They weren’t enriching fuel and their breakout from getting a nuclear weapons went from a couple of months to a year.
If they start to seriously start enriching Uranium again we have about a year before they start testing their training wheel nukes.
What happens then?
Delivery systems are not nukes.
Because the deal as about nuclear technology and not missile technology.
There are no international missile agreements
They’ll probably accidentally nuke themselves.
They have plenty of desert to blow up for tests.
It had language for both.
Concerning Missiles
The 2010 agreement said “shall not”
The 2015 agreement said “called upon to not”
That language was weakened by the other signatories of the agreement, not the Obama administration. President Obama at the end of the day accepted the weakened language because having in place the reduction in capacity of manufacturing weapons grade nuclear material was much more important.
The Iranians took that to be weakening of the former agreement and that they did not break it.
The primary concern of the agreement was to restrict the development of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and specifically Iran. If President Trump did not like the weakening of the language surrounding the testing of ballistic missiles I do not see how, like the TPP, blowing it up with no plan to replace it with something “better” is achieving that goal.
So when Iran starts to manufacture weapons grade material again and the clock is ticking for about a year before they start to test out their bombs… what happens?
There won’t be a war. Both sides have gotten what they want. End of Story.
there never was
Of course there was.
Now that former deal is going away.
please tell me you are not this naive too
Show that there was no deal in place that was limiting Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
oh a deal was in place alright
but it wasnt stopping them from developing nukes
if you disagree then you can show where they were actively avoiding the full out development of nukes
The IAEA signed off that they were abiding by the agreement.
that proves nothing
It proves that they were abiding by the deal.
No military plan survives its first encounter with the enemy. Yours won’t either.
it only shows they made it appear as though
It also shows that they were hiding the whereabouts of the tooth fairy
You see the flaw in the argument… right?
yes. i see the flaw in that you think they foolishly followed an agreement despite their obvious declared intentions
then you asked me to prove a negative
