The Iran Nuclear Crisis Explained - TLDR News
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ม.ค. 2020
- TLDR US: / tldrnewsus
Trump's Iran Plan: • What's Trump's Strateg...
Discord: / discord
Following recent developments, some are beginning to worry about the nuclear future of Iran. With the country dropping out of their nuclear commitments they are now free to develop nuclear technology, whether that be domestic or military. In this video, we discuss what's happened and why a nuclear Iran could be on the horizon.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
TLDR Pin Badge Store: www.tldrnews.c...
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk...
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by one person with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
Argentinean here:
"Wait... We are a nuclear nation?!! O_o"
Las plantas de Atucha son nucleares
No realmente. Tenemos centrales civiles pero nuestras centrales utilizan uranio en una concentracion muy baja, de alrededor del 3,5% para una bomba necesitas 90% de concentración y no es fácil purificar el uranio necesitas unas plantas centrifugas que no tenemos. Lo bueno de esto es que nuestras centrales son mas económicas y el daño de un potencial desastre es reducido dado el poco material que usamos.
Como dato curioso entre los años 50-70 tuvimos un programa nuclear con el objetivo de producir uranio de alta concentración para hacer la bomba pero se abandono en parte por la derrota de malvinas y en parte porque no tenia mucho sentido ganarse el odio de toda la comunidad internacional si en ese momento no habia una amenaza de invasión contra el país.
juimpa You have reactors... no bombs, but with the state of your military I doubt you could even store them so it’s probably for the best
Me:What is all this
Not a fan of this TLDR EU/TLDR US separation, I much rather have a single unified channel.
Democratic Centralism
I actually prefer it that wayyy
All they are doing is split the viewership
Nah I think it's better this way.
Not everyone will be concerned about another country's political affairs ie some uk viewers will not care as much about specific things that happen in Congress. And vise versa
Same, id prefer one channel too and we just watch the videos we r interested in
If we're being brutally honest, the Iranian regime's best hope for survival is to acquire nuclear weapons. Note how the US isn't targeting North Korean generals.
North Korean generals aren't leaving North Korea to help finance and coordinate proxies. North Korea mostly keeps to itself as well while Iran is meddling with all it's neighbors. Remember General Salami was in Iraq where the embassy attacked happened when President Trump decided to end their spat on Instagram.
@ShamanMcLamie The embassy "attack" was literally a group of protesters who wanted US troops out, not some Iranian staged attack on the embassy itself. America reached out to Iran for diplomacy talks and thus arranged for “Salami” (Soleimani) to be in Iraq. Instead he got assasinated, a blatant violation of the Geneva convention and thus a war crime. Furthermore, America have been meddling with Iranian affairs since before the American staged coup of 1953. Please get your facts straight.
The US is using legal loopholes to execute people they don't like around the world. These loopholes however are not unlimited. Their target must be someone of whom the US can say he's a terrorist (by their own interpretation of that word and not necessarily providing any evidence). North Korean officials are many things but they are not immediate terroristic threats to the US in any way. That's why they can't execute them.
@@ShamanMcLamie That's because they don't need to NK is China's Rabid attack dog, they're how China can be aiming nukes at the US without China technically aiming nukes at the US. And China is acting in other countries and fighting proxy wars, pretty much everywhere.
That reminds me of Gandhi Archduke JFK and Rasputin.
You seem to be working on the presumption that everything the USA says is true. It's clear from the comments section that the viewers on your channel don't feel that way - and with good reason.
MisterPeterColeman Quote on quote: “Here TLDR News is an unbiased news channel, but hey, before some of you in the comment sections start ranting about how we are biased, We are really not. We bring the news to u.” Can’t remember which video that was but it surely made me dislike it
Not just him....people like Vee, Sargon and the rest are uniformly behind the killing of civilians, believing worse lies than WMD and not even remembering how WW1 started. They, including TLDR also forgot who cancelled the deal. I'm only saying: in harsh times, the devil unmasks himself.
Let me beat everyone else to it: Wow TLDR really pushed to make to get this one over the 10 minute mark...
TLDR News there’s no TLDR US link in the description 00:45
@@RoloC4 Framing Iran's nuclear program as a "threat" to the rest of the world ignores the situation where the USA has been saber raddling at Iran since before either you or I were born, and the fact that they are the only shia muslim country in the world
@@gonfftheprince Iraq: Am I a joke to you?!
Now that TLDR EU is a thing. Maybe you can do a video on the EU's response to Iran now ignoring the Iran Deal.
Your defensive attitude really doesn’t help anyone.
