What's new

Featured Joe Biden reaffirms he will seek return to Iran nuclear deal

Feb 10, 2013
3,172
-6
4,510
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
Two Questions from any one who knows the answer:

1- If Biden wants to go back to JCPOA...what happens to extra Uranium and Centrifuges that Iran has produced..what happens to financial damages to Iran in the past three years..

2- What happens in 5 years when JCPOA ends...Can US dump all nuclear sanctions on Iran again and Iran goes back enriching 20% and above..and we go on and on and on...
I can answer your questions partially.

1. Modern centrifuges must be inactivated and set aside, replaced by old models (IR-1 I think). But working on technology to produce new centrifuges is allowed. Nuclear related sanctioned should be removed if US and Europe abide by rules, which they didn't and dont!
The financial damages and terror attacks against our scientists will be the topic of talks with the enemy, and Iran will use it as leverage. However with cucks such as Rouhani it's difficult to pressure the enemy. We need IRGC in power.

2. Jcpoa ends in 5 years but a number of restrictions remain till 2030. Then in a fair world Iran would only follow NPT rules, being allowed to enrich up to 90% for peaceful goals, without getting sanctioned.
 
Last edited:

Arian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 21, 2011
2,219
0
4,376
Location
Germany
Two Questions from any one who knows the answer:

1- If Biden wants to go back to JCPOA...what happens to extra Uranium and Centrifuges that Iran has produced..what happens to financial damages to Iran in the past three years..

2- What happens in 5 years when JCPOA ends...Can US dump all nuclear sanctions on Iran again and Iran goes back enriching 20% and above..and we go on and on and on...
1- Our excess of uranium stockpile will be diluted down to 3.5% or converted to fuel rods for the Bushehr nuclear reactor. Alternatively, Iran might send its excess to Russia to import natural uranium instead (like what happened in the JCPOA). Our centrifuges will be disassembled and kept for future use probably. Although even according to the JCPOA, we are allowed to develop new generations of centrifuges and keep a small number of them running. Our overall enrichment capacity has to remain about 5,600 SWU UF6 Kg/year which will consist mostly of IR-1 and IR-2 centrifuges. No financial damage will be paid to Iran obviously.

2- The JCPOA will end in 2025. There's an extension mechanism within the JCPOA that if the parties agree, the agreement can be extended again.
 
Last edited:

Philosopher

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 5, 2020
3,321
16
8,567
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
If one was following the Americans during and prior to the JCPOA and listened to their sanction architects such as Richard Nephew etc you would get a clear sense that Iran Americans wanted to kick the can down the road. They talked about how the JCPOA would outlive Khamenei. The idea was, they would reassess the situation Post-Khamenei. Thus their strategy is quite obvious, as they near the end of the JCPOA, they would simply restart the whole JCPOA process again to contain Iran's program, or try to. This is why Iran must use this time to become insulated against sanctions. They only weapons the west have to play against Iran is the economical sanctions, once that is dismantled ,perhaps with the aid of the likes of China, then Iran will be in a much better situation. One thing is for sure, if the strategy is just to rely on this give and take negotiations, then these JCPOA situations will just continue in perpetuity until once side gives in ideologically. Iran's top priority thus must be to fix its economical structure. Make the enemies' financial weapons ineffective. Not an easy task, but more than do-able for Iran.
 

zartosht

FULL MEMBER
Jun 4, 2017
1,160
-1
3,057
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
If the US returns to the JCPOA, Iran has already started making noise about "compensation"

The US must not only return to the deal, but also compensate Iran for its breach of contract. This part is actually very vital. as it would take away the incentive for future US admins to dishonour signed agreements. if Iran is not compensated, then it might as well never sign anything with any western country again.

Also when it comes to Iranian-western relations. I urge people not to look at it in a black and white manner. Iran having workable relations with western countries does not mean it is taking a knee and waving a white flag.

If you take emotion out, and look at it from a hard cold pure geopolitical perspective. It makes alot of strategic sense for Iran to agree to temporary limits on its nuclear program, that recognizes Irans nuclear right, in exchange for lifting of the most suffocating sanctions that effect oil export and wipe out more then half of government revenue and cause huge economic destruction.

If Iran is also in a permenant state of war with the west, this removes any leverage Iran has. and makes it extremely easy for other powers like China to take advantage of that and get into agreements that heavily favor them. (like that discounted oil deal they just got)

The US is leaving the region. its a matter of time. If it recognizes Iran's geopolitical space, ends its imperial policies in the region and concentrates on a long term geopolitical showdown with a rising China. Then Iran has no reason to be hostile to the west long term.
 

