No. of Recommendations: 9
No they weren't. Getting a nuke has always been a priority for them.
I think you misunderstand. They were willing to agree to it, so long as they were permitted to retain energy enrichment programs. Getting a nuke might always have been a priority for them, but that has never been an obstacle to them saying they won't have a nuclear weapon.
That's why the Administration is insisting they abandon their energy enrichment altogether, rather than accept an agreement not to have weapons.
If we think they'll honor an agreement not to go for the weapon, then we should have just accepted their proposals in late February before the war. If we don't think they'll honor such an agreement, then we have to insist on no enrichment at all (and abandonment of their current holdings) - which they are apparently not willing to do.
It was a bad question. We want them to swear off trying to restart their nuclear weapons programs. Your phrasing is an attempt to restate your point that 'knowledge never dies and there's nothing we can do to stop them from doing anything'. Were that the case we should never open talks with anyone, ever, on a whole host of subjects.
That's incorrect. Were that the case, we should never start a bombing/aerial campaign against anyone, ever, if the goal is to try to eliminate their knowledge. Which is actually pretty close to correct.
We should have talks with countries all the time. The "knowledge never dies" isn't an argument against talks. It's an argument against the type of war that we launched against Iran, or at least thinking that such a war could accomplish the objective of keeping them from ever getting a nuclear weapon.
Iran is perfectly willing to swear off trying to restart their nuclear weapons programs, and always has been. They've insisted all the time that they're only pursuing energy programs. What they're not willing to do is abandon all enrichment.
LOL. Then who clears the mines for the tankers? Or are there no mines there now?
There are mines in part of the strait - not all of it. That's how the small number of tankers have been able to come in and out, about a half dozen per day, without striking mines. Indeed, unless I missed it, none of the several dozen vessels that have gone through the strait with Iran's permission have struck a mine. The mines were placed in part of the strait to narrow it, and force military traffic closer to the Iranian coast, where it can be more effectively targeted. The civilian traffic won't enter the strait if there's drones or missiles no matter what, because they won't be able to afford the insurance.
And that's the exact same thing. A literal distinction without a difference.
They'll never do business with the Gulf states the same way again.
Why wouldn't they do business with the Gulf states? They're the Gulf states' largest customers. The Gulf states aren't going to be upset if China sends Chinese-flagged tankers to buy oil from everyone, including Iran, notwithstanding the U.S. blockade. Which is what they would do.
So, no - it doesn't matter if the Navy does any mine-clearing. The Navy disagrees with you.
Not really. I was talking about civilian tanker and cargo traffic, not the Navy. The Navy wants mines cleared so it can traverse the strait while hugging the Oman coast, to reduce the risk from shoreline attacks from Iran. Civilian tankers and cargo ships don't care - they're not getting insurance to go in no matter where within the strait they travel.