4:17
"Their two thousand - unf - and three" who punched Jack in the middle of the recording, and why did they keep it in? 😱
Appears they got the year wrong - by the sounds of it, the original recording was 2004 - hence the unf.
I'd have re-recorded the 2003 bit myself but sometimes deadlines means corners are cut
@@TheMixCurator I know, but that's not nearly as fun of a setup for a joke.
I come from a country without nuclear weapons and it pisses me of when nuclear powers go on a hissy fit when country without nuclear weapons wants to make one. Get rid of your nuclear weapons and then preach.
You do realize without the WMD, it will only increase the chance of conventional conflict right?
I cant agree more. All countries should also remove weapons.
Wow is this a disappointing coverage. You obviously never actually read the JCPOA (The Iran Nuclear Deal) and skipped over how amazingly well done it was. You skipped over the differences in the two embargos (the first not being accepted by most nations and allowing companies in countries that did sign up to sell to Iran from their subsidiaries in non-agreeing countries). You skipped over the effectiveness of the second embargo. Most embarrassingly you never even mentioned the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treat which both the old and new Iranian governments signed and whose non-compliance was the reason for the boycotts and which the JCPOA was designed to enforce. You didn't even mention the change in government both in the 1950s by the overthrow of the Iranian government by MI-6 and the CIA and the religious revolution that overthrew the monarchy.
Seriously, did you do more than spend 10 minutes researching this?
I think you should have done this film.....
It's called TLDR for a reason mate. They aren't meant to go into every fucking detail ever.
Make a channel
Hire this guy tldr, even your titles way too inflammatory for the topic.
@@davidbodor1762 These are not just "details". They are in fact one of the most crucial events that led Iran to its current situation. Without mentioning them you can't cover the topic even in the slightest. So no, TL DR doesn't apply in these topics. You HAVE to include them
I don't know why but I really like the shape of Iran. It just looks nice.
It looks neat I guess
Looks like steak
Thicc
I don't know why but I agree with you.
You should see the topology of the country. Chunky mountains everywhere! Which is why its such a bastard to try and invade with foot soldiers.
I'm a bit confused why this video presents the White House as a reliable source
Who said it was reliable? ;)
@@TheDethBringer666 the video implied it was
Hope everyone's ready for Cold War 2: Iranian Boogaloo
The cold war has already begun. The sanctions against a country that abides by the treaty are a typical cold war strategy. Get prepared for Iraq III, only this time it will be in Iran, and it will be about three times bigger.
@@andresvillarreal9271 As long as the cold war status can be kept, the situation can be put under control once Trump leaves and a competent person follows.
Seriously hoping that this doesn't erupt into a full on war.
Not cold war, JIHAD!!!
@ I am almost certain that you don't even understand the word Jihad. This is not a war between Islamists and people of other religions. This is a war between a country that is abiding by international treaties and agreements and a country that wants war just for the spoils of war, and who is stomping on the international agreements just because they do not permit crybaby Trump to have his war.
Shadowwolf TD5000 probably not that cold though. And with the potential of nukes in absolute worst case it could be world wide catastrophe. Remember North Korea is escalating as well.
This title and approach seems pretty geopolitically biased in favor of the US and against Iran.
Given the current circumstances I don't exactly think it's unreasonable for Iran to want nuclear weapons... note that having them has been working for North Korea thus far in terms of keeping the Americans from blowing up their officials or attempting a regime change war.
Global polling indicates (and has for well over a decade) that the US is seen as the single greatest threat to world peace, by the majority of citizens in most countries around the world... outdoing all other nations. So if we are talking about who is "a nuclear threat", global opinion would seem to say "the US" is #1. Given what was, in my opinion, recent reckless and internationally illegal actions by the Trump Adminsitration, this concern would seem to be somewhat justified. According to reports from defence officials in the US, Trump picked the most extreme option they put infront of him, to their surprise. This proves, for many, that Trump will make extreme and violent decisions with regard to international confrontation... If his tweets about potentially committing war crimes aren't proof enough. So why Iran is being discussed in this context as the danger to the world and not the US Administration I'm not sure.
Producing videos like this one a "US good... opposition bad" basis is poor geopolitical coverage, and resembles the rhetoric of the US government and much of its media itself. There is a reason the United Nations Secretariat makes an extensive effort to remain impartial in international relations. As with most things, the geopolitical situation isn't that black and white, and should be approached with much more skeptism about the narratives accepted in any one country or group of countries.
You are talking sense!
Thank you, I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed this.
But who would you rather have nuclear weapons? America or Iran?