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
2,391
-3
4,783
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
If the US returns to the JCPOA, Iran has already started making noise about "compensation"

The US must not only return to the deal, but also compensate Iran for its breach of contract. This part is actually very vital. as it would take away the incentive for future US admins to dishonour signed agreements. if Iran is not compensated, then it might as well never sign anything with any western country again.

Also when it comes to Iranian-western relations. I urge people not to look at it in a black and white manner. Iran having workable relations with western countries does not mean it is taking a knee and waving a white flag.

If you take emotion out, and look at it from a hard cold pure geopolitical perspective. It makes alot of strategic sense for Iran to agree to temporary limits on its nuclear program, that recognizes Irans nuclear right, in exchange for lifting of the most suffocating sanctions that effect oil export and wipe out more then half of government revenue and cause huge economic destruction.

If Iran is also in a permenant state of war with the west, this removes any leverage Iran has. and makes it extremely easy for other powers like China to take advantage of that and get into agreements that heavily favor them. (like that discounted oil deal they just got)

The US is leaving the region. its a matter of time. If it recognizes Iran's geopolitical space, ends its imperial policies in the region and concentrates on a long term geopolitical showdown with a rising China. Then Iran has no reason to be hostile to the west long term.
The problem is that there is no guarantee that these so called "temporary limits" will not be extended and then extended yet further again to effectively become permanent ones.The west had no problem[in theory] with recognising irans nuclear rights as a part of the jcpoa........however thats likely only because thanks also to the jcpoa iran is completely limited in its ability to avail itself of them,ie rights are fine and dandy so long as you cannot actually try to make any use of them.
The question of course is whether the west will still be quite so willing to recognise irans rights when it does try to make use of them.
Ultimately imho the whole deal stinks of nothing more than an attempt by the west to try and limit irans power and growth,and not just in the nuclear field,in order to both buy time and maintain the regional status quo,ie western vassalage,in the hope that there will be changes both regionally and in iran,ie greater recognition of israel,color revolutions,more gulliable "western friendly" reformist regimes,a new supreme leader,separatist and other terrorist groups,as well as global changes that will favor it while weakening,or even destroying,the iri.
If the western regimes that helped to come up with this deal cant even live up to their basic obligations then what does that say about their commitment to this deal?.
What makes this a bad deal is that iran had to give up real things including its leverage,in return for nothing more than promises of "trust us" from regimes whos past history of untrustworthiness is simple history.What makes it worse is that there would not even be a return to the pre deal status quo as iran had effectively dismantled a large part of its enrichment capability which would take time to restore,tho on the other hand currently it would be very difficult if not impossible for the west to even try to regain the pre deal degree of support for un sanctions which it was able to achieve.
In order for this type of deal to have had any real chance of succeeding,iran not only would have had to maintain its leverage as part of any deal,there could be no giving it up,But in addition the consequences of any failure could not simply have been a return merely to the pre deal status quo.
 

zartosht

FULL MEMBER
Jun 4, 2017
1,160
-1
3,057
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
The problem is that there is no guarantee that these so called "temporary limits" will not be extended and then extended yet further again to effectively become permanent ones.The west had no problem[in theory] with recognising irans nuclear rights as a part of the jcpoa........however thats likely only because thanks also to the jcpoa iran is completely limited in its ability to avail itself of them,ie rights are fine and dandy so long as you cannot actually try to make any use of them.
The question of course is whether the west will still be quite so willing to recognise irans rights when it does try to make use of them.
Ultimately imho the whole deal stinks of nothing more than an attempt by the west to try and limit irans power and growth,and not just in the nuclear field,in order to both buy time and maintain the regional status quo,ie western vassalage,in the hope that there will be changes both regionally and in iran,ie greater recognition of israel,color revolutions,more gulliable "western friendly" reformist regimes,a new supreme leader,separatist and other terrorist groups,as well as global changes that will favor it while weakening,or even destroying,the iri.
If the western regimes that helped to come up with this deal cant even live up to their basic obligations then what does that say about their commitment to this deal?.
What makes this a bad deal is that iran had to give up real things including its leverage,in return for nothing more than promises of "trust us" from regimes whos past history of untrustworthiness is simple history.What makes it worse is that there would not even be a return to the pre deal status quo as iran had effectively dismantled a large part of its enrichment capability which would take time to restore,tho on the other hand currently it would be very difficult if not impossible for the west to even try to regain the pre deal degree of support for un sanctions which it was able to achieve.
In order for this type of deal to have had any real chance of succeeding,iran not only would have had to maintain its leverage as part of any deal,there could be no giving it up,But in addition the consequences of any failure could not simply have been a return merely to the pre deal status quo.
Iran already got benefits from the JCPOA. 100s of billions of dollars of frozen Iranian funds were freed up into government hands.

