It is starting to leak, 24 Billion for a cease fire.

Diogenes said:
Grok notes:

Fact-Check Assessment​


  • Unverified by Nature: The article itself flags the lack of independent verification or official confirmation from either side. This aligns with standard journalistic caution when handling leaked drafts from adversarial state media like Mehr News (which is close to the Iranian government and often used for signaling or controlled leaks).
  • Plausible in Broader Context: Elements echo real historical patterns in Iran-US/ nuclear talks (e.g., sanctions relief for nuclear limits, frozen assets, Hormuz tensions, proxy issues). Mentions of Trump, recent conflicts, and mediators (Pakistan/Qatar) fit ongoing geopolitical narratives around 2025–2026 tensions. However, specific details like exact $24B/$300B figures, exclusions for missiles/proxies, or timelines appear to be unconfirmed assertions from the Iranian side at the time of publication.
  • No Major Fabrications Found in Reporting: Iran International accurately attributes the claims to Mehr News and notes caveats. Cross-checks with other sources (via searches) show similar diplomatic rumors circulating, but no authoritative confirmation of this exact draft. Conflicting statements (e.g., US emphasis on performance-based/no upfront money vs. Iranian demands) are common in such negotiations and highlighted in the piece.
  • Potential for Bias/Spin: The outlet amplifies opposition-leaning context (e.g., hardliner backlash in Iran, expert quotes skeptical of the regime). This doesn't invalidate the core reporting on Mehr's publication but shapes emphasis.


Overall, the article is transparent about sourcing and does not present the draft as confirmed fact. The "story" is real in that Mehr published it; its accuracy as a reflection of actual negotiations remains unverified as of the article's date.


Reasons for Skepticism Toward Iran International as a Source​


Iran International (a London-based Persian-language news outlet targeting Iranians) is frequently viewed with caution, particularly by those seeking "neutral" sources, due to its ownership, funding history, and editorial stance:


  • Saudi Funding/Links: Multiple investigations (e.g., The Guardian 2018) reported substantial Saudi backing, including ~$250 million startup funding tied to figures close to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). Ownership traces to Volant Media UK Ltd, linked to Saudi-British investors. Recent reports (e.g., Financial Times 2026) detail massive debt relief (~£650m/$870m) involving entities with Saudi ties, though the outlet denies direct government funding and claims editorial independence and private investors.
  • Anti-Regime Opposition Stance: It strongly opposes the Islamic Republic, amplifies dissident voices, and has been accused of pushing regime-change narratives. It promotes figures like Reza Pahlavi and aligns with Western/Saudi/Israeli geopolitical interests against Tehran. Iranian officials have labeled it a Saudi/Mossad propaganda tool.
  • Geopolitical Bias: Media Bias/Fact Check rates it Right-Center biased, with consistent negative framing of the Iranian government. It has faced Iranian accusations of inciting unrest (e.g., during protests) and threats, leading to relocations. No major "failed fact checks" noted in some evaluations, but its selective emphasis and sources warrant cross-verification.
  • Transparency Issues: Opaque funding (offshore entities, losses in hundreds of millions) raises questions about independence, even if it denies state control. It operates in a highly polarized information environment where all sides (Iranian state media, Gulf outlets, Western press) have agendas.

In short: Treat Iran International reports as useful for opposition perspectives, leaks from inside Iran, or signals from state media like Mehr—but always cross-check with primary sources, official statements, and other outlets (e.g., Reuters, AP, IAEA). In this case, the article's self-disclosed unverified status is a strength, but the outlet's incentives favor narratives damaging to the Tehran regime.
Click to expand...
So rather than copying and pasting Musk’s Grok, do what it recommends, show us, “cross-check with primary sources, official statements, and other outlets (e.g., Reuters, AP, IAEA).”

And in return we are going to get tweets, memes, and GIFs
 
archives said:
So rather than copying and pasting Musk’s Grok, do what it recommends, show us, “cross-check with primary sources, official statements, and other outlets (e.g., Reuters, AP, IAEA).” And in return we are going to get tweets, memes, and GIFs
Click to expand...


Grok:

Primary sources like IAEA reports are the gold standard here, not social media.

Let's stick to those and mainstream outlets (Reuters, AP, Arms Control Association, etc.) for the Iran enrichment timeline.


Verified Timeline from IAEA and Independent Reporting​


  • Pre- and during JCPOA (2015–early 2019): Iran was compliant with the core enrichment limit of 3.67% U-235 and stockpile caps. IAEA repeatedly verified this, including after the US withdrawal in May 2018. Iran did not produce near-weapons-grade material under the active deal period.
  • Post-US withdrawal (2018 onward): Iran remained compliant for about a year. Starting in July 2019, it began stepwise breaches: exceeding low-enriched uranium stockpiles, then raising enrichment levels (to ~4.5%, then higher). This was in response to reimposed US sanctions and lack of economic relief from other parties.
  • 60% enrichment: Began in 2021 (Natanz, later Fordow). This is near-weapons-grade (a short technical step from 90%+). By 2023–2025, Iran accumulated hundreds of kg of 60% material — enough, per IAEA metrics, for multiple weapons if further enriched.
  • 83.7% particles: Detected by IAEA at Fordow in early 2023 (explained by Iran as an "unintended fluctuation"). Not sustained production, but a concerning spike.

