I'm saying it's absurd to think another country can be expected to NOT make nukes when we directly back out of the deal that was implemented to prevent that when they have been abiding by their word in this specific case. And yeah, of course there will be war in Iran gets one. I thought the entire Trump Presidency came about because people thought Hillary Clinton was too hawkish. Trump is basically guaranteeing a future conflict for absolutely no reason if he goes through with this.
I agree with the absurdity of this. Trump is threatening to reimpose sanctions on Iran, the original intention of which was to punish their nuclear weapons program - a program they no longer have . Given that, I think it's hard to see the US pulling out of the deal as anything other than an encouragement for Iran to restart a nuclear weapons program.
I also think the US would be extremely unwise to believe that it can now dominate the world simply because it currently has the strongest armed forces. The US is low on diplomatic capital at the moment and it's not an accident that the other countries that agreed the Iran deal originally have said they intend to stick with it irrespective of US action. If the US were to attack Iran in the near future I suspect that only Israel of their historic allies would join them (possibly also Saudi Arabia if you count them as a historic ally) and, at a minimum, they would face diplomatic sanctions from other western countries.
I'm saying it's absurd to think another country can be expected to NOT make nukes when we directly back out of the deal that was implemented to prevent that when they have been abiding by their word in this specific case. And yeah, of course there will be war in Iran gets one. I thought the entire Trump Presidency came about because people thought Hillary Clinton was too hawkish. Trump is basically guaranteeing a future conflict for absolutely no reason if he goes through with this.
I agree with the absurdity of this. Trump is threatening to reimpose sanctions on Iran, the original intention of which was to punish their nuclear weapons program - a program they no longer have . Given that, I think it's hard to see the US pulling out of the deal as anything other than an encouragement for Iran to restart a nuclear weapons program.
I also think the US would be extremely unwise to believe that it can now dominate the world simply because it currently has the strongest armed forces. The US is low on diplomatic capital at the moment and it's not an accident that the other countries that agreed the Iran deal originally have said they intend to stick with it irrespective of US action. If the US were to attack Iran in the near future I suspect that only Israel of their historic allies would join them (possibly also Saudi Arabia if you count them as a historic ally) and, at a minimum, they would face diplomatic sanctions from other western countries.
This isn't about anything other than undoing Obama's legacy at all costs. Healthcare, Iran, the transgender ban. ALL of it comes back to simply erasing Obama, damn the torpedoes.
I have to concur with @jjstraka34 that if the United States withdraws from the joint plan then Iran has every right to begin enriching uranium beyond the current 3.67% currently allowed. Clearly, no one is going to sell them a nuclear weapon so if they are still at the "figuring out how best to enrich uranium" stage that means they are a decade away (well, maybe 5 years since they can grab some information from the Internet) from a working nuclear device. Once Iran becomes nuclear they still won't use it, even against Israel--not only is no one willing to become the first nation since 1945 to use a nuclear weapon, but they also know that the rest of the world will turn on them. Remember: India and Pakistan *hate* each other and haven't used the nuclear weapons they each possess, so Iran wont' use them, either.
@Grond0 I didn't say that we didn't get anything out of the deal, only that Iran got *more* out of it. I do agree, though, that deals are not like Monopoly, a game where I can win only by making everyone else lose.
The other reason for Trump to want to pull out of the current deal--aside from being able to get in another dig at Obama by dismantling another piece of his legacy--is so that he can try to negotiate a *new* deal with Iran, even if the new deal is very similar to the old deal. Given that Iran's economy is still sluggish despite recovering all that money it had previously lost this seems a likely scenario.
Years of work went into this deal, thrown to the side on a whim by Trump. Trump is now just straight up lying in his speech as I type this, and is citing "other behavior" that has absolutely nothing to do with deal, and repeating that we gave Iran "cash", which is complete horseshit. He is now repeating Netanyahu's dog and pony show from last week, JUST as I predicted he would. He doesn't have any idea what he is talking about:
This is the most hawkish speech I've heard since the post-9/11 Bush Administration. And he has the gall to talk about North Korea. There is no way in hell North Korea is going to make a deal with us now. Why would ANYONE make a deal with us after this??