the JCPOA is not perfect. nor is it anything resembling a grand bargain. but it was a solid first step. 2 sides that wouldnt even be seen in a room together, worked out a deal that removed the biggest propaganda chip out of zionist hands (nuclear Iran means the end of earth for their propaganda machines).

it also removed the sanctions responsible for over 90% of Iranian economic misery.t also removed security council sanctions on Iranian weapons impports. Iran gave up almost nothing in return. a small heavy water reactor was disabled, and temporary limits were set. Uranium enrichment was always the biggest nuclear dispute that the west would never yeild on, and they eventually did. Iran kept all its official nuclear breakout threshold intact.

This deal was in Irans favor. As sanctions was never about limiting Iranian nuclear program, but limiting IRAns geopolitical rise, and possibly even to break IRan. they cant handle a sanctions tied Iran, they know they will get eaten alive by a Iran that can trade and grow its economy to boot. thats why you saw how infuriated the sauds and zionists were, and how determined they were to kill the deal.

And to say that the west was going to use the deal to infiltrate into Iran is laughable. Iran has gone to extreme steps to shield itself from the cancer of western regime change engines.

power is strategically concentrated into hardline dominated offices like the supreme leader, guardian council, SNSC and of course the revolutionary guards.

actual western puppets and spies dont last long in Irans revolutionary system.
 

PeeD

FULL MEMBER
Nov 28, 2014
1,357
21
5,770
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Iran already got benefits from the JCPOA. 100s of billions of dollars of frozen Iranian funds were freed up into government hands.

the JCPOA is not perfect. nor is it anything resembling a grand bargain. but it was a solid first step. 2 sides that wouldnt even be seen in a room together, worked out a deal that removed the biggest propaganda chip out of zionist hands (nuclear Iran means the end of earth for their propaganda machines).

it also removed the sanctions responsible for over 90% of Iranian economic misery.t also removed security council sanctions on Iranian weapons impports. Iran gave up almost nothing in return. a small heavy water reactor was disabled, and temporary limits were set. Uranium enrichment was always the biggest nuclear dispute that the west would never yeild on, and they eventually did. Iran kept all its official nuclear breakout threshold intact.

This deal was in Irans favor. As sanctions was never about limiting Iranian nuclear program, but limiting IRAns geopolitical rise, and possibly even to break IRan. they cant handle a sanctions tied Iran, they know they will get eaten alive by a Iran that can trade and grow its economy to boot. thats why you saw how infuriated the sauds and zionists were, and how determined they were to kill the deal.

And to say that the west was going to use the deal to infiltrate into Iran is laughable. Iran has gone to extreme steps to shield itself from the cancer of western regime change engines.

power is strategically concentrated into hardline dominated offices like the supreme leader, guardian council, SNSC and of course the revolutionary guards.

actual western puppets and spies dont last long in Irans revolutionary system.
:tup:

This man knows what he is talking about.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,112
-10
5,162
Country
United States
Location
United States
Iran already got benefits from the JCPOA. 100s of billions of dollars of frozen Iranian funds were freed up into government hands.

the JCPOA is not perfect. nor is it anything resembling a grand bargain. but it was a solid first step. 2 sides that wouldnt even be seen in a room together, worked out a deal that removed the biggest propaganda chip out of zionist hands (nuclear Iran means the end of earth for their propaganda machines).

it also removed the sanctions responsible for over 90% of Iranian economic misery.t also removed security council sanctions on Iranian weapons impports. Iran gave up almost nothing in return. a small heavy water reactor was disabled, and temporary limits were set. Uranium enrichment was always the biggest nuclear dispute that the west would never yeild on, and they eventually did. Iran kept all its official nuclear breakout threshold intact.

This deal was in Irans favor. As sanctions was never about limiting Iranian nuclear program, but limiting IRAns geopolitical rise, and possibly even to break IRan. they cant handle a sanctions tied Iran, they know they will get eaten alive by a Iran that can trade and grow its economy to boot. thats why you saw how infuriated the sauds and zionists were, and how determined they were to kill the deal.

And to say that the west was going to use the deal to infiltrate into Iran is laughable. Iran has gone to extreme steps to shield itself from the cancer of western regime change engines.

power is strategically concentrated into hardline dominated offices like the supreme leader, guardian council, SNSC and of course the revolutionary guards.

actual western puppets and spies dont last long in Irans revolutionary system.
what a load of propaganda.

