> When are you talking about and what is that based on? It was the US that withdrew; the other countries continued. US intelligence concluded that Iran had no nuclear weapons program (or maybe, no active one; I don't recall).
They'd just move the research to clandestine or military facilities. They're not stupid. Countries like Iran know how to play these games and they use our own legal mechanisms against us all the time.
Separately we shouldn't have to have a JCPOA in the first place, they can just not pursue nuclear weapons like almost every other country on the planet.
> we shouldn't have to have a JCPOA in the first place, they can just not pursue nuclear weapons like almost every other country on the planet.
Other countries do pursue and have nuclear weapons. Iran has not yet created a full nuclear weapons program - or hadn't before the current war.
Iran, being under constant threat from the US and Israel, with open calls to attack Iran for decades; seeing two neighbors recently deposed by the US (Iraq and Afghanistan); and having had their own government deposed and replaced by a US-friendly one (Mosaddegh in 1953); under constant threat from neighbors and the region (Iraq invaded in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states are open enemies, Israel of course); may believe that they need nuclear weapons to survive.
Is there another country in a similar position, with the resources to develop nuclear weapons, that doesn't have them? North Korea and Israel both made that choice in similar circumstances.
The US 'nuclear umbrella' covers its allies around the world, a very effective non-proliferation tool. Otherwise, I imagine South Korea, Japan, many NATO countries would build them - there is already discussion of it in the former two countries.
Don't care then. The premise of having to have the agreement in the first place is faulty, so arguments about who was following it and in what sneaky way are simply irrelevant.
> Other countries do pursue and have nuclear weapons.
So should more countries get them then? Are you against nuclear non-proliferation? If you want more countries to get them let's start with Israel and Saudi Arabia, then move to South Korea and Japan, and let's load them up in the Baltic states too so Russia doesn't think twice.
> Iran has not yet created a full nuclear weapons program -
Then what was the point of the JCPOA?
> or hadn't before the current war.
They hadn't as the war is going on either just to be clear. There seems to be this cargo culted comment that they're going to have one now. They won't. We will bomb it no matter what.
> Iran, being under constant threat from the US and Israel, with open calls to attack Iran for decades; seeing two neighbors recently deposed by the US (Iraq and Afghanistan); and having had their own government deposed and replaced by a US-friendly one (Mosaddegh in 1953); under constant threat from neighbors and the region (Iraq invaded in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states are open enemies, Israel of course); may believe that they need nuclear weapons to survive.
Right, everyone is bad here but poor lil ole' Iran. The US was in Afghanistan after Bin Laden. It was in Iraq after Saddam. The whole world, despite Iranian delusions of grandeur, doesn't revolve around them. Other countries are also under constant threat from Iran (US, Israel, Gulf States, more) as they fund militants, murder people, load up on missiles and drones and fire them indiscriminately, and try to build nuclear bombs.
They'd just move the research to clandestine or military facilities. They're not stupid. Countries like Iran know how to play these games and they use our own legal mechanisms against us all the time.
Separately we shouldn't have to have a JCPOA in the first place, they can just not pursue nuclear weapons like almost every other country on the planet.