@@bobdigi500 Both.
@@Bigbadbo121 hmmm Iran with nuclear weapons. What could go wrong!
"Could Iran become a nuclear threat?" I would have said no . . . until the US bombed their general.
Nuclear THREAT?! WTF guys, they are the ones being attacked, get your timeline straight
Really? They have spent the last year raiding tankers, holding our navy sailors hostage, shooting down our drones that are in international waters, sponsoring terrorism all across the region, and attacking our embassy in Iraq. Iran has been doing nothing but aggressive and we spent way to long appeasing them. It's about time we started putting up deterrents again.
@@blakecasey6208 It's because you pulled out of the deal they started doing this stuff. Also a lot of it was targeted at Saudi Arabia, which is because Iran and Arabia have been in a sort of cold war of their own for decades.
@@DaDunge All the deal did was give them a ton of money and a 10 year hold on their nuclear program. So inbn reality they could simply keep building their rockets and then when the deadline was up throw the warheads on them. We got nothing out of the deal so why would we stay in it just so we can help Iran further its own regional power? As I have stated before, appeasement never works.
@@blakecasey6208 Eh no Iran gave up massive amounts of enriched Uranium, something like 90% of their stockpiles. And without the deal they can start doing that today or rather the moment the US withdrew from the treaty. instead of 7 years from now.
TLDR News US: Am I a joke to you?
It should. It's better tp have everything in one channel anyway
Tl;dr
Iran: You are a saucy boy
USA: What you egg? (Hits him)
Young fry of treachery
Iran: "Our nuclear program is for civilian use and totally peaceful"
The rest of the world: "I press X"
Your videos about Britain are much better than that.
That's really too simplistic to understand the crisis.
How can you explain Iran's situation without talking about it's internal politics or it's foreign policy?
How can you make a historic overview since the 1950's and not even talk about the Islamic Revolution?
Hugues Jouffrai , he didnt even mention the sanctions, also perhaps he should also compare and contrast with USA enrichment levels. The hypocrisy makes me sick, he should also add that the only country in world to use nukes is USA. And it wasn’t just one but two, both on civilians
I don't see a problem with an independent nation trying to develop a nuclear program. Just because the US got there first doesn't mean they have the right to dictate to the rest of the world who and who can't have a program.
this Brexit video got weird !!!
Lol
Why you didn't mentioned that EU countries (and US) did not Comply their commitments and they have just been literally always supportive of the Deal - This was the reason of Iran's pull-out after years .
Actually the EU countries kept their part, it's just the US threatened sanctions against EU companies who traded with Iran, which made for quite a hassle for companies to trade with Iran. What were we supposed to do? Go into a trade war with the US. Seriously breaking the agreement now is a bad idea, if you had kept your side of the bargain the next US president if a democrat might easily have returned the US to the existing treaty, but you doing stuff to get back at them makes it harder for them to do so.
@@DaDunge After United States withdrawal from the JCPOA, EU published many Joint statement and promised Iran, They will buy Iran Oil, They will implement INSTEX (EU version of Swift), invest in Iran and much more, Iran waited 2 years with no benefit. these are not mentioned in the Video and its not fair
There I was, hoping that Trump would finish his four years without risking to get the US into yet another war. Goddammit Donald, you were so close!
An American president is an American president, whether it's a goat or chicken in office an American president will always do what American presidents have always done.Which is go to war somewhere somehow.
We Didn't Want Nuclear Weapon
But Now We Want to build Nuclear Weapon Seriously
Well, considering that nukes seem to be the only working deterrant for US aggression, i wonder why...
@Matt Horkan ANd the US spent the last 50-60 years fucking up every country they could. For their own greedy intentions. When they were asked to come and help, they rather went after oil, to fuck up those places and get oil, and when they werent asked to come, they come to get what the great country USA needs. Not gettin it by trade, but by force.
Why dose it matter if a country has nuclear capabilities ? Like everyone in that group has nuclear weapons except Iran why is it they are fine having them but Iran can't ?
Because the countries which have nuclear power have signed treaties to limit the spread of the weapons.
They don't want them having an effective deterrent that's all the treaties are for, i don't blame Iran for backing out on the deal with the US seemingly threatning to invade.
Fredrik Dunge well tell the US to throw away their *thousands* of Nukes. If they wanna stop the spread of nuclear weapons, why don’t they start with their own country
1 word. Dictatorship
Dakota Napier Iran wants the weapon to threaten others and they are ready to use the bomb not like others
Meanwhile in Activision: Quick we need a level set in Tehran!