Is that why under JCPOA Iran’s currency plummeted?

And that “small” heavy water reactor, was THE MOST important part of the entire nuclear program.

If you talk to any Western person and ask them there 3 worst fears of Iranian nuclear program they would say

Arak

Arak

Arak

It was an easy pathway for Iran to get the bomb with little reprocessing Iran could have 4-5 nuclear bombs PER YEAR.

In 2013 Arak was ready to be online. 7 years later Arak is not anywhere close to be online. Arak will NEVER come online because West will continue to drag their feet. How long does it take to redesign and implement a new core? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years?

JCPOA was a disaster for Iran because they gave up so much and got back money that was frozen. After that the benefits never emerged. So I wouldn’t call getting back frozen funds a major win.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
487
2
917
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
Iran already got benefits from the JCPOA. 100s of billions of dollars of frozen Iranian funds were freed up into government hands.

the JCPOA is not perfect. nor is it anything resembling a grand bargain. but it was a solid first step. 2 sides that wouldnt even be seen in a room together, worked out a deal that removed the biggest propaganda chip out of zionist hands (nuclear Iran means the end of earth for their propaganda machines).

it also removed the sanctions responsible for over 90% of Iranian economic misery.t also removed security council sanctions on Iranian weapons impports. Iran gave up almost nothing in return. a small heavy water reactor was disabled, and temporary limits were set. Uranium enrichment was always the biggest nuclear dispute that the west would never yeild on, and they eventually did. Iran kept all its official nuclear breakout threshold intact.

This deal was in Irans favor. As sanctions was never about limiting Iranian nuclear program, but limiting IRAns geopolitical rise, and possibly even to break IRan. they cant handle a sanctions tied Iran, they know they will get eaten alive by a Iran that can trade and grow its economy to boot. thats why you saw how infuriated the sauds and zionists were, and how determined they were to kill the deal.

And to say that the west was going to use the deal to infiltrate into Iran is laughable. Iran has gone to extreme steps to shield itself from the cancer of western regime change engines.

power is strategically concentrated into hardline dominated offices like the supreme leader, guardian council, SNSC and of course the revolutionary guards.

actual western puppets and spies dont last long in Irans revolutionary system.
:tup:

This man knows what he is talking about.
Aghayun, I would very much like to know your thoughts about another aspect not directly addressed in the quoted post.

In that post, the key point to me is the following sentence:

"power is strategically concentrated into hardline dominated offices like the supreme leader, guardian council, SNSC and of course the revolutionary guards."

In previous comments, I highlighted what I believe to be the reason for the differing strategies pursued respectively by western hardliners and liberals vis a vis Iran, knowing that their goal is identical, i.e. consists in defeating and destroying Iran.

But while western and zionist liberals believe that having Iran engage on the path of the JCPOA will ultimately lead to disarming Iran and/or to making it abandon its Resistance against zio-American imperialism, their hardline counterparts (such as the Likudniks in Occupied Palestine) are of the belief that the revolutionary, patriotic, sovereignist element of the IR (Supreme Leader, IRGC etc) is too entrenched in key institutions, and that it won't allow reformists and moderates to revise Iran's policies in a fundamental manner; therefore, these hardliners calculate, the JCPOA will only end up strengthening that same revolutionary element (including the IRGC) thanks to the economic benefits Iran could reap from it - which clearly, is not supposed to be the goal of the JCPOA in the minds of those who conceived and advocate it. And hence why these western and zionist hardliners oppose the deal and instead promote maximum pressure on Iran (knowing that they have no military option).

You seem to agree with that latter assessment. Which you are of course entitled to, especially as it remains a plausible hypothesis.

However, my question to you is the following: in all this, what do you make of the Iranian reformist / moderate factor? More exactly, what is your opinion on the points below:

1) Iranian reformists and moderates are clearly willing to give in to western demands on JCPOA's II and III intended to limit Iran's missile arsenal and regional influence. This is evidenced not just by statements from liberal figures such as Sadegh Zibakalam, but by the declarations of liberal policymakers and strategists such as Mostafa Tajzadeh and Said Hajjarian, as well as by high-ranking liberal officials such as the late Hashemi Rafsanjani ("in asr, asre mushakbazi nist", and his citation of post-WW2 Japan and Germany) and most importantly, Rohani himself, who in his famous Noruz address to the nation on Seda o Sima, explicitly expressed his wish to see Iran negotiate "bezudi barjame do va se" (JCPOA's II and III).