We didn't really "give Iran cash"; instead, we "unfroze assets which had been seized in the late 1970s, with interest". Those two statements amount to the same thing--Iran had more money than it did before the deal was finalized--but the connotations are entirely different.
We didn't really "give Iran cash"; instead, we "unfroze assets which had been seized in the late 1970s, with interest". Those two statements amount to the same thing--Iran had more money than it did before the deal was finalized--but the connotations are entirely different.
Well it was their money, and Trump purposefully insinuates that we wrote them a massive check.
Iran has long said they had no nuclear ambitions... a claim I've never believed. Iran wants nukes to deter what they see as a threat from Israel (who, in turns, wants to deter what they see as a threat from Iran), and the only incentive we could provide to keep them from doing so was to force them to choose between having a stronger economy or having a stronger military. Unlike North Korea, Iran was apparently willing to choose the former at the expense of the latter.
Trump's decision removes part of the incentive for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, but they may nonetheless hold back on a nuclear program in order to avoid sanctions from other countries besides the U.S. This doesn't necessarily mean that Iran will get nukes; it just increases the chance.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that Trump has no alternate plans for stopping Iran from getting the bomb. As for Israel, I don't know. Netanyahu sounds perfectly willing to go to war to stop it, but so far, he hasn't, and he might not be around for much longer if the new indictment goes anywhere.
Does anyone know what the U.S. gains by withdrawing from the deal? I don't mean that question rhetorically; I honestly don't see any specific benefits. I know we don't get any money back by dropping out.
Iran has long said they had no nuclear ambitions... a claim I've never believed. Iran wants nukes to deter what they see as a threat from Israel (who, in turns, wants to deter what they see as a threat from Iran), and the only incentive we could provide to keep them from doing so was to force them to choose between having a stronger economy or having a stronger military. Unlike North Korea, Iran was apparently willing to choose the former at the expense of the latter.
Trump's decision removes part of the incentive for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, but they may nonetheless hold back on a nuclear program in order to avoid sanctions from other countries besides the U.S. This doesn't necessarily mean that Iran will get nukes; it just increases the chance.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that Trump has no alternate plans for stopping Iran from getting the bomb. As for Israel, I don't know. Netanyahu sounds perfectly willing to go to war to stop it, but so far, he hasn't, and he might not be around for much longer if the new indictment goes anywhere.
Does anyone know what the U.S. gains by withdrawing from the deal? I don't mean that question rhetorically; I honestly don't see any specific benefits. I know we don't get any money back by dropping out.
The deal was put in place precisely because of Iran's ambitions. Netanyahu's totally disingenuous performance last week (which, it must be said, worked exactly how it was intended) was further proof of exactly WHY this deal was made. They WERE seeking a weapon, and this deal put a halt to it. We gain nothing, other than an increased chance for war, an increased chance of an Iranian nuke, and yet ANOTHER move that turns the credibility of the United States into total mush, which is putting it mildly. WE are a rogue actor now as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
The US gains nothing. Trump appears to believe that cancelling this deal would open the way for a new and improved deal to be made, but that seems extremely far-fetched to me. It might well have been possible to do a supplementary deal (for instance on ballistic missiles) to complement the existing one. However, now Trump has pulled out of the existing one, I would imagine any Iranian politician for years to come who advocated doing a new deal would be lucky if he was just ejected from office rather than being lynched.
The United States cannot be trusted. The Iraq War, the Paris Climate deal, now this. We should rightfully be viewed as untrustworthy snakes on the global stage at this point.
Why is it that the only country in the world who has ever used nuclear weapons get to both dictate who else can have them AND just wantonly break our word??
I agree with your broader points, especially that this makes our word on international matters worthless. However the authority here is pretty clear.
Iran is a signatory to the NPT, the most effective arms control treaty of the modern age. Only five countries in the world are not signatories: India and Pakistan are now open nuclear powers; while never publicly stating one way or the other, Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons; North Korea was a signatory but backed out in the aughts when they started nuclear weapon testing; and South Sudan is not a nuclear power nor a signatory, but they've only been a country now for a few years.