I think the animosity from Iran towards literally all its neighbors who stand up to it, ongoing hatred of western and jewish world bears mentioning, from this video you could never tell that Iran was constantly threatening everyone. Not to mention to brushed over the Persia-Iran transition, its not the same country, the regimes are totally different.
Or the fact that it was Iran that backed the sectarian violence in Iraq after we toppled Saddam
It’s a very bizarre situation, those who consider themselves on the left are seemingly defending a tyrant because ‘Orange man bad’.
Looks like it’s no matter what.
Maajid Nawaz said that a lot of leftists would come out to defend Soleimani and Iran in the hunt for woke brownie points from brown people.
I think this video was rushed, most YTubers don’t know what’s going on, I certainly don’t. I just find it interesting watching people’s reactions and how quick they are to defend/slate someone if it can possibly help with their ‘cause’.
Lesser Spotted Mugwump. No ones defending Iran’s regime, they just don’t think anyone should go round the world assassinating people and escalating tensions.
BattlestarZenobia I’ve heard a lot of the Hollywood Twitter maniacs defending them.
I wasn’t saying the average person who has done even 10 seconds of research.
Just the blue check marks etc...
There will be a few comments on this video that come across as pro-tyrant, you’ll see.
I’m not saying it’s a good or bad thing, the timing with the impeachment looming is a bit convenient. But to take an ideological side on this? It’s a bit crazy.
@@lesserspottedmugwump.363 You might wanna be careful with your "woke brownie points from brown people" or you'll be seen as racist.
I really don't get how this is even a discussion. Let's put aside the moral downsides of this assassination - we shouldn't, because it's a fuckign warcrime, but still - who actually benefits from this? The USA are getting kicked out of Iraq (their refusal is yet another crime against a foreign sovereign state), anti-Americanism in the region reaches a new height, Iran is (rightfully) pulling out of any obligations regarding their nuclear program. And some generals will simply take Soleimeni's place
I mean, what was supposed to happen: The complete Iranian regime cowers in fear of the airstrikes, submitting to the US completely? In one moment their fanatic lunatics who'd use nuclear bombs on others despite the self-destructiveness of such an act, in the next their submissive cowards who'd be forced to do right by a drone strike.
Doesn't make any fucking sense, but so does little what Trump does.
It’s almost like Trump should have stuck to the deal and not assasinated the Iranian general
No mention of the hypocrisy in the fact that all the other members of the agreement are in possession of nuclear weapons with the possible exception of Germany itself listed as a nuclear weapons sharing member of NATO.
On the contrary these countries have all signed the non nuclear proliferation treaty hence why they are involved. Everyone who has nukes have signed agreements that they will not give them to others.
@@DaDunge They're already in possession of nukes. The U.S. has thousands of Nukes.
A non brexit video :D
From Brexit to a international nuclear crisis. Yay, i guess? :p
@@WhichDoctor1 yaay
Love your content, would be easier to keep up with all the channels if there was a website or something? (I'm terrible w computers and don't understand whether this is viable or not) Keep up the awesome work!
Iran should not have agreed to the deal and just developed nukes
What right does the USA and EU have to restrict them?
Outrage.
They want a deterrent for a start
Very dissappointed that you did not explain the context of US and UK imperialist history and hostility towards Iran, the military coup of their democratically elected leader, sanctions targeting civilians and aimed at stoking civil unrest and so on.
Neutrality isn't objectivity. He said she said doesn't elucidate a problem but muddles it further.
I would love this channel to reveal the status quo, not protect it by simply listing valid and invalid perspectives. To say that CIA stated something and not even hinting at how much they lie to aid the US geopolitical and imperial interests is spineless and thoroughly disappointing.
My question is why is everyone after Iran for their nuclear program while they are completely fine with other countries such as isreal
“Nucular?” Really?
Great video :)
Maybe more explanations of the historic background would have been helpful to understand the situation even better!
Yeah I think it would have been important to highlight the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah. The way the video stands it seems like Iran were friendly with the US and up and out of nowhere the US was slapping sanction on Iran.
@@ShamanMcLamie Exactly! And I think especially in this kind of video format they can take their time.
we live in world where international politics means US demands other states to do something( that hurts them but helps or at least costs US nothing) and when they finally agrees to it( no pressure were all allies after all) US then changes its mind and condemns the thing they pushed for and demanded one minute ago and says they never agreed to it in first place and unilaterally blockades the country in question, move its troops across the world to its border( theyre the new enemy of humanity who often happens to posses surprising amount of oil) and starts targeting and killing its politicians and citizens that need to be killed( cos someone in US objectively thinks so) and cries US are under attack and calls for deescalation...
and thats not against Trump cos Obama both Bushes and Clinton behaved exactly the same and Killary would be no different( based on her campaign shed be prolly even worse)
All I want to point out is look what happened to Iraq, Libya, and Syria when they had no nukes compared to what happened to North Korea who has them. Rule of Law has been subverted by Rule of the Strong. Don't criticize Iran for just playing the game.
