no longer pursue nuclear weapons. Of course they also need to stop murdering people throughout the region too. Nuclear disarmament is just one step. Iran themselves said they enriched uranium up to 40%-60%. The US offered "free nuclear fuel forever" to get them to stop and they also refused. I can find sources for you if you'd like but both of these were widely reported.
    - autoexec 5d ago
      > can you name the other countries where they agreed to the rules, didn't follow them, and then wanted a specific treaty in order to keep them following the rules? First, keep in mind that Iran is very different today from when they signed that treaty. It was signed before the Iranian Revolution. A lot happened between the signing and when Iran approached the international community. By comparison, North Korea violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty too, and sanctions were put them as well, but they never came back to the table to reach a new agreement with the rest of the world (although they do have some kind of deal with russia I think) Iran also didn't even want to "just keep following the rules". They accepted extra rules because at that point other countries didn't trust them. We don't monitor other countries like we did with Iran under the JCPOA. Iran wasn't demanding that we give them a bunch of free stuff either. They wanted sanctions lifted, but not even all the sanctions Iran wanted lifted were agreed to. Other countries don't get to just tell other countries what to do. All we can do is encourage them to do the things we want by making offers or punish them for not doing what we want through things like sanctions. I mean, technically we can also use the CIA to interfere in their government but we already did that in Iran and it hasn't worked out so well for anybody. Iran had reached a pretty good agreement with the world on the future of their nuclear program. It wasn't perfect for anybody, it was a compromise after all, but Iran followed the new agreement. Then Trump threw it all away because he was convinced that he could make a "better deal" and that was when the US offered Iran weird things like "free nuclear fuel" as part of Trump's new deal. I guess Iran just felt that Trump's deal was garbage even with the random extras Trump tried to use to entice them to go along with it. Frankly, considering how often Trump cheats people, I wouldn't agree to a deal with him either.

ericmay 5d ago

Sorry I do not follow this line of reasoning at all. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then they started a nuclear program, then they wanted some sort of special treaty, and yet they aren't being treated specially or differently than other countries?

autoexec 5d ago
Iran signed a treaty that let them have a nuclear program but with rules. Iran didn't follow the rules so they got in trouble. New president comes in and agrees to follow rules if it means they won't be in so much trouble anymore and works with a bunch of countries on a new agreement. That's pretty much just the standard treatment isn't it? The new agreement itself was kind of impressive in some ways. It's really long. There's lots of special provisions for making sure Iran does what they're supposed to do and detailing what would happen if they don't because they had a sketchy history, but otherwise it just meant that Iran followed rules just like other countries do and they weren't punished like other rule following countries weren't. It took a new agreement to get there, but things were basically back to normal
- ericmay 5d ago
  If it's just standard treatment can you name the other countries where they agreed to the rules, didn't follow them, and then wanted a specific treaty in order to keep them following the rules? Why not just not have a treaty and they just follow the rules? I think you're jumping through some hoops here to justify the need for the JCPOA when at the end of the day Iran needs to simply acquiesce to the international community and no longer pursue nuclear weapons. Of course they also need to stop murdering people throughout the region too. Nuclear disarmament is just one step. Iran themselves said they enriched uranium up to 40%-60%. The US offered "free nuclear fuel forever" to get them to stop and they also refused. I can find sources for you if you'd like but both of these were widely reported.
  - autoexec 5d ago
    > can you name the other countries where they agreed to the rules, didn't follow them, and then wanted a specific treaty in order to keep them following the rules? First, keep in mind that Iran is very different today from when they signed that treaty. It was signed before the Iranian Revolution. A lot happened between the signing and when Iran approached the international community. By comparison, North Korea violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty too, and sanctions were put them as well, but they never came back to the table to reach a new agreement with the rest of the world (although they do have some kind of deal with russia I think) Iran also didn't even want to "just keep following the rules". They accepted extra rules because at that point other countries didn't trust them. We don't monitor other countries like we did with Iran under the JCPOA. Iran wasn't demanding that we give them a bunch of free stuff either. They wanted sanctions lifted, but not even all the sanctions Iran wanted lifted were agreed to. Other countries don't get to just tell other countries what to do. All we can do is encourage them to do the things we want by making offers or punish them for not doing what we want through things like sanctions. I mean, technically we can also use the CIA to interfere in their government but we already did that in Iran and it hasn't worked out so well for anybody. Iran had reached a pretty good agreement with the world on the future of their nuclear program. It wasn't perfect for anybody, it was a compromise after all, but Iran followed the new agreement. Then Trump threw it all away because he was convinced that he could make a "better deal" and that was when the US offered Iran weird things like "free nuclear fuel" as part of Trump's new deal. I guess Iran just felt that Trump's deal was garbage even with the random extras Trump tried to use to entice them to go along with it. Frankly, considering how often Trump cheats people, I wouldn't agree to a deal with him either.