Mike G, your research is so completely wrong you should never trust those sources again when posting here. I suspect your only source is orangemanbad.com which explains much.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 02:14 am: Edit

Jeff

Some really good points there.

But - the JCPOA was signed in July 2015 - so anything pre-then is not relevant to JCPOA.

President Trump in his first term withdrew from JCPOA in May 2018.

No details about Iranian breaches appear in your post between those two dates.

Mike's post would therefore seem to be supported - any Iranian non-compliance on JCPOA occured after the US wihdrew?

You could say 'Iran should have stuck to the balance of the agreement' - but that seems to indicate you can sign a deal - take away half of the benefits for one side and then assume the other side still has to pay 100% for the just 50% of the benefits?

Based on Jeff's (accepting it's from Google and as Jeff said, may not be accurate) 4.37 post - it would seem Iran gave it 12 months to see if the deal was still workable and it wasn't?

I am not saying Iran was right to do so - but if one side changes the terms of a deal, without any compromise/incentive to offset that - is there a reason stick to with it (which indirectly may be the reason President Trump withdrew from it - if he felt it was a 'Bad Deal' and that was worse than no deal- as per SVC's comments - was this why the US wihtdrew from it and it was known this was likely to be the end of the deal in effect?).

On what is happening 'today' - hopefully the Ceasefire will hold and both sides will go back to the Diplomacy Table.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 05:00 am: Edit

Iran's pattern of behavior did not change from 2008 to 2028. The fact that Obama made a deal despite that doesn't make it a good deal or make prior bad acts irrelevant.

Paul Howard, the evidence shows that Iran never complied with the treaty, and never intended to.

The only way out of this mess is regime change.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 06:43 am: Edit

The Strait of Hormuz situation as of now is...

1. Iran still says it's closed and everyone must pay tolls and that the US must end the blockade and lift sanctions before anything is negotiated including US reparation payments to Iran. The US response to that is "uh, no."

2. The US is doing all kinds of stuff to make sure Iran doesn't try to close the strait by shooting/firing at ships going through. We cleared a path farther from Iran. We have bombers circling over the part of Iran from which missiles and drones have been launched. Any attack on ships results in bombs landing on the launch sites.

3. A few ships have gone through, most are adopting a "somebody else try it first" attitude.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 09:13 am: Edit

On Iran - I haven't seen an evidence to show Iran was acting in bad faith - and Jeff's limited search didn't show it - what evidence do you have ?

I do agree - a regime change is though necessary.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Paul: If you haven't seen proof Iran has never acted in anything but bad faith you have been willfully blind and won't accept the proof. Jeff's data was more than enough.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 12:51 pm: Edit

SVC - I am not saying Iran hasn't acted in bad faith - but Jeff's Data gave no details on 2015 to 2019 - and it could be claimed with President Trump withdrawing from the Deal in 2019 - the US wasn't intending to act in good faith?

In other words- both sides (so the group of 6 which signed it) probably only signed the deal to kick the issue down road, so someone else would have to sort it out - and so both sides are at fault?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 12:57 pm: Edit

It should be pointed out that the Iranian government has long held western culture (and western civilization) as evil.

A Google inquiry reveals:

Quote:” The Iranian government views Western civilization, particularly the United States, as evil, portraying it as an imperialist, oppressive "Great Satan" and an enemy of Islamic values. Tehran frames this as a struggle against a decadent "arrogant power" trying to dominate the region.Ideological Opposition: Iranian leadership, especially under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, regards Western culture as directly opposed to Islamic values and truths."Great Satan": Since the 1979 revolution, the U.S. has been officially referred to as the "Great Satan", which is an enemy of the Islamic Republic's revolutionary ideology."Axis of Resistance": The regime positions itself as the core of a "resistance" against Western, American, and Israeli influence in the Middle East.Decadence and Cultural Invasion: The Iranian government frequently accuses the West of trying to destroy Islamic identity through a "soft war" of cultural decadence.Political Framing: This demonization of the US helps the regime maintain internal control and justify its policies against domestic dissent.”

Paul is defending a nation and culture that is (and has been) producing weapons of mass destruction in order to destroy enemies of Islamic culture.

It shouldn’t surprise any one that Iranian leaders are more than happy to lie to achieve their goals.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 01:02 pm: Edit

On "Deals".

Should the West have been stronger (noting Israel was 'given/obtained Nukes with zero sanctions against them**' and so the point of do as I say and not as a I do...) against Iran from say 2005 to 2015?

The second question is - was a Bad Deal at the time needed more than no Deal?


The Munich Deal of 1938 was clearly a bad deal - but the UK probably needed the time more than the Germans did.

The Deal for the 'West' to go into Afganistan was clearly a Bad Deal - and the deal to get us out was not any better.

After the debacle (in the UK) over Iraq - I doubt any UK Government would wanted any military action in the Middle East - and so the Deal avoided that from the UK's point of view (and with most of NATO with a very bare cupboard - sending a strongly worded letter was probably the most they could have done).