Civil Wars broke out in Syria and Libya. It wasn't like Iraq where the US just up and decided to invade and that was partly do to the post 9/11 hysteria. As to North Korea even if they didn't have nukes the regime would likely still be in power. The US normally doesn't like to rush into war and the main reason the US invaded Iraq was partly do to hysteria after the 9/11 attacks. If it wasn't for 9/11 odds are Saddam would still be running Iraq. Another reason is North Korea has a lot artillery aimed at South Korea and really the main reason the US has a presence in the Korean Peninsula is to defend South Korea from North Korea. It's really South Korea's call on whether to risk war with North Korea not the United States. Also even if Iran develops a nuclear bomb.
Iran would be insane not to have a few nukes hidden away. If so, well done - you handled it a lot better than N.Korea.
The 2015 deal isn't "infamous" unless you limit yourself to rather unadvisable circles. "Controversial", if we are feeling generous, but hardly "infamous".
Whats the point of having so many channels?
more views = more revenue
@@iwannabentley More chanells does not corelate to more views.
@@Languslangus lol. What! Of course it would.. If you, me and uncle Sam watched both channels then that's more just by that.
@@iwannabentley no, because viewes are mesured per video.
A needed video, thank you!
You've made serious factual mistakes on how fast Iran can build nuclear weapons. " develope weapons within months " is a joke. You serious underestimate how hard it is to make nuclear weapons.
Bro it’s 4:04 the US video cannot be found
Funny how you mentioned the drone strike to kill a general but not the attack on a USA embassy that he coordinated
TRUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Many people don't know this truth because the Media won't talk about it
Why isn't there this amount of outrage for the death of every soldier.?
Ann Simpson and for the death of each Arab killed by Sulemani. Uuuh, hi hundreds.
No virtue points to claim with lost soldiers.
Why isn't there this amount of outrage for the death of every human being? Come on.
@Koolkid when a soldier enlists death awaits
For the same reason people find politics to be tiresome even in meme format, there's only so much outrage people can muster before they burn out and just accept it as normal.
I understand that you're trying to be balanced, and not make this video about bashing the current US administration, but I think you've swung *way* too far the opposite way in this video.
You describe a lot the flawed arguments against the nuclear deal, then contrast it with "some thought while the deal was not perfect, it at least was better than allowing Iran to continue unchecked", which is a very weaselly way of putting it, then you're immediately back on to Trump's POV. And you don't mention at all that the US also put sanctions against western companies that tried to trade with Iran.
Finally the end question "Do you think Iran is less of a threat, or that the deal was flawed anyway?" is a false dilemma and a leading question.
@Matt Horkan I'm no fan of Iran, but let's keep to the objective facts. Iran was complying with the JCPOA according to all signatories, the IAEA, and the freaking United States. To frame the situation as bad faith on Iran's part is a "gross misunderstanding of international politics".
The new channel is causing a TLDRexit
I completely love your animations
The 2015 deal had a 10 year sunset. It didn't solve anything. It was permission, with a slight delay, for iran to have a nuclear program.
Well, If I've learned something form ten years of cowboying and coughing, it's ten isarger than zero.
After the intro you can skip to 0:51 if you dont watch to watch the ad
Please watch at least 30s of the ad so TLDR can keep making videos.
New-Cular?
Calls it "Nuclear Threat" when it's about Iran, and calls it "Nuclear Power" when it's about US.
The biggest threat is the US itself; Wake up.
IR theorist Kenneth Waltz argued that a nuclear Iran would ensure stability in the Middle East. I definitely agree with that. Balancing Israel would reduce tensions in the Middle East. Also, if Israel never admitted nor denied to own nuclear weapons - and it doesn't seem to look like a threat to anyone - why shouldn't Iran feel free to act the same way? The US will probably answer that this is due to Iran support to terrorist groups, but I think this is kind of a prejudice or justification. Not to mention that it was the US which started helping Iran to develop its civilian nuclear program under the Eisenhower administration, in the 50s.
