Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Baitball Blogger

(52,867 posts)
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:24 PM Wednesday

Who understands the effectiveness of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran?

I am having an argument with someone who said that Obama's contract was ineffective because Iran wasn't allowing people into the country to come in to inspect their facilities to see if they were collecting more than the 3% uranium allowed by the agreement. Per Obama, this was how they would be able to determine if Iran was acquiring enough nuclear supplies to build a bomb.

From what I remember, Trump came in and blew up everything that previous presidents (especially Obama) had put together, for no other reason than he's reckless and arrogant.

Anyway, whatever you want to add or correct, please feel free to do.

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who understands the effectiveness of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran? (Original Post) Baitball Blogger Wednesday OP
They are going to explain everything regarding Miami Blue Wednesday #1
Thank you. Baitball Blogger Wednesday #4
Thanks for the heads-up. Talitha Wednesday #27
Iran was violating the agreement by limiting and preventing Melon Wednesday #2
Note the date. Aug 2017. By 2018, before US withdrawal, the IAEA was in country, inspecting, and certified compliance. RockRaven Wednesday #6
Post removed Post removed Wednesday #7
Yes there is no rewriting history. At the time Trump pulled the US out, every other party to the agreement RockRaven Wednesday #12
You are placing an ad hoc rescue that at a certain short Melon Wednesday #15
This is from the United Nations. Melon Wednesday #17
So, any explanation for why, when I go the link you provided AZJonnie Thursday #33
But, this happened during Trump's term. Baitball Blogger Wednesday #8
You are incorrect, per your own article. AloeVera Wednesday #9
In every instance, Trump has been a bull in a china shop. Baitball Blogger Wednesday #22
This is incorrect. They were not violating the agreement. tman Wednesday #16
"This is true" dpibel Wednesday #30
From the article you linked to: EarlG Wednesday #31
Try this post Johnny2X2X Wednesday #3
You interlocutor is, for lack of a better word, a liar. RockRaven Wednesday #5
You realize Wikipedia is written by...just anyone. Melon Wednesday #11
You realize those numbers are citations and you can check whether they say what the article says? RockRaven Wednesday #14
There's zero science behind it. Melon Wednesday #18
Well, you got this bit right AZJonnie Thursday #34
Seems your post was indeed prescient AZJonnie Thursday #35
Inspectors from the atomic energy agency were granted continuous lostincalifornia Wednesday #10
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Melon Wednesday #13
They were fully compliant while the JCPOA was active. tman Wednesday #20
See below. Melon Wednesday #21
That's from 12 June 2025, so my point still stands. tman Wednesday #25
What is also conveniently omitted is that inspectors were refused entry after lostincalifornia Wednesday #28
It was a starting point, and throwing that agreement out instead of using it lostincalifornia Wednesday #23
What did they expect when trump unilaterally pulled out of the agreement? lostincalifornia Wednesday #26
This is not true per the atomic energy agency and the UN.... Melon Wednesday #19
You are citing a judgment from 2025 about activity from 2019 and onward RockRaven Wednesday #24
Exactly. Trump unilaterally tore up that agreement in 2017. Why would some lostincalifornia Wednesday #29
knr ... bookmarked ... cliffside Thursday #32

Miami Blue

(405 posts)
1. They are going to explain everything regarding
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:29 PM
Wednesday

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran at The Last word with Lawrence O’Donnell on MS.NOW

RockRaven

(20,036 posts)
6. Note the date. Aug 2017. By 2018, before US withdrawal, the IAEA was in country, inspecting, and certified compliance.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:37 PM
Wednesday

Response to RockRaven (Reply #6)

RockRaven

(20,036 posts)
12. Yes there is no rewriting history. At the time Trump pulled the US out, every other party to the agreement
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:52 PM
Wednesday

except the US held the position that Iran was in compliance at that time. So the assertion that Iran was doing something to justify the US pulling out is false.

If you want to say the US never should have signed on, or should have pulled out at a different time, that is a different conversation.

Melon

(1,865 posts)
15. You are placing an ad hoc rescue that at a certain short
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:57 PM
Wednesday

Time they were compliant. Literally months over a multi year agreement.

It’s is accepted that Iran was non compliant with the agreement as reported by . The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Melon

(1,865 posts)
17. This is from the United Nations.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:02 PM
Wednesday

It’s rewriting history to paint Iran as anything more than non compliant to the treaty.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291

“IAEA Board Action: The IAEA Board of Governors formally declared Iran in non-compliance with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards. This resolution was triggered by Iran's failure to provide full, credible explanations and answers regarding the presence of uranium particles detected at multiple undeclared locations.”