So what could the US have done in say 2015 on their own?


** - No doubt in 50 years time, lots of book on 'how Israel got the bomb' will be wrttten - with big fingers pointed at South Africa... but why was there no attempt in getting them to give it up?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Jeff.

The West (and East) has been villifying it's Enemies far longer than Iran has.

Just think of all that 'love' that went between the World and China from say 1850 onwards..

or USSR and the East from 1919 to 1990 ish?

or how from 1941 to 1945 ish 'we loved the USSR'? What happened to all the anti-Communism rhetoric from the 1930's?

On usage of WMD's - I think Iran currently has 'zero usuage'?

Iraq used them in the Iraq v Iran War
The US used them in Vietnam
The US (and it's used saved lives) in WWII
Japan used them in China in WWII
(Google mentions Egypt in Yemen and Rhodesia have also used them)

Most sides used them in WWI

On Culture and destroying your enemies - Religion (other than Buddism?) seems to say 'do that' and Chrtistianity can claim to be the most succesful in that .

President Trump stated he would destroy Iran as pretty much everything, 6 weeks ago.


So your statement "Paul is defending a nation and culture that is (and has been) producing weapons of mass destruction in order to destroy enemies of Islamic culture." - factually may we be correct - Iran does have WMD's and does want to destroy their enemies - is partially true on 'defending them' (they have a right to live - just like Israel, the West Bank and Gaza) - but your disliking a nation because it doesn't like our culture and - but seem to think nations which have used WMD's and in the past have destroyed other cultures are now the 'good guys'?

(And yes, I think it would be a close run thing on deciding which nation historically killed the most cultures??? Romans, Mongols, Spain or GB/UK are probably all in the top 8 and to be fair, the US is probably only in the top 20??)

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 01:29 pm: Edit

From a congressional report "Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance with International Obligations" dated 08/07/2025
Author: Kerr, Paul K

"Until July 2019, all official reports and statements from the United Nations, European Union, the IAEA, and the non-U.S. participating governments indicated that Iran had fulfilled its JCPOA and related Resolution 2231 requirements.21

Beginning in July 2019, the IAEA verified that some of Iran's nuclear activities were exceeding JCPOA-mandated limits; "

With respect; Fox News and press statements by politicians are n9ot reliable sources.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Let me add:

1) The Iranian regime is evil. Just like Saddam's & the Taliban's was. Regime change is hard.

2) "Quick google searches" are not primary sources. As everyone knows modern AI produces a lot off just imaginary crap.

3) That report was written when BOTH HOUSES were GOP controlled.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Paul, do you think chants of "Death to America" are relevant in relation to Iran's supply of 60% enriched uranium?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 02:30 pm: Edit

With respect, I wasn't using those sources. The Iranians were definitely cheating in that period. See my previous comments about well-known verified violations being ignored.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Paul Howard posted:

Quote:”On usage of WMD’s - I think Iran currently has ‘zero usage’…”

Turns out to “Not be the case.”

Google:

“ Reports allege that Iran has utilized chemical agents, specifically suspected toxic gases or advanced riot control agents (RCAs), against protesters and internal dissidents. There are allegations that Tehran used poisonous chemicals, potentially including pharmaceutical-based agents (PBAs), to suppress protests during early 2026, with prior reports mentioning "green gas" in 2022.Allegations and Evidence of Internal Chemical UseProtest Crackdowns: During 2022 protests, reports emerged of an unidentified "green gas" used against protesters in Kurdish cities like Javanrud and Piranshahr, with symptoms including severe skin irritation, nausea, and mental disorientation.Chemical Agents: Medical experts and reports have suggested the use of substances such as adamsite (DM) or hexachloroethane to suppress demonstrations.Persistent Threats: Experts and U.S. assessments have noted that Iran maintains a covert chemical weapons program, despite being a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and has worked on developing incapacitating agents, such as fentanyl derivatives, for deployment.Key Findings on CapabilitiesRiot Control Agents (RCAs): While not banning RCAs, the Chemical Weapons Convention requires countries to declare their usage, which Iran has failed to do.Pharmaceutical-Based Agents (PBAs): Iran is believed to be developing fentanyl-based chemical agents, which can function as incapacitating agents rather than solely riot control.No Confirmed Biological/Radioactive Use: While reports suggest Iran has engaged in research into biological warfare agents and maintained a chemical program, there is no widely cited evidence confirming the use of biological or radiological weapons against its own population.While the regime frequently labels these actions as legitimate riot control, reports suggest a "real risk" that these chemical substances are intended to cause serious harm or death, rather than just dispersal.”

It appears that this is yet another example of applying copious amounts of “white wash” to make an avowed (self identified) enemy of america appear innocent.

Again, the Google information includes AI, and may not be totally accurate.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 03:03 pm: Edit

William

Lots of people chant lots of things.

Do I worry about 'Death to Amercia' from Iran and it's Uranium - not really.

