There is a narrative that the JCPOA is flawed because it didn’t eliminate Iran’s *intent* to pursue nuclear weapons. It was not meant to. It was designed to incentivize Iran to not *act* on that intent, and detect it quickly and punish it severely if it did so. It was working.
I mean how would you eliminate intent anyway? Other than installing a puppet. (Which always works out so well.)
-
-
(Specifically, eliminating intent as an external entity. I can imagine setting up circumstances that would result in them internally eliminating intent, but they'd take time — things like mutual trust.)
-
I'm confused. In decades of discussions about Sov/Russian nuclear forces, we were told intent was not relevant, we had to focus on capabilities because intent could change on a dime. But for Iran, the problem was we focused on capabilities and ignored intent????? Yeah, right.
-
. That.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also, does Iran have an intent to get nukes? Can we speak of states as unitary? How does our behavior impact a supposed intent that is clumpily distributed in various intensities amongst policy elites and mass public?
-
Right now I'd settle for most media acknowledging that the US pulled out of the deal.
-
Oh yeah we’re doomed. I should really finish my PhD out of the country.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.