I like that you dont mention that somminali was a massive bastard of a human, who killed thousands of people under his command, killed poltical dissidents, us civilians ,soldiers if someone was to punch you over and over again you would fight back wouldn't you?
Please please please stop mispronouncing nuclear. It is pronounced *nu-clear* and not *nu-ke-lar*
it takes years of effort to create an infrastructure to manufacture a nuclear fuel
and then it takes many more years of running this infrastructure to enrich it enough to create a weapons-grade material
and even then you end up with just a uranium bomb, which is not as effective as plutonium bombs. Well, still quite effective (Hiroshima), but not as effective.
the easiest way to create a bomb is to run numerous small research reactors.
so blocking Iran's civilian projects doesn't really change anything - spent fuel from a nuclear power plant is way below a required level of enrichment, and way too contaminated with fission products. do remember those fission products make your bomb unstable and way less effective - so it's absolutely crucial to get rid of all of them in a bomb. If that would be easy to solve the problem of storing nuclear waste would be trivial to solve.
Those poor Iranian people. 90% of Iranians are against the radical government of Iran.🤦🏼♂️
It is a good video, but i'm afraid not very accurate. As an israeli's millitary correspondent, i can tell you that the iran nucleae issue is way more complicated and the deal was terrible.
It's let to the iranian put on hold the plan for 15 years, and then nothing could stoped them from getting a nuclear bombs.
Now the two words "future relationship" trigger me. Thanks brexit.
I can’t believe there’s so much support for Iran in the comments that is insane. They’re building a nuclear bomb. Imagine the people who are going to die because of an Iranian nuclear attack. It’s Hiroshima x10…. Go look at pictures of Hiroshima then you might refrain from posting your negligence.
I think Iran just wants to be taken seriously like the "bigger nations" who have nuclear weapons or ability to make them.
So why does the states wants Iran not to have nuclear power when they have nuclear power themselves. Additionally, What if Iran wanted to use the nuclear power for energy?
Check the news, they’ve attacked 2 US military bases in Iraq, whether this is an official declaration of war or not is another question though.
A drone strike is by definition an act of war. How could it possibly be interpreted otherwise?
NLTops it’s an act of sending an explosive dildo to a country saying suck it
You're the first British person I've heard call it "irAn" and not irAAAn
I’ve never heard anyone call it anything else. Americans say Iraq as eye-rack.
@@lesserspottedmugwump.363 You've never heard anyone say Iraq or Iran with a long A? Even when the Iraq war was happening?
Ethan Rajan No, but I’m from the north of England, vowels are said short and sharp. Maybe a few people with a very posh plummy accent have said it, but I’ve not noticed it.
I’ll probably hear it a lot more now I’m looking for it.
Nathan C Maybe you mean no English person? Or no southerner? There are many ‘British’ accents that don’t distinguish between ‘long a’ and ‘short a’.
@@nathanc2k9 I think people are talking about long and short 'a' sounds, which are mostly a feature of southern English dialects. For example, do the words 'maths' and 'baths' rhyme for you? If not, then which of these vowel sounds do you use in 'Iran'?
It is worth noting that this isn't just the western based issue that it is made out to be. If Iran does gain nuclear weapons then the tensions that already exist with their neighbour Pakistan regarding Balochistan and which type of Islam you follow (but mostly held in check by China) then have the potential if hostilities broke out to become the world's first atomic war.
I'm not a fan of the multiple channels. I don't see why your content is divided over multiple channels
When this video was released, the missile strike on US bases hadn't happened yet.
Wow, you forgot the most crucial caveat of the deal (and I support the deal, but still): it's limited to 10-15 years (different parts have different duration). The opponents of the deal claimed that lifting the sanctions allowed Iran to "breath" again (financially), and that in 10-15 years they'll be working on nuclear weapons once again. These people claimed that giving a final push with the sanctions would have gotten Iran to make much greater concessions. I'm not sure they're right, but it is a crucial point and you should mention it in the video.
Great summary of the important stuff, thank you! Just one thing, you keep alternating between pronouncing "nuclear" and "nucular", quite inconsistent, and only one is correct.
You know, the nuclear deal solved something, meanwhile Trump's withdrawal of the deal has only caused more and more problems.
Could we have an Iran pin badge:)
CrazyKangaroo81 because they execute Gays and deny their existence and humanity. You wanna support that?
@@williamwhisenant1494 They could go to supporting good causes in Iran, like moderates.