The UN, not the US, declared that Iran was not in compliance with the terms of the NPT. The hawks in the US and Israel have, of course, spun the non-compliance in the most unfavorable light possible, and you can also understand why Iran would have an interest in nuclear weapons after the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't trust Trump--or more accurately, Bolton--to be credible on the matter, but Iran has not been an honest actor either. The deal had been working to strengthen trust on all sides and, like the TPP, we've thrown it away for nothing.
The TPP *should* have been thrown away--it amounted to nothing more than a *massive* power grab by multinational corporations. When I say "massive" I mean "more power than a national government" since the guidelines of the TPP created the tribunal would could negate a national law if said law threatened the profit streams of the corporations. Besides, any deal which the Senate cannot read in its entirety and which it must sign without first being given the option to make any changes is, by default, a bad deal.
Ironically, nuclear weapons make two nations on differing sides of a disagreement *less* likely to become wildly hostile towards each other, not more, because no one wants to escalate things to the point where someone pushes the button. Consider my earlier example of India and Pakistan. Both are nuclear powers but they haven't actually gotten into a broader shooting war with each other despite their differences and I suspect the number one reason for that is "they both have nukes".
edit/add: re: the Paris Accords.... The first day which the United States can file the paperwork to pull out from the Paris Accord is just about one year before Presidential elections in 2020. The first day which the United States could officially pull out of the accord is *after* the President gets sworn in in January 2021. Even if Trump wanted to leave that accord (which he probably does) chances are that he won't be able to (since, as I suspect, he won't be in office at that time).
Obama has been fairly silent (like almost all ex-Presidents) til now, so I think his statement is noteworthy and should be shared, aside from the fact that it echoes almost all my sentiments before I even read it:
There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.
The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working – that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest – it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish – its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.
That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.
Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.
First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium – the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.
Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.
Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.
Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior – and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies – is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.
Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.
In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.
Ironically, nuclear weapons make two nations on differing sides of a disagreement *less* likely to become wildly hostile towards each other, not more, because no one wants to escalate things to the point where someone pushes the button. Consider my earlier example of India and Pakistan. Both are nuclear powers but they haven't actually gotten into a broader shooting war with each other despite their differences and I suspect the number one reason for that is "they both have nukes".
I don't agree with this sentiment regarding Iran. Since the Iran Deal until now Iran has expended its involvement in the middle east, Including:
- Arming the Huthie's rebels in Yemen against Saudi Arabia (every week ballistic missiles are launched at Saudi Arabia, shipped from Iran)
- Hezbollah, Iran Proxy in Lebanon is armed to the teeth with more than 100,000 rockets, all aimed towards Israel (not to mention the Lebanon is essentially a none functioning country largely due to Iran involvement).
- Morocco just this week ended any ties with Iran Iran due to its involvement in Morocco
- Establishment of numerous of military bases and military airfields in Syria and Iraq, shipping there weaponry such as accurate with heavy war heads ballistic missiles.
- Bringing ten of thousands Shia militias from Afghanistan to Syria.
- Iran is arming Islamic terror groups in Gaza, such as the Islamic Jihad.
All of this aggression toward other regional countries, is done without any nuclear umbrella. I don't want to imagine what they will do in the region *with* nuclear umbrella.
The difference between North Korea, Pakistan and Iran, is the Iran has regional ambition to expend its influence outside its own borders.
And I don't even started to talk about the constant Iran threats and aspiration to annihilate Israel. And all of their recent threats and actions (They sent an armed drone into Israel in February) doesn't indicate otherwise.
What I always thought, and still do, about the Iran deal is that folks are willing to blindly accept the notion that a country might give away every single shred of information and knowledge as to what it has in it's arsenal. That goes for what is in stock at the moment and what could still be under development presently. If I were Iran (N Korea as well), I would take the deal, take the money, play all nice, and open up certain 'known' areas to inspectors any time of day. Behind the scenes it would be a different matter. On a side note, he US has had stockpiles of chemical weapons long after they were considered 'unacceptable' for use in warfare. Personally, I think Obama meant well, but was so much of an idealist, that I think he was willing to accept compliance on faith, pieces of paper, and with the assurances of inspectors (going only where they are guided to). At the time, sure, I thought talking was better than fighting, so called deals better than no deal, but realistically, the part of me that thinks on matters of war and terrorism from the perspective of another, thought much differently as to how a deal might really go down in Iran.
