Peter provides an update on Iran - unbiased

I'm pretty much get most of my info from this guy.

Note that he is not pro or anti Trump and is instead straight down the middle on this. Actually, he's he's pretty critical.

i watched some of it. I would say Peter is actually very critical of Trump's actions - even if he does not comment on his personality.

He said that if America leave Iran now, then Iran will have a nuke in 1 year. He feels that Iran will feel they must have a nuke to protect themselves in the future.

So, it has left America in a situation where it can't pull out.

Before Trump intervened last year they were heading for a nuke in any case.

Iran should not be allowed to have a military...like Japan and Germany just after WWII...they simply can't be trusted....get them to toe the line and keep them in line until they're ready to join the free world...harsh, yes, but we've run out of options...46 odd years and they're still a threat to the safety and security of the whole region...enough is enough.

Thanks for that Plum. I rarely listen to political commentary like this, but this fellow is so articulate and his ideas are so much above the common dross, it was worth it. I particularly enjoyed the Germans having to go back to coal, perhaps the Sasol technology still has a future.

Where I disagree is that all these trends inevitably lead to his insightful conclusions. Particularly in the modern world….for example at some point if the Gulf remains closed (which it won’t) the Europeans will say Putin has had an epiphany and accept a diminished Ukraine in exchange for Russian oil.

Before Trump ended the Obama nuclear agreement, there was a global consensus that Iran was not actively developing a nuke. (Israel claimed to find old plans, but from 2003, long before the Obama era).

Iran started to enrich Uranium after Trump ended the deal. Now Iran knows it must get a nuke to defend itself against America.

Before President Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), US intelligence, and other global powers consistently reported that Iran was complying with the deal's restrictions and not actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

Key Assessments Pre-2018

The JCPOA, signed in 2015 by Iran, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the EU, required Iran to cut its enriched uranium by 97%, reduce centrifuges by 70%, and allow unprecedented IAEA monitoring. IAEA reports from 2016–2018 confirmed compliance, with IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano stating Iran was under "the world's most robust nuclear verification regime" and had access to all requested sites.

Consensus Among Powers

European allies (UK, France, Germany), Russia, and China affirmed Iran's adherence after Trump's withdrawal announcement, urging the US to stay in the deal. US intelligence assessments, including from the Obama and early Trump eras, found no active Iranian nuclear weapons program since 2003, with the deal blocking paths to one.

Post-Withdrawal Changes

Trump's "maximum pressure" sanctions led Iran to breach limits starting in 2019, accelerating enrichment—changes absent pre-2018. Critics like Trump argued the deal was flawed (e.g., sunset clauses), but not due to active violations or weaponisation at the time.

Pleasure, Moz

I don't agree with all his conclusions either but he generally stays away from political bias and provides his honest analysis. A rare thing in today's world where most can't wait to demonstrate their tribal allegiance...as though it makes facts more factual haha

The deal would have reached its sunset in 2031…..so much of the benefit had expired by 2025. But even though Chat disputes the existence of a hidden stockpile of enriched uranium, if the reports of that are true, even the benefit through 2025 is dubious. In the meantime they got an injection of cash in 2015

The cash injection was primarily achieved by lifting some sanctions and unfreezing assets held in the West.

If Iran had continued to honour the deal, it would have remained in force. All deals have duration limits

"If Iran had continued to honour the deal, it would have remained in force. All deals have duration limits"

Ja right... they're a trustworthy bunch...

C’mon Shark let’s get real the Iranians have always wanted a bomb. Whether the Obama deal or the current war is the best course to thwart that can be debated, but let’s not pretend these nutters want to live collegially in the real world.