William Whisenant there is a lot of good things in Iran too and I’d want the badge to stand for that, if you read what the media tells you about Iran it’s easy to create an imaginary hell in your mind of what it looks like but the fact is that it’s a nice place with inadequate leaders :)
William Whisenant well maybe because they’re an “Islamic Republic” and they’re governed by their faith and wish to live an ideal Muslim life. Despite it being harsh, it’s only their culture and faith. And if u don’t obey by the faith, u don’t obey by the countries law. Hence best it’d be to leave
What's a Nucular?
Mitchell Vaughan stfu
It means hiroshima and nagasaki. I lied btw
The Treaty of Versailles banned Germany from having an Air Force. So they had flying clubs instead that turned into the Luftwaffe. France will never learn.
What does France have to do with anything?
The Treaty of Versailles took more then 70 percent of Hungary's land and gave it away. While there are still Hungarians who live on those lands.
I’ve liked a lot of your coverage before, but this is really irresponsible. Little distinction between development of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons til the end, nor mention of the fatwah (ban) against nuclear weapons some years ago, the changes in government and alliances in the time line you cover, calling it ‘Iran’s Nuclear Crisis’, not mentioning that the countries which said they didn’t go along with the US with ditching the deal also did nothing to oppose the US, nor even the Stucksnet attack. The problem is not whether Iran will or will not develop a nuclear weapon but whether the assassination of Suleimani will trigger conventional attacks and escalation of war and death in the area. Triple 👎
Anyone else hear lots of background static noise within this video?
Nope
I didn’t. I’d check your speakers.
That's the sound of Iran enriching uranium as we speak
I hate to be the negitive nancy but at what point does the EU kick there US relationship to curb?
It seems like partnering with trump is just bad for all sides right now.
Why would Europe trade the United States who they have historically been on friendly terms with, share common values rooted in Western culture, has major economic interests with the US the world's largest economy for a dirt poor middle Eastern Theocracy who are opposed to Western values. One President they don't like who is only going to serve 8 years at most is not worth throwing away such a long standing relationship.
@@ShamanMcLamie ... didn't say trade... i said drop.
As in cut "partner" to protect itself.
I think the US needs the Eurpean Economy more then Europe needs the US military.
@@joshuaghozeil8061 The thing is the US is sanctioning any firm that does business with Iran. Meaning any European business that works with Iran will lose access to US markets and financial systems which would be a huge blow for any business. This is why US sanctions are so effective because no business capable of doing business with Iran is willing to lose out on the far far larger US markets. Aside from the huge economic blow cutting all military ties with the US would deeply sour relations. Also you do know that if the US invades Iran non of it's allies have to join it. There just isn't much if any benefit for Europe in cutting ties with the US, especially over a third world Islamic Theocracy.
@@ShamanMcLamie how do i rephrase this....
I am supprised europe havn't told both countries to shove off.
The USA's market isn't the largest.
That honour is china with india right on the heels.
UN sanctions are not bad because of the US they are bad because they are the us, eu, bits of south america, austrilia, ...
Regardless of my feelings about any country, I think it’s completely hypocritical for nuclear powers to demand other countries not to produce nuclear weapons...
Just let Iran join the international community.... but no... the US will stop everything...
5:20 China is part of the deal too but is not mentioned in your chart.
The fundamental problem with the Iran Deal is it was Obama's personal project against bipartisan objections from both sides. So it made it very easy for any future President, especially politically opposed to Obama to up and leave the deal. Obama foolishly believed his party was ascendant and that his party was guaranteed to keep winning the White House and preserve his legacy. Had Obama garnered bipartisan support and better yet put it up for a Senate vote reversing any agreement with Iran would have been far more politically difficult to reverse although granted it would have been far more difficult to achieve.
ShamanMcLamie hussshhhhhh they don’t like putting in the effort when there’s faults on the leftish side of things
Actually due to changes to the voting rules in the house and the filibuster rules in the senate bipartisanship in the US is dead.
Who made those changes?
@@DaDunge The House voting rules as far as I know haven't changed and the House has nothing to do with treaties. In the Constitution it is specified 2/3 of the Senate is required for treaty ratification. The filibuster is not a Constitutional rule, but a Senate Rule and the filibuster was only removed for Presidential nominations to the Executive and Judiciary.
Obama got around the Senate by calling the JCPOA an executive agreement instead of a treaty and never submitted an treaty to the Senate to ratify. Executive Agreements are normally meant for short term, military agreements. It's not so much a commitment from the United States as it is a commitment from the President. A deal that significant really should have been treated as a treaty, but odds are it would never have passed the Senate so Obama looked to circumvent it by calling it an Executive Agreement instead. Obama did the same thing with the Paris Climate Accord. It's not shocking both agreement so overwhelmingly unpopular with the opposition was overturned by a successive President from the opposition.