Did I worry about the IRA marches and their 'Death to Brits' chants- absolutely.

Do I worry about some of the Marches through London and the varies chants (Left Wing/Right Wing/Religion/'Not my King'/Eco Warriers etc- you name it, they probably have a march) - some of them.

Some of them are just 'angry people' who don't know better and it's just vocal - and I don't worry about them.

Some do more - and alas they have the ability to do something - and they do worry me (and the anti-Semnitism has increased recently and that is something which does worry me how quickly things go from 'shouts of annger' to 'acts of anger').

In other words, I don't worry about the sane leader who has 10 nukes (and Israel fits into this category) - I worry about the insane leader who has 1 dirty nuke. Mike hit the nail on the head - Saddam was very much in that category, so thank goodness he was stupid enough to attack Kuwait and annoyed the West.

Gaddafi I am unsure about - he probably had 1 foot in each camp over his life.

Iran - other than a small minority (and all Nations have a small minority who fit in this category), I don't think fits in the latter category either - those at top, have more to lose than gain - and as long as as that remains, they have a reason to do and act sane.

Do I like what they do - no, but there are more relevant things (in effect more like to occur events) to be concerned about.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Have you seen Wikipedia's article entitled "Iran external operations"?

Does that fit in with whether or not they put their "death to [whomever]" ideas into practice?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 03:15 pm: Edit

Jeff - can you keep it to facts - even if it's copied from Google.

The article you posted states RCA's are not considered WMD.

As am example - asking Google "Has the US use advanced Riot Control Agents" comes up with

Yes, the United States has used and continues to use advanced Riot Control Agents (RCAs) both domestically and in specialized military operations. While standard "tear gas" (CS) remains the primary agent, the US has developed, stockpiled, and utilized more advanced and potent formulations, along with modern delivery mechanisms.

More relevant 'alleged' is not fact.

That may well change in the future (if the Iranian Regime is changed and the new government 'reveals all' - just like the South Africans did in effect with the Nuclear Program) or if sufficent information is put togethor, but today, my statement appears to be correct?

But where have I said they are innocent?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 03:21 pm: Edit

William

You mean the US doesn't have "US external operations"?

(Or Russian, or China, French or UK?).

or the famous one by the Saudi's??

So, yes it happens - and all nations do it to put their national interests forward and in some regards (tracking down Traiters for example) they are needed and in others they are not (Freedom of Speech).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Hopefully something we can all agree on though : -

There was a rumour over the weekend the Ukranians was talking to the Russians (or vice versa) - could a peace deal be closer than it has been?

(In simple terms, I would guess the Russians can pay a large compensation payment to the Ukraine (due to the high price of oil) and the Ukraines are worried President Trump might forget about them - noting they may or may not be doing better in the last year - but that could always change??)

What can both side get which will keep both sides happy?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 04:04 pm: Edit

For the benefit of those who CAN read and understand english, the facts are:

1. Subject material relates to WMD, weapons of mass destruction, also known as things that kill humans.

2. Paul defends his position claiming that “the article posted states that RCA’s are not considered WMD.”

3. Quoted from the post that Paul Howard says is not fact, quote:”cWhile the regime frequently labels these actions as legitimate riot control, reports suggest a "real risk" that these chemical substances are intended to cause serious harm or death, rather than just dispersal.”

So, Paul Howard, in his zeal to vindicate the Iranian government, does not use Weapons intended to kill humans, while siting as “proof” the posted article that in fact states the opposite.

The key phrase, so Paul does not miss it, is “intended to cause serious harm or death…”

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Well if one excuses a pattern of Jew-killing operations as "pursuit of national interests", the discussion becomes hopeless.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, May 06, 2026 - 03:08 am: Edit

William, don't read too much in the choice of words. Or, rather think more about them. "National interest" is a cliché used because the writer know we all know what it means and it saves him the effort to say that with lots more words. Does it mean he thinks it ok killing jews?
In an earlier post Paul expressed worry over increased anti-semitism in the UK. That suggest the answer is no.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, May 06, 2026 - 08:06 am: Edit

>> Until July 2019, all official reports and statements from the United Nations, European Union, the IAEA, and the non-U.S. participating governments indicated that Iran had fulfilled its JCPOA and related Resolution 2231 requirements.

Iran also expressed concern to the IAEA that resolving some of these issues would require agency inspectors to have 'access to sensitive information related to its conventional military and missile related activities.'

stating its willingness to discuss with Iran modalities that could enable Iran to demonstrate credibly that the activities referred to in the documentation are not nuclear related, as Iran asserts, while protecting sensitive information related to its conventional military activities.

IAEA reports have not explicitly mentioned any agency requests for JCPOA-related access to any Iranian military facilities.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, May 06, 2026 - 10:04 am: Edit

Mike, in #1 above the first two quotes are from the time before the JCPOA.

Fool's errand? We don't know that and never will, because of the consequences of Trumps decision in 2018, but imo it was necessary to try. In the powder keg called the middle east "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war".