As to the US dictating as to who has nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, I do not believe that it is thought of in the light of one having the higher moral ground, but more of one of having most of the power, and wanting to keep it (and therefor others from getting it as well, especially if they are more likely to be a potential 'problem'. That is not necessarily my view, just the view that I think that is not talked about openly from the those in charge. As far as Israel goes, I believe we are potentially in a situation where they over reach their authority and capability (in of of themselves at least), and good ol big brother US is drawn into a conflict we have no business being in.
People continue to talk about what they THINK Iran is doing, and also about activity that is totally unrelated to the JCPOA. While people can have their own suspicions about Iran continuing to pursue a bomb, every piece of available evidence we have since the deal was made proves that isn't the case. Even Trump's own intelligence community doesn't dispute this. Iran is in compliance with the deal. If they weren't we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because those of us on the side of supporting the deal wouldn't have any leg to stand on. When it comes to the narrow parameters of what the Iran deal was trying to accomplish and what the rules were, it is an inescapable fact that, in this instance, Iran was living up to their end of the bargain and the US are the ones who just violated the terms of the agreement. That's how it is. If that wasn't the case, Bibi would have presented actual, current evidence of a Iranian nuclear program instead of rehashed intelligence from almost 10 years ago before the deal was ever negotiated. If Bolton and Netanyahu had concrete proof, they would show it. They don't, so they are manipulating the scope of the argument to include things that (as Obama clearly explains in his statement) were never part of the agreement to begin with. The deal was to keep Iran, who was close to getting a bomb, from doing so. They haven't. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as anything but a success until a couple hours ago. For a deal that was ferociously maligned at the time, mind you.
He really took one for the team for the EU. He's been the guy to play nice with Trump while Trumps gone around insulting and undermining traditional allies Germany and the UK. Macron put up with Trump's nonsense for peace. He made nice with the guy for our nations sake and the history we have.
Trump's repeatedly stabbed him in the back. How can he trust him ever again?
First the Paris Climate Accord, then the tariffs/trade wars, now this Iran deal. Macro has tried to reason with an unreasonable man.
Now Macron has to go out there in France and say look I did what I could I buddied up to the abrasive wannabe dictator of the United States. And he's got nothing to show for it. Why waste your time on this guy? Trump will never listen to reason. He will never do the right thing. He will only drag you down
Here we have the new Ambassador to Germany seeming to be telling the German government and people who they can and can't do business with and that apparently our will is so iron-strong that they have to follow us lock, stock, and barrel. Merkel should tell this clown to go f**k himself. THIS is what I mean by American arrogance. Good god other countries must hate us for this shit. Germany is not our vassal. And the replies from German citizens in this thread are straight fire.
First, we had this revelation from Stormy Daniel's lawyer this afternoon, a man who I doubt is bluffing, especially since he then later tweeted a document outlining their findings in great detail:
It's worth pointing out that the Iran deal was never intended to stop all of Iran's aggressions or make Iran into some peaceful, pro-American democracy that would serve as a shining model unto the Middle East. It was strictly intended to prevent anti-Semitic politicians and the Iranian theocracy from gaining the power to nuke Israel.
If you wanted them to stop oppressing their own people or financing terrorism, you'd need a separate deal on top of the current one.
It's worth pointing out that the Iran deal was never intended to stop all of Iran's aggressions or make Iran into some peaceful, pro-American democracy that would serve as a shining model unto the Middle East. It was strictly intended to prevent anti-Semitic politicians and the Iranian theocracy from gaining the power to nuke Israel.
If you wanted them to stop oppressing their own people or financing terrorism, you'd need a separate deal on top of the current one.