2) A JCPOA II on missiles would completely deprive Iran of its prime asset of deterrence against outside aggression. The enemy's goal being not only to limit the range of Iranian BM's in such a manner that they would no longer pose a threat to the zionist entity, but moreover, classified blueprints and technical specifications would have to be disclosed to the west, production sites opened to inspection, which would then allow the enemy to neutralize the effectiveness of Iran's remaining arsenal by fine-tuning and adapting its counter-measures accordingly.

A JCPOA III would lead to a disarmament of Iran's allies accross the region. An acceptation by Iran of FATF conditions - another thing Iranian liberals have systematically been advocating, would make it impossible for Iran to keep financing its allies, because it would lay bare all covert channels used to this effect (in addition to downright prohibiting any financial support for these movements).

3) If you agree with points 1) & 2), don't you think these same liberals could theoretically be capable of coercing the Supreme Leader, the IRGC and the revolutionaries into ceding on JCPOA's II and III? The way liberals would go about this, is to make use of the popular mandate they'll enjoy in case Zarif is elected as Iran's next president (which I'm afraid is increasingly likely since Biden prevailed over Trump), or in case sardar Dehghan is elected and worries expressed by some sovereignists about him turn out to be accurate.

Liberals will enjoy full backing from overseas enemy-controlled propaganda media, which would further increase pressures on the Leadership and the revolutionaries. Liberals could even threaten another fitna by instigation of popular uprising similar to the failed 2009 "colored revolution" attempt.

Another important criterion is the relative sway held by liberals over the economy: corrupt and influential liberals could use their economic influence to artificially alter the rial exchange rate (like they have been doing so far) in such a way as to serve their political agenda. Namely, weaken the rial when Leader and IRGC are standing firm against negiotiations on missiles and the region, so as to worsen the population's material plight and thereby push people to oppose the Leader's and the IRGC's stance, falsely portrayed as the main cause for economic suffering; and conversely, allow the rial to gain some value against the dollar whenever new concessions are made to the west, in order to have people believe that this is the only way forward.

Such a scenario would spell disaster if it ever came to pass, as it would essentially trigger a repeat of the Libyan scenario of disarmament followed by destruction.

I would very much appreciate your input on this: are liberals not willing to limit Iran's missile power and regional influence, and would this not endanger Iran's security and survival? And if yes, how can we be sure that these same liberals are not going to be able to have their way?

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

PeeD

FULL MEMBER
Nov 28, 2014
1,357
21
5,770
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Aghayun, I would very much like to know your thoughts about another aspect not directly addressed by the quoted post.
There are two dimensions about Iran; government and national security.

There will be no missile JCPOA and even if, it will be one for Iranian benefit, like the first JCPOA.

For general public its ok to have this bi-partisan game of conservatives and reformists and it is real on government level but you feel the Supreme leaders presence in the details of the JCPOA: Reformist government can screw up on economy, social and public agendas but the red line is security.

Figures like Raefipour Omid Dana are good for rising public awareness (although Omid guy is hardly tolerable recently due to his silly character), they do this to rise alert level among people. Educate average people by being more alarmist and aware.

Reality is however the JCPOA where you see who has the last say when it comes to security.
 

Cherub786

BANNED
Jul 28, 2020
749
-2
543
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Biden is too damn old, his brain is malfunctioning. Cancelling JCPOA was one of Trump's best accomplishments. The original deal was much too favorable to Iran. A new deal must extract considerable concessions from the Iranians, including their complete withdrawal from Iraq and Syria and the complete dismantling of their terrorist proxies like Hizbullah.
 

nahtanbob

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 24, 2018
7,505
-35
2,477
Country
United States
Location
United States
with the world moving away from hydrocarbons the spat with Iran looks silly. the world is quite reliant for the next 30 years. the dependence is reducing. i hope both sides see it
 

unrequitted_love_suzy

FULL MEMBER
Jul 13, 2020
229
0
111
Country
Greece
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Nonsense , iran's only means of retaliation and self - defence are its arsenal of missiles. iran's governing body will never accept Biden's team suggestion of an JCPOA plus iran's missile inventory and Iran's "Behavior change" ...
 
Nov 18, 2014
1,105
0
1,316
Country
United States
Location
United States
Biden is too damn old, his brain is malfunctioning. Cancelling JCPOA was one of Trump's best accomplishments. The original deal was much too favorable to Iran. A new deal must extract considerable concessions from the Iranians, including their complete withdrawal from Iraq and Syria and the complete dismantling of their terrorist proxies like Hizbullah.
Cheetos fan in Canada, c'mon ai... you're living on the wrong side of the border! See there were those who fancied Canada after cheetos took office but you, you missed the boat to the other side.
P.S. why be so triggered?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom