Iran has accelerated enrichment of uranium, IAEA says

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Longcut said:

You're wrong. It was Israel that blew the whistle on them. Netanyahu went before Congress and pointed out what Israeli intelligence had found out Iran was actually doing.

 

You're mixing the timeline. Netanyahu's controversial speech was prior to the agreement being signed. No whistle was blown, and no classified information was divulged on the speech itself. This may interest you and others:

 

Exclusive: Netanyahu Canceled Intel Briefing for U.S. Senators on Iran Dangers

http://time.com/3744265/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-iran-nuclear-talks-obama/

 

Israel's intelligence community is not in full agreement with Netanyahu with regard to several issues relating to Iran's nuclear efforts - the level at which the project was put on halt, the value of the so-called Iran Deal, and whether Iran complies with terms. On this one, Netanyahu's conduct is similar to Trump's (or vice versa) - preferring his own take (which is closely tied to his politics) over professional intelligence assessments.

[Sujo]

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Iran's leadership chose to accelerate uranium enrichment. It's not as if this is a mandatory step, and not the necessarily only (or even best) response that could have been decided on.

 

I don't think there was any association between the USA's withdrawal from the agreement and "easing problems", so not sure how "instead" applies. It was obvious, even for those supporting the move, that it would not yield meaningful results in the short term, and that it's likely tensions would rise.

They CHOSE to do it only after US pulled out of the agreement. But its not related. Got ya.

 

????

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

They CHOSE to do it only after US pulled out of the agreement. But its not related. Got ya.

 

????

 

No, you didn't "get" anything. Never said it was "not related". That's something you dreamed up. I'm saying that they chose a response. It could have been a different one. Some posters seem to have issues with leaderships other than the USA's being held accountable and responsible for the choices and decisions they take.

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, you didn't "get" anything. Never said it was "not related". That's something you dreamed up. I'm saying that they chose a response. It could have been a different one. Some posters seem to have issues with leaderships other than the USA's being held accountable and responsible for the choices and decisions they take.

The alternative for them was to lay down and take it all from the USA.

 

So no, there really was no choice.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

The alternative for them was to lay down and take it all from the USA.

 

So no, there really was no choice.

 

 

Your first line outlines one choice, the second says that was no choice. So there's one contradiction and one choice right of the bat. Not that I know what you meant by "take it all", but guess that's not so good, maybe?

 

Diplomacy and international relationship are rarely "no choice" situations. More often, it is how extreme leaderships frame things to suit agendas and cover failures.

 

One of Iran's main backers, sort of, is Russia. But Russia also competes with Iran - globally in the oil market, and regionally, when it comes to influence in Syria. Iran could have eased up on the latter (less complicated) in return for greater support from Russia, and less of a "case" for criticism when it comes to regional activities.

 

Iran could have played nicer with European signatories and other EU countries - both with regard to trade demands, and to carrying out actions (such as in the Netherlands).

 

There's a whole range between aggravating the situation and totally capitulating. I think you know that.