No. of Recommendations: 11
We want them to ack that their old statements were lies, get out of the nuclear business altogether, and stop developing long range ballistic missiles.But again - how does that solve the problem of them getting a nuclear weapon?
Again, the JCPOA was an agreement to keep them from developing a nuclear weapon. It accomplished that by providing that their enrichment would not exceed 3.67%.
Regardless of their ballistic missile capabilities, as long as they did not enrich uranium beyond 3.67%, they couldn't get a nuclear weapon. Sure, it would have been a bonus if the JCPOA might have also addressed ballistic missiles - but that wasn't the point of the agreement. We didn't have sanctions for ballistic missiles, and there wasn't an international consensus on keeping Iran from having ballistic missiles - the purpose was to keep them from
getting a nuclear bomb. The JCPOA was a good deal, and would have worked to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.
Your belief that the JCPOA would not have prevented them from getting a nuclear weapon appears predicated on a corresponding belief that Iran could have violated the terms of the JCPOA without us knowing about it. That they could have enriched the uranium beyond 3.67% without being detected. If they couldn't do that, then the JCPOA was an effective mechanism for preventing them from getting a nuke - or if they violated the agreement, they would have been caught, the sanctions would be back in place, and we would have had the same situation that existed when Trump pulled us out.
But if they
could do that, then anything that Trump does now to try to get them from obtaining a nuclear weapon will suffer from the same problem. If they can develop a nuke in secret, then giving them a bunch of free uranium based on their
promise not to enrich it to weapons grade is just as idiotic as the JCPOA. Right?
Nobody said that the Asian-bound oil would be loaded in the Mediterranean. Why would it? Just build enough capacity for Europe's needs. For Asia expand the capacities of the Red Sea pipelines.Then it doesn't really mitigate against Iran's ability to use closing the strait strategically. Very little Hormuz oil goes to Europe - only about 4%:
In 2025, nearly 15 mb/d of crude oil, nearly 34% of global crude oil trade, passed through the Strait of Hormuz – with most of the exports destined for Asia. China and India combined received 44% of these exports. IEA countries import about 29% of the crude oil coming through the Strait, with Japan and Korea particularly reliant on oil flows passing through the Strait. Around 600 kb/d, or just 4%, of the region’s crude flows are routed into Europe.https://www.iea.org/about/oil-security-and-emergen...Not enough to matter, and certainly not enough to warrant actually building a separate pipeline.