@@ShamanMcLamie Not the removal of the filibuster but the increased right to fillibuster. Today you don't actually need to speak to fillubuster, all you need to do is state your intention to fillibuster. And unless your opponent got a 2/3rds majority it means the bill is held in the senate indefinitely.
In the end the best way to ensure that a country will not use nuclear weapons against other countries is making sure they're lead by a government that wouldn't use them unprovoked. Which Iran might have had if America and UK hadn't thought that overthrowing the Iranian government in an attempt to control their oil was a good idea. It makes it hard to support Trumps actions knowing that the USA is partially to blame for the entire mess.
Can I admire how WW1 started because of an assassination and WW2 happened due to mistreatment.
I mean, Iran’s situation is far different to that of the German one in both of these wars.
Nebulon Gaming well the US has been Sanctioning Iran severely over time
You forgot to mention Stuxnet ;)
Could you touch upon the 1.7 billion dollars that Obama sent to Iran in cash in unmarked bills and what was that for?
Also forgot to mention that US attacked after their embassy was attacked by Iran
The value of the massive amount of Uranium the Iranians gave up?
@@DaDunge Nah, i guess he means the 1.7b settlement of the case in front of the Hague Tribunal.
In short? Iran bought military equippment and put the money in a trust, to be given to the US on delivery. Instead of delivering, the US froze diplomatic relations as well as the trust, effectively stealing the money. The 1.7b are the money stolen, over 30 years of interest and lower end of fines the tribunal would have awarded Iran.
As for the "US attacked after their embassy was attacked by Iran". That attack were Iraqi violently protesting after the US bombed and killed 45 Iraqi soldiers fighting ISIS willy-nilly.
(because allegedly 1! US mercenary was killed. No evidence presented. Neither about who is responseble for the killing, nor if a killing even happend. Instead the US instantly bombed the soldiers)
iran has been in sanctions for many years lifting sanctions is certainly not enough. war booty to recompense is needed. after all y do u arm urselfs? for when they violate. dont be bummish do ur dos.
I don't see the tldr us link in the description fyi
Kittel it pops up top right of the screen or just search it or it’s in the outtro
@@ethanbaker22 I do realise, I'm just letting them know
We support the IRAN ...
*Iranian bot detected*
Wow. A whole video on Iran's nuclear program without once mentioning Stuxnet. Stick to UK politics boys.
Well if there is bloodshed you can only blame trump for pulling out of the deal which escalated this problem in the first place
An excellent video! You really managed to make this un-biased, and present the cold facts. Not exactly what you'll find elsewhere...
I'm afraid that they miss some important facts
@@user-fs5mt7gu6i I'm sure they do, but it's also limited what you can squeeze into a 10 minutes video. Do you have a link to an article or video they you believe cover it in more detail?
@FKnoph unfortunately not in english (i didn't see one. Maybe fox news did something). Only in hebrew. I can search for you one in english if you want
@@user-fs5mt7gu6i I for one would be interested in an English version of a Hebrew article - originating in Isreal i guess?
@@FKnoph i put here two articles from israeli specialists in the iran nuclear deal/program.
I wish you'll find it informtive enough
It's scary that Trump has made first North Korea look like the good guys and now Iran.
That takes talent.
He really hasn't, but ok npc
@@jackwood7726 you're wrong by the simple fact that opinions are subjective and you can't account for the whole world
@@colddripgaming A very very small amount, of very very vocal people
Mmhmm
That moment when Iran launches strikes on US bases after TLDR post this video.
BREXIT FREE CONTENT? HOW DARE YOU?!
Talk about the Iran home political crisis.
Not a word about Stuxnet? was that too long to include?
wish you guys didn't separate everything by channels
Pretending that your nuclear program is for civilian use is a joke considering the growing potential for solar power
Well it's a joke because they sit on a lake of oil. They can barely provide energy and gasoline for their people, but are investing their oil revenue in a Nuclear program?
We're facing climate change, so we're not exactly fine with Iran drilling and burning all this oil. Renewable energy like solar is nice and it's getting better, but you need to have infrastructure (batteries) in place because they're not that reliable. In Iran maybe not so as in Europe because of the climate, but still, nuclear has its pros.
@@Bravo-oo9vd not to mention that nuclear technologies arn't limited to electricity and bombs. But you can't research in that areas without working reactors and the abilety to alter the exact composition of the fuel, requiering enrichment plants.
Hey TLDR, do you have an e-mail I can use to contact you guys?