If Trump is so concerned with the Iranian people's rights as he claims, immediately reinstituting crippling sanctions probably isn't going to do a hell of a lot for their situation.
Good god, now in addition to this pretty solid information that a Russian oligarch tied to Putin was funneling money into Cohen's LLC, we now are learning (and they have admitted) that both AT&T and Novartis gave the same LLC hundreds of thousands of dollars as well. Is this just a straight up bribe funnel that goes straight to the top?? What kind of madness are we dealing with here?? No, this isn't a joke. What are two major American corporations doing dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars into a shell company of the President's lawyer?? If you thought Rudy Giuliani was having trouble getting his story straight before this, I can't even imagine how they are going to explain this away.
If Bolton and Netanyahu had concrete proof, they would show it. They don't, so they are manipulating the scope of the argument to include things that were never part of the agreement to begin with.
If Mueller had concrete proof, he would show it. He doesn't so he is manipulating the scope of his investigation to include things that were never part of the original mandate to begin with.
(I couldn't help myself)
re: payments to Cohen's LLC is what we call "pay for play".
AT&T is going with the story that they were paying for consulting services. This is preposterous. The LLC isn't even a real company. It's just a place where Michael Cohen was stashing money. Beyond that, how would any company even KNOW where to pay this money, since the entire reason for creating the LLC was to try to hide whatever the money was doing?? At a bare minimum, Michael Cohen is going to go to prison for all of this, unless.........
Looks like Blankenship is going down in flames in West Virginia. Can't wait to hear how Morrissey hates puppies or something though...
Manchin is 75% on his way to being a Republican anyway. The only benefit he provides to Democrats at all is a number in the caucus when it comes to taking leadership. He is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate by a wide margin. He somehow manages to keep winning. This is why the Democrats, despite almost certainly taking the House in November, have very little chance of winning the Senate. The will have to successfully defend West Virginia, North Dakota, and Missouri to even have a shot, and then pick up Nevada or Arizona as well. That is like playing all your NFL games for a whole year on the road.
What I always thought, and still do, about the Iran deal is that folks are willing to blindly accept the notion that a country might give away every single shred of information and knowledge as to what it has in it's arsenal. That goes for what is in stock at the moment and what could still be under development presently. If I were Iran (N Korea as well), I would take the deal, take the money, play all nice, and open up certain 'known' areas to inspectors any time of day. Behind the scenes it would be a different matter. On a side note, he US has had stockpiles of chemical weapons long after they were considered 'unacceptable' for use in warfare. Personally, I think Obama meant well, but was so much of an idealist, that I think he was willing to accept compliance on faith, pieces of paper, and with the assurances of inspectors (going only where they are guided to). At the time, sure, I thought talking was better than fighting, so called deals better than no deal, but realistically, the part of me that thinks on matters of war and terrorism from the perspective of another, thought much differently as to how a deal might really go down in Iran.
You are assuming that the inspection regime is ineffective, but I'm not clear on what grounds you make this assumption. Inspectors are entitled to look anywhere in the entire country (including secure, military facilities). If Iran refused access to inspectors then a majority vote of the 8 signatories to the agreement could reimpose the original sanctions. Since the agreement Iran has never refused access.
If Bolton and Netanyahu had concrete proof, they would show it. They don't, so they are manipulating the scope of the argument to include things that were never part of the agreement to begin with.
If Mueller had concrete proof, he would show it. He doesn't so he is manipulating the scope of his investigation to include things that were never part of the original mandate to begin with.
(I couldn't help myself)
re: payments to Cohen's LLC is what we call "pay for play".
Given the reference to Russian financing of Cohen I'm not quite sure how this could be used as an example of mission creep. As for Mueller having proof, he would most certainly not show it at this stage. As with all his work, the intention is to keep his proofs to show in a courtroom.
The UK had its own version of "pay for play" in the 1990s - called cash for questions. That saw several MPs caught up in a newspaper sting operation where they agreed to table questions in Parliament in return for cash. The scandal led to the Nolan Committee to review standards in public life and there is now far greater clarity about what work MPs can and can't do for clients. That of course doesn't mean that no one now breaches the rules, but it does mean that when they do so everyone knows what the breaches constitute - corruption. One of the worst things about Trump is that he's attempting to embed corruption into a political system which already had an unhealthy obsession with money.