AZJonnie

(4,190 posts)
33. So, any explanation for why, when I go the link you provided
Thu Jun 18, 2026, 05:18 AM
Thursday

And use ctrl-F in my browser to search for the string "The IAEA Board of Governors formally", which you posted as a QUOTE ... there is no instance of even that small quote clipped from your post?

Cuz if you don't have an explanation for that observation?

Then this ruse is pretty weak

Also, that article is from 2025, and hence not relevant whatsoever to the timeframe at hand in this discussion.

Baitball Blogger

(52,867 posts)
8. But, this happened during Trump's term.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:45 PM
Wednesday

What happened to change Iran's mind?

Frankly, Trump has dumped and denigrated every agreement and treaty. Is it possible that Iran was just good at reading the room once he came into office? Was Trump's win in 2016 the precipitating factor?

AloeVera

(4,610 posts)
9. You are incorrect, per your own article.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:50 PM
Wednesday

Trump made a new demand, without providing a reason, to have the inspectors go into MILITARY sites, not nuclear-related ones. He of course knew such a demand would be denied and he could then use that feint to claim non-compliance in his usual devious way. Interestingly, it seems some people are still pushing Trump's false claim.

Your article also states that at that time Iran was in full compliance with the agreement.

Baitball Blogger

(52,867 posts)
22. In every instance, Trump has been a bull in a china shop.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:15 PM
Wednesday

He creates chaos and he is solely responsible for creating uncertainty. So, yes, I do believe he demanded something that wasn't in the original deal just so Iran would step over the line, which would give him the power to terminate Obama's deal.

tman

(1,268 posts)
16. This is incorrect. They were not violating the agreement.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:02 PM
Wednesday

From the very piece you posted.. "So far, IAEA inspectors have certified that Iran is fully complying with the deal, under which it significantly reduced its enriched uranium stockpile and took steps to ensure no possible use of it for a nuclear weapon."

The trump admin made demands that were outside of JCPOA's terms.

dpibel

(4,038 posts)
30. "This is true"
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:34 PM
Wednesday

I especially believe you when you say that.

Because you are singularly believeable.

EarlG

(23,766 posts)
31. From the article you linked to:
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:45 PM
Wednesday
Under the deal, the IAEA can request access to Iranian sites including military ones if it has concerns about activities there that violate the agreement, but it must show Iran the basis for those concerns.

That means new and credible information pointing to such a violation is required first, officials from the agency and major powers say. There is no indication that Washington has presented such information to back up its call for inspections of Iranian military sites.

Under U.S. law, the State Department must notify Congress every 90 days of Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal. The next deadline is October, and Trump has said he thinks by then the United States will declare Iran to be non-compliant.

So far, IAEA inspectors have certified that Iran is fully complying with the deal, under which it significantly reduced its enriched uranium stockpile and took steps to ensure no possible use of it for a nuclear weapon.

RockRaven

(20,036 posts)
5. You interlocutor is, for lack of a better word, a liar.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:34 PM
Wednesday

The Wikipedia article is readily accessible to them, easy to understand, and sufficiently comprehensive that there is not much excuse for peddling such misinformation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal

some selected excerpts, emphasis mine:


The U.S. certified in April 2017 and in July 2017 that Iran was complying with the deal.[322][323] On 13 October 2017, President Trump announced that he would not make the certification required under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, accusing Iran of violating the spirit of the deal and calling on Congress and international partners to "address the deal's many serious flaws", though he stopped short of terminating the agreement.[324][325]
----------
Rouhani,[327] Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said the agreement was working well and that no one country could break it, reconfirming support for the deal. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that Iran was in compliance.[327]

In 2018, IAEA inspectors spent an aggregate of 3,000 calendar [person-]days in Iran, installing seals and collecting surveillance camera photos, measurement data, and documents for further analysis. In March 2018, IAEA Director Yukiya Amano said that the organization had verified that Iran was implementing its nuclear-related commitments.[328] On April 30, the U.S. and Israel said that Iran had not disclosed a past covert nuclear weapons program to the IAEA, as required.[329][330]
----------
On 8 May 2018, the U.S. officially withdrew from the JCPOA after Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering reinstatement of sanctions.[333][334][335][336] The IAEA continued to certify Iranian compliance.[337] Other signatories said they would comply with the deal even absent the U.S.[338]

RockRaven

(20,036 posts)
14. You realize those numbers are citations and you can check whether they say what the article says?
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:54 PM
Wednesday

Feel free to find one to nitpick. We'll all wait expectantly I'm sure.

