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

General Discussion

AloeVera

(4,616 posts)

9. You are incorrect, per your own article.

Reply to Melon (Reply #2)

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

5 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

RockRaven tman Baitball Blogger Bayard cliffside

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Who understands the effectiveness of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran? [View all] 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