Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 17, 2019

Iran said Monday it will surpass from June 27 its uranium stockpile limit set under the nuclear deal with world powers, turning up the pressure after the US walked away from the landmark pact last year.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The three European parties to the accord created a trade mechanism meant to bypass US sanctions, but their attempt was dismissed by Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a "bitter joke."

If world powers do not step up to help Iran, the atomic energy organisation spokesperson warned further steps could be taken.

"They range from going to 3.68 per cent to any other per cent according to the country's needs," said Kamalvandi.

Authorities are still debating whether to "redesign or revive" the Arak reactor, he added.

Uranium enriched to much higher levels than Iran's current stocks can be used as the fissile core of a nuclear weapon, while heavy water is a source of plutonium, which can be used as an alternative way to produce a warhead.

#1 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-06-17 10:24 AM | Reply

And they totally weren't going to do this anyway...it's not like they have been telling the Europeans that they are continuing to abide by the Agreement.

Oh, wait.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-17 01:22 PM | Reply

"Everyone knew the Iran deal was a way for the mullahs to buy time and hoard their oil profits, to purchase or steal nuclear technology, to feign moderation, and to trade some hostages for millions in terrorist-seeding cash, and then in a few years spring an announcement that it had the bomb.

No one wished to say that. Trump did. He canceled the flawed deal without a second thought.

Iran is furious, but in a far weaker -- and eroding -- strategic position with no serious means of escaping devastating sanctions, general impoverishment, and social unrest. So a desperate Tehran knows that it must make some show of defiance. Yet it accepts that if it were to launch a missile at a U.S. ship, hijack an American boat, or shoot down an American plane, the ensuing tit-for-tat retaliation might target the point of Iranian origin (the port that launched the ship, the airbase from which the plane took off, the silo from which the missile was launched) rather than the mere point of contact -- and signal a serial stand-off 10-1 disproportionate response to every Iranian attack without ever causing a Persian Gulf war."

amgreatness.com

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-06-17 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is the Agreed Framework scenario all over again, incredibly stupid that the EU continues to hope that the Mullahs are going to abide by the Agreement.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-17 01:40 PM | Reply

U.S. has no limits of how many bunker busters it can produce.

#5 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-06-17 01:51 PM | Reply

#5

We are much better off never having to use them but the shortsightedness of Kerry and the EU diplomats will result in Iran obtaining nukes in fairly short order, just like the Norks did.

Pathetic.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-17 02:01 PM | Reply

incredibly stupid that the EU continues to hope that the Mullahs are going to abide by the Agreement.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter

What agreement?

There is no agreement.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-17 02:16 PM | Reply

No one wished to say that. Trump did. He canceled the flawed deal without a second thought.

#3 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

According to Israel, Iran was 1 year away from making a nuke before the deal and 10 years away after the deal.

We had limits. We had inspectors. We had a coalition.

Now we have nothing.

And there is virtually no reason for Iran not to create nuclear material to stop the US from ever invading.

If you thought the original deal was flawed, it still seems a lot better than where we are now.

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-17 02:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And they totally weren't going to do this anyway...
#2 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Who knows?

There were incentives not to. There was a coalition in place in case they did.

And the Hardliners in the Iran government had a lot less power because of what the country would lose if they violated the agreement.

Now they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by enriching and going for nukes. And Trump is rattling his saber about invasion.

If I were Iran, I'd definitely go for the nuke now. I don't lose anything and it might be the only way to stop the US.

Good job making it an easy choice for the Iranian government.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-17 02:33 PM | Reply

#8-9 Exactly. Trumpers are such shortsighted children. Don't like your small house? Burn it down!

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-17 02:36 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter

Trump pulled out.

If only his father had ...

#11 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-06-17 02:39 PM | Reply

Diplomacy through self fulfilling prophecy...it's the Republican way. If the prevailing evidence doesn't support your claim, change the conditions so that it eventually does. The Iran Nuke agreement works? Pull out and watch it fall apart because we violated the terms. Not hard to figure out.

#12 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-06-17 02:42 PM | Reply

Now we have nothing.

We have the same thing that Humpty got from his pen pal in NK.