Summary on the original claim:

Iran did not enrich to weapons-grade or near-weapons-grade (60%+) until years after Trump's 2018 withdrawal.

The JCPOA constrained the program effectively while in force. However, the deal had sunset provisions, Iran retained latent capabilities/knowledge, and escalations involved multiple factors (sanctions, sabotage, assassinations, regional tensions).

The withdrawal accelerated Iran's advances, per expert consensus from Arms Control Association, CFR, and IAEA-tracked data.

This is drawn from IAEA quarterly reports (e.g., GOV/2024-41, GOV/2025 series), Reuters/AP coverage of those reports, and nonpartisan trackers.

No tweets, memes, or GIFs — just verifiable records.

Key primary and reliable sources referenced:



Poor Anchovies.
 
Diogenes said:
Grok:

Primary sources like IAEA reports are the gold standard here, not social media.

Let's stick to those and mainstream outlets (Reuters, AP, Arms Control Association, etc.) for the Iran enrichment timeline.


Verified Timeline from IAEA and Independent Reporting​


  • Pre- and during JCPOA (2015–early 2019): Iran was compliant with the core enrichment limit of 3.67% U-235 and stockpile caps. IAEA repeatedly verified this, including after the US withdrawal in May 2018. Iran did not produce near-weapons-grade material under the active deal period.
  • Post-US withdrawal (2018 onward): Iran remained compliant for about a year. Starting in July 2019, it began stepwise breaches: exceeding low-enriched uranium stockpiles, then raising enrichment levels (to ~4.5%, then higher). This was in response to reimposed US sanctions and lack of economic relief from other parties.
  • 60% enrichment: Began in 2021 (Natanz, later Fordow). This is near-weapons-grade (a short technical step from 90%+). By 2023–2025, Iran accumulated hundreds of kg of 60% material — enough, per IAEA metrics, for multiple weapons if further enriched.
  • 83.7% particles: Detected by IAEA at Fordow in early 2023 (explained by Iran as an "unintended fluctuation"). Not sustained production, but a concerning spike.

Summary on the original claim:

Iran did not enrich to weapons-grade or near-weapons-grade (60%+) until years after Trump's 2018 withdrawal.

The JCPOA constrained the program effectively while in force. However, the deal had sunset provisions, Iran retained latent capabilities/knowledge, and escalations involved multiple factors (sanctions, sabotage, assassinations, regional tensions).

The withdrawal accelerated Iran's advances, per expert consensus from Arms Control Association, CFR, and IAEA-tracked data.

This is drawn from IAEA quarterly reports (e.g., GOV/2024-41, GOV/2025 series), Reuters/AP coverage of those reports, and nonpartisan trackers.

No tweets, memes, or GIFs — just verifiable records.

Key primary and reliable sources referenced:



Poor Anchovies.
Click to expand...
So more Grok, predictable
 
archives said:
So more Grok, predictable
Click to expand...

The sources I listed are direct hyperlinks to IAEA archives, Arms Control Association fact sheets, and Reuters reporting on those IAEA findings, Anchovies.

They are the primary records you whined for, Anchovies.

But you're still whining, Anchovies.

Poor Anchovies.
 
archives said:
“Now things will actually change?”

Going in, we were told the regime would change, Iran would surrender its nuclear capability, and Iran’s ability to attack its neighbors would end.

And we have now a deal to deal, so can you show us what has “changed?”
Click to expand...
The regime did change...Iran has changed... unless you're going over to help them dig out they're not going to be able to have any nukes.. those attacks that are happening now are all they have left.... yes things are actually changing...
 
TOP said:
The regime did change...Iran has changed... unless you're going over to help them dig out they're not going to be able to have any nukes.. those attacks that are happening now are all they have left.... yes things are actually changing...
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Supreme Leader was replaced by a new Supreme Leader, his son, one reported worse than the father, attacks are still there, and until the uranium is taken out, it is available to them, nothing new

And on top of that, the Straits, which were free and open prior to the war, are now a playing card for Iran
 
Jarod said:
www.iranintl.com

Iran media publish purported details of Iran-US draft agreement

Iran's state-affiliated Mehr News on Sunday published what it described as details of a 14-point draft memorandum of understanding between Tehran and Washington, provides for the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets during the 60-day talks
www.iranintl.com www.iranintl.com
Click to expand...
At least with Obama - the money he gave for the JCPOA, he had either Qatar of Saudi distribute the money - only after confirming its use. Look for Trump to just give it away with no conditions.

Trump could have left the JCPOA in place - 200 Iranian school girls and 16 US service people would still be alive!

Trump is the biggest moron shit-stain!
 
archives said:
Yeah, the Supreme Leader was replaced by a new Supreme Leader, his son, one reported worse than the father, attacks are still there, and until the uranium is taken out, it is available to them, nothing new And on top of that, the Straits, which were free and open prior to the war, are now a playing card for Iran
Click to expand...


Yep.
 
archives said:
Probably, “copy and paste” has employed numerous names but his posts have always been the same, copy and pasting tweets, memes, GIFs, or something similar, often repeatedly, little actual content
Click to expand...


Are you mad because I don't just make shit up, Anchovies?

Poor Anchovies.
 
archives said:
Probably, “copy and paste” has employed numerous names but his posts have always been the same, copy and pasting tweets, memes, GIFs, or something similar, often repeatedly, little actual content
Click to expand...
He has another account on Debate Politics - I'll look to see if he's showing up there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top