Comments
I also think the US would be extremely unwise to believe that it can now dominate the world simply because it currently has the strongest armed forces. The US is low on diplomatic capital at the moment and it's not an accident that the other countries that agreed the Iran deal originally have said they intend to stick with it irrespective of US action. If the US were to attack Iran in the near future I suspect that only Israel of their historic allies would join them (possibly also Saudi Arabia if you count them as a historic ally) and, at a minimum, they would face diplomatic sanctions from other western countries.
The world according to Trump :
Bad things? It's someone else's fault.
Good things? Trump did it.
@Grond0 I didn't say that we didn't get anything out of the deal, only that Iran got *more* out of it. I do agree, though, that deals are not like Monopoly, a game where I can win only by making everyone else lose.
The other reason for Trump to want to pull out of the current deal--aside from being able to get in another dig at Obama by dismantling another piece of his legacy--is so that he can try to negotiate a *new* deal with Iran, even if the new deal is very similar to the old deal. Given that Iran's economy is still sluggish despite recovering all that money it had previously lost this seems a likely scenario.
This is the most hawkish speech I've heard since the post-9/11 Bush Administration. And he has the gall to talk about North Korea. There is no way in hell North Korea is going to make a deal with us now. Why would ANYONE make a deal with us after this??
Trump's decision removes part of the incentive for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, but they may nonetheless hold back on a nuclear program in order to avoid sanctions from other countries besides the U.S. This doesn't necessarily mean that Iran will get nukes; it just increases the chance.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that Trump has no alternate plans for stopping Iran from getting the bomb. As for Israel, I don't know. Netanyahu sounds perfectly willing to go to war to stop it, but so far, he hasn't, and he might not be around for much longer if the new indictment goes anywhere.
Does anyone know what the U.S. gains by withdrawing from the deal? I don't mean that question rhetorically; I honestly don't see any specific benefits. I know we don't get any money back by dropping out.
Iran is a signatory to the NPT, the most effective arms control treaty of the modern age. Only five countries in the world are not signatories: India and Pakistan are now open nuclear powers; while never publicly stating one way or the other, Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons; North Korea was a signatory but backed out in the aughts when they started nuclear weapon testing; and South Sudan is not a nuclear power nor a signatory, but they've only been a country now for a few years.
The UN, not the US, declared that Iran was not in compliance with the terms of the NPT. The hawks in the US and Israel have, of course, spun the non-compliance in the most unfavorable light possible, and you can also understand why Iran would have an interest in nuclear weapons after the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't trust Trump--or more accurately, Bolton--to be credible on the matter, but Iran has not been an honest actor either. The deal had been working to strengthen trust on all sides and, like the TPP, we've thrown it away for nothing.
Ironically, nuclear weapons make two nations on differing sides of a disagreement *less* likely to become wildly hostile towards each other, not more, because no one wants to escalate things to the point where someone pushes the button. Consider my earlier example of India and Pakistan. Both are nuclear powers but they haven't actually gotten into a broader shooting war with each other despite their differences and I suspect the number one reason for that is "they both have nukes".
edit/add: re: the Paris Accords.... The first day which the United States can file the paperwork to pull out from the Paris Accord is just about one year before Presidential elections in 2020. The first day which the United States could officially pull out of the accord is *after* the President gets sworn in in January 2021. Even if Trump wanted to leave that accord (which he probably does) chances are that he won't be able to (since, as I suspect, he won't be in office at that time).
There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.
The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working – that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest – it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish – its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.
That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.
Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.
First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium – the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.
Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.
Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.
Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior – and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies – is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.
Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.
In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.
I don't agree with this sentiment regarding Iran. Since the Iran Deal until now Iran has expended its involvement in the middle east, Including:
- Arming the Huthie's rebels in Yemen against Saudi Arabia (every week ballistic missiles are launched at Saudi Arabia, shipped from Iran)
- Hezbollah, Iran Proxy in Lebanon is armed to the teeth with more than 100,000 rockets, all aimed towards Israel (not to mention the Lebanon is essentially a none functioning country largely due to Iran involvement).