Bupkis.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-06-17 02:46 PM | Reply

#8 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
We had limits. [No, you didn't] We had inspectors. [No, you didn't] We had a coalition. [The *same* coalition -EU - that is still buying Iranian oil]
Now we have nothing. [You had a piece of paper with toothless suggestions]

#9 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT A
There were incentives not to.[Not really - except the pallets of cash, which Obama flew in personally like he was buying a yacht] There was a coalition in place in case they did. [Did the coalition evaporate? No, they're buying Iranian oil]
And the Hardliners in the Iran government had a lot less power because of what the country would lose if they violated the agreement. [LOL]
Now they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by enriching and going for nukes. And Trump is rattling his saber about invasion. [BOO!]
If I were Iran, I'd definitely go for the nuke now. I don't lose anything and it might be the only way to stop the US.
Good job making it an easy choice for the Iranian government. [Pom-poms for Trump failure - TDS]

#14 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-17 02:57 PM | Reply

#8 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
We had limits. [No, you didn't] We had inspectors. [No, you didn't] We had a coalition. [The *same* coalition -EU - that is still buying Iranian oil]
Now we have nothing. [You had a piece of paper with toothless suggestions]
#9 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT A
There were incentives not to.[Not really - except the pallets of cash, which Obama flew in personally like he was buying a yacht] There was a coalition in place in case they did. [Did the coalition evaporate? No, they're buying Iranian oil]
And the Hardliners in the Iran government had a lot less power because of what the country would lose if they violated the agreement. [LOL]
Now they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by enriching and going for nukes. And Trump is rattling his saber about invasion. [BOO!]
If I were Iran, I'd definitely go for the nuke now. I don't lose anything and it might be the only way to stop the US.
Good job making it an easy choice for the Iranian government. [Pom-poms for Trump failure - TDS]
#14 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

And here we go with the lies... Is anyone surprised?

1. Yes, the agreement had a number of limits.
2. Yes, the agreement had inspectors and cameras.
3. Yes, we had a coalition in the EU ready to enforce the agreement if Iran violated it...until we tore it up of course.
4. Yes, we had incentives in the way of trade and banking.
5. The pallets of cash was THEIR money that we froze in their accounts.
6. The coalition was buying oil because Iran hasn't breached the deal yet. We were the ones who broke the agreement.

You have no defensed for Trump. We had a solid agreement in place. Now we have nothing and we are hinting at invasion. Iran has NO CHOICE but to go for the nukes now.

And you can't argue otherwise with "Nopes" and "TDS".

Frankly, Trump has no plan in place to deal with this. He has offered no alternative to Iran. And idiots like you cheer him on.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-17 04:02 PM | Reply

To anybody who liked the Obama/Iran deal:

This is why it's best to get these deals ratified by the Senate.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-17 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

To anybody who liked the Obama/Iran deal:
This is why it's best to get these deals ratified by the Senate.

#16 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

To anybody who is a Republican:
This is why it's best not to elect narcissistic billionaire morons to the White House.

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-17 04:25 PM | Reply

To anybody who liked the Obama/Iran deal:

This is why it's best to vote for Democrat Senators.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I can't wait til they get the Nuke. That will stop America's belligerent actions toward Iran. It will prevent us from going to war against them too.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-06-17 04:49 PM | Reply

#19

Israel is really excited about it as well, because you know that the Mullahs only want it for defense.

You guys are idiots.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-17 05:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The guys that the idiots are the ones who walked away from a perfectly good deal (not a great deal but a good deal) because, well, Obama.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-17 05:27 PM | Reply

"because you know that the Mullahs only want it for defense."

Name the last war Iran started.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 05:35 PM | Reply

#22 You must mean, 'proxy' war.

#23 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-17 05:53 PM | Reply

Name the last time Iran brought down a passenger jet, while you're at it.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 06:25 PM | Reply

Iran agreed to the deal to get out from under sanctions which were harming their economy so Orange Hitler cancels the deal and reimposes sanctions and includes any country that deals with Iran, what the f**k do you expect the Iranians to do? Just take it forever so that Orange Hitler can pretend he bested Obama and that is all this is really about. Trump is destroying a perfectly good agreement which was working very well according to independent inspectors. This is just more insanity from Orange Hitler.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2019-06-18 06:36 AM | Reply

This is why it's best to get these deals ratified by the Senate.

#16 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-06-17 04:20 PM | FLAG:

Moscow Mitch do his job with a Democratic President?

Hardy har har.