Melon

(1,865 posts)
18. There's zero science behind it.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:04 PM
Wednesday

Corrections of anything can be edited. Any argument can be made if you pick and choose was evidence is presented as fact.

“ IAEA Board Action: The IAEA Board of Governors formally declared Iran in non-compliance with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards. This resolution was triggered by Iran's failure to provide full, credible explanations and answers regarding the presence of uranium particles detected at multiple undeclared locations.”

AZJonnie

(4,190 posts)
34. Well, you got this bit right
Thu Jun 18, 2026, 05:21 AM
Thursday
There's zero science behind it


I mean, assuming you're referring to what you have been saying in this thread

lostincalifornia

(5,653 posts)
10. Inspectors from the atomic energy agency were granted continuous
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:50 PM
Wednesday

access to the known nuclear sites like Natanz and Fordow, as well as the ability to inspect suspected undeclared military sites.

It was a major diplomatic achievement which John Kerry led.

The Republican talking points, and the incompetence of our media propagating the republican talking point was and is disgraceful, and like the Iraq WMDs, our press has much blood on their hands.

While the Iran Nuclear Agreement had deficiencies, those could have been addressed and negotiated, instead the sociopath decided to start an unnecessary war because he threw out the Iran nuclear agreement under Obama.



tman

(1,268 posts)
20. They were fully compliant while the JCPOA was active.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:06 PM
Wednesday

Here's is a direct quote from the link you posted earlier. - "So far, IAEA inspectors have certified that Iran is fully complying with the deal, under which it significantly reduced its enriched uranium stockpile and took steps to ensure no possible use of it for a nuclear weapon."

Melon

(1,865 posts)
21. See below.
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:10 PM
Wednesday

The UN-backed atomic watchdog passed a resolution on Thursday declaring that Iran is not complying with its obligations regarding nuclear non-proliferation.


Tehran has “repeatedly” been unable to explain and demonstrate that its nuclear material was not being diverted for further enrichment for military use, the draft text maintains.

Iran has also failed to provide the UN agency with “technically credible explanations for the presence of [man-made] uranium particles” at undeclared locations in Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad, it continues.

“Unfortunately, Iran has repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency’s questions,” IAEA chief Grossi said on Monday. “It has also sought to sanitize the locations, which has impeded Agency verification activities.”

According to Mr. Grossi, Tehran has stockpiled 400 kilogrammes of highly enriched uranium.

“Given the potential proliferation implications, the agency cannot ignore [this],” he told the UN agency’s governing board on Monday.

lostincalifornia

(5,653 posts)
28. What is also conveniently omitted is that inspectors were refused entry after
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:30 PM
Wednesday

trump unilaterally tore up the Iran nuclear agreement.

Not an insignificant event.

lostincalifornia

(5,653 posts)
23. It was a starting point, and throwing that agreement out instead of using it
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:19 PM
Wednesday

as a point to correct the deficiencies instead of bombing the crap out of the country, three separate times in the middle of negotiations, and the killing of thousands in the process, was pure incompetence.

Throwing out that agreement was from the same mindset that motivated bush to attack Iraq, overthrow Hussein, and empower Iran by upsetting the balance of power.

Pure incompetence, and the hits keep coming.





lostincalifornia

(5,653 posts)
26. What did they expect when trump unilaterally pulled out of the agreement?
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:26 PM
Wednesday

Tump started this garbage and why Iran blocked the inspectors. Why would they when the major party to this agreement walked away from it under trump.

Are you justifying the bombing of Iran?

RockRaven

(20,036 posts)
24. You are citing a judgment from 2025 about activity from 2019 and onward
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:21 PM
Wednesday

to justify an action Trump took in 2018.

The arrow of time... How does it work?

lostincalifornia

(5,653 posts)
29. Exactly. Trump unilaterally tore up that agreement in 2017. Why would some
Wed Jun 17, 2026, 11:32 PM
Wednesday

complain about Iran violating the agreement when trump unilaterally tore it up?

cliffside

(1,852 posts)
32. knr ... bookmarked ...
Thu Jun 18, 2026, 01:34 AM
Thursday

our history with Iran and nuclear power/negotiations goes back decades.

If what I read years ago is correct, we helped Iran set up their nuclear program well before the 1979 date, not to mention the 1953 coup.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Who understands the effec...