- Morocco just this week ended any ties with Iran Iran due to its involvement in Morocco
- Establishment of numerous of military bases and military airfields in Syria and Iraq, shipping there weaponry such as accurate with heavy war heads ballistic missiles.
- Bringing ten of thousands Shia militias from Afghanistan to Syria.
- Iran is arming Islamic terror groups in Gaza, such as the Islamic Jihad.
All of this aggression toward other regional countries, is done without any nuclear umbrella. I don't want to imagine what they will do in the region *with* nuclear umbrella.
The difference between North Korea, Pakistan and Iran, is the Iran has regional ambition to expend its influence outside its own borders.
And I don't even started to talk about the constant Iran threats and aspiration to annihilate Israel. And all of their recent threats and actions (They sent an armed drone into Israel in February) doesn't indicate otherwise.
On a side note, he US has had stockpiles of chemical weapons long after they were considered 'unacceptable' for use in warfare.
Personally, I think Obama meant well, but was so much of an idealist, that I think he was willing to accept compliance on faith, pieces of paper, and with the assurances of inspectors (going only where they are guided to). At the time, sure, I thought talking was better than fighting, so called deals better than no deal, but realistically, the part of me that thinks on matters of war and terrorism from the perspective of another, thought much differently as to how a deal might really go down in Iran.
As to the US dictating as to who has nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, I do not believe that it is thought of in the light of one having the higher moral ground, but more of one of having most of the power, and wanting to keep it (and therefor others from getting it as well, especially if they are more likely to be a potential 'problem'. That is not necessarily my view, just the view that I think that is not talked about openly from the those in charge.
As far as Israel goes, I believe we are potentially in a situation where they over reach their authority and capability (in of of themselves at least), and good ol big brother US is drawn into a conflict we have no business being in.
He really took one for the team for the EU. He's been the guy to play nice with Trump while Trumps gone around insulting and undermining traditional allies Germany and the UK. Macron put up with Trump's nonsense for peace. He made nice with the guy for our nations sake and the history we have.
Trump's repeatedly stabbed him in the back. How can he trust him ever again?
First the Paris Climate Accord, then the tariffs/trade wars, now this Iran deal. Macro has tried to reason with an unreasonable man.
Now Macron has to go out there in France and say look I did what I could I buddied up to the abrasive wannabe dictator of the United States. And he's got nothing to show for it. Why waste your time on this guy? Trump will never listen to reason. He will never do the right thing. He will only drag you down
Here we have the new Ambassador to Germany seeming to be telling the German government and people who they can and can't do business with and that apparently our will is so iron-strong that they have to follow us lock, stock, and barrel. Merkel should tell this clown to go f**k himself. THIS is what I mean by American arrogance. Good god other countries must hate us for this shit. Germany is not our vassal. And the replies from German citizens in this thread are straight fire.
Then, an hour later, we learn he almost certainly wasn't bluffing:
If you wanted them to stop oppressing their own people or financing terrorism, you'd need a separate deal on top of the current one.
Why? No reason. Just President Trump unilaterally doesn't like foreigners.
(I couldn't help myself)
re: payments to Cohen's LLC is what we call "pay for play".
Here is a flow-chart from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/Kq41cxdaprztlaBQhNxEQ1eb0a8=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3MD73WGLIE5E5BTIFONWDCIUZA.jpg
And this is just ONE company that Cohen set up. There is almost certainly MORE than one LLC like this out there.
The UK had its own version of "pay for play" in the 1990s - called cash for questions. That saw several MPs caught up in a newspaper sting operation where they agreed to table questions in Parliament in return for cash. The scandal led to the Nolan Committee to review standards in public life and there is now far greater clarity about what work MPs can and can't do for clients. That of course doesn't mean that no one now breaches the rules, but it does mean that when they do so everyone knows what the breaches constitute - corruption. One of the worst things about Trump is that he's attempting to embed corruption into a political system which already had an unhealthy obsession with money.