#26 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-06-18 08:56 AM | Reply

Moscow Mitch do his job with a Democratic President?
Hardy har har.
#26 | POSTED BY NIXON

Obama's nuke deal didn't even have full support with members of his own party.

It was a pile of dung and Trump was correct to abort it.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-18 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Obama's nuke deal didn't even have full support with members of his own party."

You repeat talking points very well Jeff, but that not even close to true. And what gives America the right to dictate if Iran can have nuclear weapons or not? Why does Israel get to have them and now it looks as though Saudi Arabia is going to get them too.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2019-06-18 12:17 PM | Reply

"Obama's nuke deal didn't even have full support with members of his own party."
---
You repeat talking points very well Jeff, but that not even close to true.

Cardin, Manchin, Menendez and Schumer were all opposed.

graphics.wsj.com

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-18 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#29 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Hey Jeff... Obama had the deal while he was in office, and Iran was prevented from getting nuclear weapons. Now Republicans are in the driver's seat. And they can't blame Obama for what happens because they decided to renege on his deal.

I don't care about the agreement. I care about Iran having nuclear weapons. And I liked the agreement because it was a way to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power.

So... are you confident that Republicans are going to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

Because it seems to me that they are failing to do so. But that was really as expected. Republican ignorance and belligerence allowed North Korea to get nuclear weapons (and now the leader of your party is always sucking up to them). The same thing will happen with Iran.

#30 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-06-18 03:07 PM | Reply

It was a pile of dung and Trump was correct to abort it.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ

No Humpy is not correct.

There is not much Trump has ever been right about. And current events certainly prove that.

So maybe it was not a GREAT DEAL but it was a GOOD DEAL and definitely a better deal than Humpy's NO DEAL!

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-18 05:08 PM | Reply

"Obama's nuke deal didn't even have full support with members of his own party.
It was a pile of dung and Trump was correct to abort it.
#27 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Are you trying to make the case that Trump's approach is better, as evidenced by the headline "Iran to Cross Uranium Enrichment Limits on June 27?"

Or are you just here to ---- on Obama, then leave?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 05:17 PM | Reply

Republican ignorance and belligerence allowed North Korea to get nuclear weapons (and now the leader of your party is always sucking up to them). The same thing will happen with Iran.

Looks like someone needs to Google Agreed Framework of 1994 and get a history lesson.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-18 05:17 PM | Reply

Are you trying to make the case that Trump's approach is better, as evidenced by the headline "Iran to Cross Uranium Enrichment Limits on June 27?"

You do realize, don't you, that the EU is still in the deal and that this whole thing is Iran trying to hold the EU hostage over promises a new trade payment system, right?

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-18 05:19 PM | Reply

"Iran trying to hold the EU hostage"

LOL!!!

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 05:20 PM | Reply

You do realize, don't you, that...

...donald ended the deal? The EU doesn't matter?

Of course you do.

#36 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-06-18 05:21 PM | Reply

You're saying Iran isn't actually trying to develop a nuclear capacity, it's just part of a trade negotiation?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 05:22 PM | Reply

Should the EU call Iran's bluff, since developing a nuclear capacity is so expensive, an impoverished nation like North Korea could never afford to do it?

Explain it to us, RightOCenter.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 05:24 PM | Reply

Mabye hit me with some DEBKA File links while you're at it?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 05:27 PM | Reply

Let's stipulate that the goal is the same: Iran should not develop a nuclear capacity.
How to approach the problem?
The stark contrast in leadership style could not be more evident.
Obama organized a community of powerful nations to make Iran an offer they couldn't refuse.
Trump campaigned on how bad the deal was, and one month after he appointed John Bolton his National Security Advisor, we are out.
So, what's next, another page from PNAC?
cryptome.org

What other possible course of action could be expected from John Bolton, than to start a war with Iran? Not that Trump will, but that's surely a card he can play.

Trump doesn't seem like a warmonger to me, but desperate times call for desperate measures. A desperate Trump seems dangerous. So I hope Melania's bolt-ons have made her even more talented.

If you look at the timeline, it sure looks like Melania got bolt-ons specifically to counter John Bolton:
April 9, 2018: John Bolton appointed National Security Advisor
May 8, 2018: Trump announces US withdrawal from JCPOA.
May 15-19, 2018: Melania hospitalized for health issues and rumored to have breast enhancement surgery.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 06:38 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort