Yes, and the focus on growth in general. There is a sustainable amount of goods and services that need to be produced. Capitalism forced the economy to go beyond that many decades ago.
I don't know how you got to "Iran probably wasn't following the treaty", when their adhereance to the JCPOA was certified by the U.S. (twice by the Trump administration [0][1]), until Trump wanted to renogiate, withdrawing and re-imposing sanctions in 2018. Everything I found says that the Iranians followed the treaty until they withdrew in 2021.
You mentioned military sites... I wondered if the IAEA ever requested access to military sites? They were entitled to do so, under the JCPOA. I couldn't find anything in a quick search I just did.
In your response above, you seem to imply that the Iranians may have already sneaked nuclear matarial to military sites. But the The IAEA found no evidence of that, at least as of 2025, well after the treaty, as per this summary report:
> Iran held enriched uranium at all three main nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan. There are no indications that Iran moved stocks outside of these three sites [2]
Once again, do you have sources for what you are saying, that the Iranians weren't following the treaty while it was in effect, or that there were military sites where they were hiding nuclear research? I'm not finding any.
Or is this just an opinion, or a guess? I would say that one must be careful, those who profit in some way from war always exaggerate the enemy.
I'll have to dig up some sources later, if I don't then consider the point conceded I guess as a way of holding me to it.
The other problem of course if the fundamental "need" to have a JCPOA in the first place. Iran can just stop trying to build nuclear weapons and then we don't need these kinds of agreements.
They also enriched uranium: "Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency." [1]
why were they even doing that? When I read things like that it's like who even cares if they were supposedly following the JCPOA? I'm not trying to change the subject or move the goalposts, but just pointing out how it's interesting that they have all this enriched material. Why do they even have it? Someone said they were following the agreement, why do they need to have this agreement to not enrich uranium? Just don't do it?
The IAEA also said: "In its May 2025 report, the IAEA noted Iran’s enrichment to 60% purity—beyond JCPOA limits but not prohibited under the NPT itself" [0]
Apparently the Iranians started enriching to that 60% level, and self reporting, in 2021, as leverage in the unsuccessful negotions to bring the JCPOA back into effect to get sanctions dropped.
International politics is what it is - power and self interest. There are those who don't want Iran to have a nuke. Iran has its reasons for wanting that capability. Throw in the crusades and ongoing holy wars, colonialism, oil, authoritarian regimes, propaganda, alliances, greed, etc - it's no wonder this is still a problem. One of many problems in that part of the world.
Ironic that the U.S. got the iranian nucear program started, eh? [1]
> Throw in the crusades and ongoing holy wars, colonialism, oil, authoritarian regimes, propaganda, alliances, greed, etc - it's no wonder this is still a problem. One of many problems in that part of the world.
Are you serious lol. Ok let’s go back to the Persians invading the Greeks!
Yes, I'm serious. The Persians are a proud culture and know their history. Just like a lot of other people.
You don't think religion still motivates people? There have been Sunni vs Shia and Christian vs Muslim conflicts for about a thousand years, more on than off. Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites. So much back and forth - the Muslim conquest, the crusades, the Ottomans, Napolean, the Shah of Iran, 9/11, etc.
Are you saying that those in the Middle East don't know the history of all that, or don't notice that they have been imposed upon lately by foreign powers?
Are you saying that there's not a large loud group of people in the U.S. who have been saying that Islam is evil? They aren't like us. They want to kill us all. They'll never stop. Etc. They're going to nuke Boston if we don't attack. I know a lot of religious people looking at current events as end-of-times bliblical - New Jerusalem, second coming, etc. These people have been very politically influental. Even now Vance is very publically calling a muslim senate candidate evil.
Those in power use religion to radicalize people. Are you saying this isn't happening and hasn't been happening for hundreds of years?
I'm into history, so maybe I'm coming from a different angle.
You've posted quite a bit in this thread and repeated a number of things that appear to be factually incorrect. Are you sure that you are well informed and not making biased assumptions?
> You've posted quite a bit in this thread and repeated a number of things that appear to be factually incorrect. Are you sure that you are well informed and not making biased assumptions?
Please cite these things that are factually incorrect.
> Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites.
That's not recent. Don't you know your history?
> Yes, I'm serious. The Persians are a proud culture and know their history. Just like a lot of other people.
> So much back and forth - the Muslim conquest, the crusades, the Ottomans, Napolean, the Shah of Iran, 9/11, etc.
Persian != Muslim - don't you know your history?
Iran wasn't responsible for 9/11.
You're lumping in a lot of distinct cultures and civilizations over thousands of years to make a point that just does not make sense.
Speaking of, yea you remember the Crusades, why do you seem to forget the Mongolians who did far worse to Islamic civilization than anyone else in history? Why doesn't anyone seem to remember that and use that as justification to invade China or Mongolia or something?
It's because this notion of some long historical memory is bullshit. The Persians, the Iranians, they forget about this stuff just like every other country. Nobody has a "long memory", and if Iran is holding on to some 2,000 year old grudge and they're just going to keep screwing with stuff while the rest of us are trying to get on with our lives, maybe Trump was right to suggest annihilating that civilization. What other option do we have?
> Are you saying that there's not a large loud group of people in the U.S. who have been saying that Islam is evil?
Yea that's generally true. Most people don't care about Islam or Muslims. This is unlike Islamic countries who care very much if you aren't Islamic. Maybe Islamic countries should grow up and get with the times?
> Even now Vance is very publically calling a muslim senate candidate evil.
As an aside I detest JD Vance but he's calling this guy evil primarily because he's a communist, not a Muslim.
> Please cite these things that are factually incorrect.
At the top of our thread, where you said Iran did not follow the JCPOA [0] and that they were denying access to military sites [1] where they were doing nuclear research. Repeated in another thread [2] under this topic. I presented sources indicated your statments were not accurate [3]. You said that you didn't have sources at the moment and might need to conceded that point [4].
>> Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites.
> That's not recent. Don't you know your history?
They have been fighting recently, and still are. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other on this one.
> Persian != Muslim - don't you know your history?
I didn't say they were. I said that they are a proud people. And not happy to be imposed upon.
> The Persians, the Iranians, they forget about this stuff just like every other country. Nobody has a "long memory", and if Iran is holding on to some 2,000 year old grudge
The CIA admitted to overthrowing their democratically elected government in the 1950s [5], putting the Shah back in power, who went on to abuse the people of that country. That's not 2000 years ago. They got out from under that in 1979. And that wasn't a good thing for the people there, either.
> Most people don't care about Islam or Muslims. This is unlike Islamic countries who care very much if you aren't Islamic. Maybe Islamic countries should grow up and get with the times?
I saw more anti-mulsim sentiment in the U.S. during the war against Iraq. Shockingly unexpected sometimes, like random enounters with a Walmart manager making small talk. I still see anti-muslim sentiment now in relation to refugees who look different. Group think, fanned by meme's on facebook.
I assume the same happens in Muslim countries. It's pretty easy to whip up public sentiment against colonial masters. And it's pretty easy to show "Death to America!" videos to Americans and get them all hopped up, too. It's how they maniuplate us. They don't tell prople that Iranians also say "Death to traffic!" [6] like Americans say "Fuck traffic!"
> As an aside I detest JD Vance but he's calling this guy evil primarily because he's a communist, not a Muslim.
I agree with your sentiment on JD Vance in general, but he mentioned religion is his Michigan speech about Abdul el Sayed, I didn't see any mention of communism: “What I see is a man who has sympathy and compassion for people who share his religion, but have nothing for people who don’t. A person who will apologize for a murderer so long as he looks the right way, but will not understand the plight of an innocent child if that person has the wrong faith” [7]
Question: Do you have a different source on what JD Vance said? Why do you think he meant communism?
There's things that need to be talked about in reference to the relationship with Iran. I think we should talk about what is true, and not be misled by propaganda.
> Just to be clear: the current situation is a huge mess caused by one deranged leader.
Agreed. The situation is worse than before the U.S. attack.
Iran has proven they can control the straight, threatening the world's energy supply. This is a more powerful weapon than a nuke (which multiple agencies, including U.S. intel, said they didn't have when this all started). New leadership in Iran is more galvanized against the U.S. than ever.
The U.S. already lost this war. Iran is dictating terms. Allies in the region have seen that the U.S. cannot protect them, and are making other accomodations, reducing U.S. influence in the region and beyond.
And you're getting downvoted because the truth is too unpleasant.
Everyone else realized that the world wasn't ready for anything but appeasement, our idiot didn't understand and pushed it into open conflict. Didn't change the basic situation, though.
Trump sure is an idiot, but it seems somewhat likely that Netanyahu pressured him to perform this particular idiocy that is also against his previous anti-war attitude - one of the few things that was good about his first term.
> Trump sure is an idiot, but it seems somewhat likely that Netanyahu pressured him to perform this particular idiocy that is also against his previous anti-war attitude - one of the few things that was good about his first term.
Turns out the last 6 or US presidents were presented the same stupid pitch and guess who finally fell for it...
> The U.S. already lost this war. Iran is dictating terms. Allies in the region have seen that the U.S. cannot protect them, and are making other accomodations, reducing U.S. influence in the region and beyond.
Let me break it down some for you, and anyone else who may be interested:
1) Iran is dictating terms
Look how often Trump has changed his story on how long the war will last [0]:
> March 2, We will easily prevail. We're already substantially ahead of our time projections
> March 9, We're ahead of our initial timeline by a lot. I would say that we probably would not have thought after a month we'd be here
> March 17, We'll be leaving in pretty much the very near future
> March 31, I think two or three weeks
> April 1, I'm pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion
> June 11, We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran
> Aug. 6, I think it's going to end pretty soon
Now he's sayign the war will be over right after the midterms [1].
Then there's all the times he said the straight was open, when Iran still was able to strike ships trying to transit.
Does that sound like someone who is in control of events? I've never heard a U.S. president who was wrong so many times.
2) Allies in the region have seen that the U.S. cannot protect them
> During the conflict, Iran reportedly carried out attacks or hostile actions against multiple countries and targets across the region, including Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman—where specific incidents involved ports and ships—Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, the British overseas territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and the West Bank. Additional alleged activity was reported in Azerbaijan, while maritime targets included vessels of the United States Navy and Thai-flagged ships operating in the region. [2]
The above page includes a detailed list of all of the above attacks [3] and caulaties [4]. More ally citizens have been killed than U.S. military personel.
Trump even threatened to bomb an ally at one point:
> President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Oman - a US ally - if it "gets in the way" of his administration's own talks with Iran, Fox News reports. [5]
And now the war is expanding, with the Saudis, a U.S. ally, being attacked:
> Yemen's Tehran-backed Houthis attacked four cities in the south of U.S. ally Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, wounding more than 70 people and setting oil installations ablaze. [6]
The Saudis and even some of our European allies are restricting U.S. air traffic [7]
3) and are making other accomodations
Regional powers are making alliances amongst themselves, alliances that do not include the Unites States:
> The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, formally the Mecca Defence Alliance, is a defence pact between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey signed into force on 7 August 2026 [8]
4)reducing U.S. influence in the region and beyond
China is using this as an opportunity to increase their influence in the region:
> Iran expresses willingness to continue diplomatic negotiations but vows to defend its sovereignty firmly, appreciating China's role in regional peace and seeking deeper cooperation with China. [9]
The U.S. has shown itself as incapable of securing shipping in this straight, and, by implication, other strategic straights. Countries have seen how having U.S. bases in their territories become a liability, drawing enemy fire, enemy fire that the U.S. is not able to intercept. This will echo for a loong time.
A large part of U.S. influence, and related military and economic power, was build-up over 80 years. Eighty Years of alliances and goodwill. And all that is very much in decline.
Agreed, if id becomes madatory for voting then an appropriate id needs to be provided for free, otherwise it is effectively a poll tax, and poll taxes are illegal.
Crimes can be investigated without always-on survellience. Like has been done for decades.
Are all these deployed cameras actually solving crimes? What are the numbers? Aren't there already a bunch of other ways to track cars, like onstar sim chips?
Always-on survellience is always abused. It's already abused by US police officers. tracking their x-wives for example, the new boyfriends, etc. And there's room for much worse. Many of us grew up hearing about things that totalitarian communist governments were doing. The East German's would have loved to have such technologies.
New capabilities are being rolled out by flock- facial recognition and bluetooth tracking, for example.
This seems to be another example of the government contracting with private companies to do things that would be illegal for the government to do themselves.
Historically stuff like this ends up being abused by the establishment. facial recognition in Hong Kong. Protesters dissappeared. Stingray phone tracking in Portland. Protesters picked up by black SUVs. Freezing bank accounts in Ottawa. ICE deporting people without due process. Just keeps getting worse.
Think of all the modern niceties we enjoy that protesters earned. Will protesters of the future stand a chance when everyone is tracked all the time?
> It is a product of outside Chinese money being funneled into US politics to hobble the US in Artificial Intelligence
Or this could be Russian propaganda, to manipulate US opinion against China in this case. What are your sources?
Without evidence to the contrary, the prevailing narrative is more likely correct- people have been told by the tech titans that AI will change everything and they'll loose their jobs, so they don't like it.
In fact, whoever is saying the Chinese are tricking Americans may be trying to get more people to support US big-tech's AI build-out (or stock market bubble) by appealing to nationlism - that the Chinese will get us. A double cross.
Lots of people are scared of those who are different or unfamiliar. They live in their own bubble - prefering homogenous suburbs, non-poor office workers, algorithmic feeds for their cognitive biases, etc.
And fear, whether real or induced by manipulation, has precipitated a -lot- of atrocities in the world.
Sounds like enough to pay some people for some months or a year or two - a combination of experts, part-time specialists, cotractors, etc. - to do things like gather some data via their contacts, hack together a meta-study, put out a glossy report andsome press releases, etc.
I think the bigger point is that there's an overwhelming amount of money going to push the opposite narrative. A quick search revealed that Tyson alone spends well over a million annually on lobbying and I am sure the industry at large spends significantly more on this issue alone.
Ah, I was more focused on the effectiveness as opposed to the quantity, i.e. if you have a million dollars, that could be decent way to spend it, given the world we live in.
I see what you are saying - that it's not enough compared to what the other side spends.
It is well known that China is still engaged in trade with Russia- oil and gold going one way, drones and weapon components going the other.
But you said funding, and I assume you meant things like grants or loans. Do you have any sources for that? I could only find one that was attributed to indirect open source intelligence, nothing specific.
Russia has been trading with a number of countries[0]. Mostly China, but also significantly with India, Turkey and the EU, and in much lesser amounts with 30+ other countries, including the US, the UK, UAE, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, etc.
I don't know if the above data helps to make your original point or not. Would you say that all those countries are funding the Russian war against Ukraine? Perhaps they do so for a combination of various reasons - energy and food needs, business profits, other self-interests, don't care, etc.
Wouldn't a country pushing for global conflict - really global - sow disorder by doing things like: break up alliances, threaten annexations, back illiberal poitical movements, disrupt shipping, disrupt free trade, disrupt energy supplies, start and foment regional wars, etc? Given that all countries tend to do things like this to one extent or another, how many of these things has China done, and how does that compare to other similarly capable countries?
I would say that China is asserting itself as a regional power, like with a navy that threatens Taiwan but can't project power much further than that, wouldn't turn into a global conflict unless other global powers feel so threatened they make it one. Maybe just a play on fear, for power and profit. War-mongering. Wouldn't be the first time.
EDIT: And look at how China has been "funded" China (via trade) over the last three decades... ironic!
reply