Trump Administration drops Iran deal

Avatar image for Shewgenja
#1 Edited by Shewgenja (21456 posts) -

Just saw this live a little bit ago. Pretty obvious he is an establishment goon hanging from the teet of Big Oil and the military industrial complex. Iran will have nukes faster than you can blink. We will probably be in a war before midterm elections roll around.

Just found an article on the issue:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/news/423375/Trump-withdraws-U-S-from-nuclear-deal

Avatar image for phbz
#2 Posted by phbz (4593 posts) -

I don't get the overall strategy of this administration. Why they keep pushing the US to irrelevancy while strengthening Russia and China?

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#3 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36481 posts) -

@phbz said:

I don't get the overall strategy of this administration. Why they keep pushing the US to irrelevancy while strengthening Russia and China?

But they made the US a leader again? - Trumplicans

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#4 Posted by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

Do they have a plan for what happens next? Is there anything even remotely resembling a strategy here?

Avatar image for needhealing
#5 Posted by Needhealing (2042 posts) -

So what will Kim think? Why should he dismantal his nuclear deal if they can't trust the adminstration?

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#6 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36481 posts) -

@needhealing said:

So what will Kim think? Why should he dismantal his nuclear deal if they can't trust the adminstration?

He already said Trump had nothing to do with the Korean deal, so...

Avatar image for needhealing
#7 Posted by Needhealing (2042 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:
@needhealing said:

So what will Kim think? Why should he dismantal his nuclear deal if they can't trust the adminstration?

He already said Trump had nothing to do with the Korean deal, so...

But you know conservatives. I can't wait for Kim to backstab Trump, now that he just met in a surprise with China today. That would be so emberassing for Trump and pretty much guarantees the blue wave in midterms.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#8 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (7234 posts) -

Trump is temporary. He will get his ass and all his family kicked out of office soon enough. Every single policy he's made will be reversed. Be they good or bad, including the tax cuts. After that, someone will come after his ass and throw him in jail where he belongs.

Avatar image for nepu7supastar7
#9 Posted by nepu7supastar7 (5152 posts) -

@needhealing:

"So what will Kim think? Why should he dismantal his nuclear deal if they can't trust the adminstration?"

If I were Kim, I wouldn't trust this administration for even a second. I probably would have been wiped out but I would have attacked by now.

Avatar image for PraetorianMan
#10 Edited by PraetorianMan (1974 posts) -

Lesson of the day: be like North Korea and actually GET a nuke before entering negations, because then Trump will lick your balls and give you pretty much everything you want.

Avatar image for Shewgenja
#11 Posted by Shewgenja (21456 posts) -

@PraetorianMan said:

Lesson of the day: be like North Korea and actually GET a nuke before entering negations, because then Trump will lick your balls and give you pretty much everything you want.

Saddest thing about all of this is that Iran is going back to negotiating with Europe, China, and Russia. It's obvious they wanted to seek peace. Obvious.

Avatar image for tryit
#12 Posted by TryIt (13157 posts) -

@phbz said:

I don't get the overall strategy of this administration. Why they keep pushing the US to irrelevancy while strengthening Russia and China?

lol.....

maybe Putins relationship has something?

Avatar image for tryit
#13 Posted by TryIt (13157 posts) -

@blaznwiipspman1 said:

Trump is temporary. He will get his ass and all his family kicked out of office soon enough. Every single policy he's made will be reversed. Be they good or bad, including the tax cuts. After that, someone will come after his ass and throw him in jail where he belongs.

I think all is true except for the last part.

I als think the next 'era' is going to be very progressive. it should be intresting

Avatar image for n64dd
#14 Posted by N64DD (11970 posts) -
Loading Video...

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#15 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44161 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

Do they have a plan for what happens next? Is there anything even remotely resembling a strategy here?

Yes, their plan is to regret it later.

Avatar image for n64dd
#16 Posted by N64DD (11970 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:
@perfect_blue said:

Do they have a plan for what happens next? Is there anything even remotely resembling a strategy here?

Yes, their plan is to regret it later.

The deal was a piece of shit from the start.

Good move on Trump.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#17 Edited by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

@n64dd: Why is it bad? What is Trump’s alternative?

Genuinely intrigued to see what someone who thinks Info Wars is credible has to say about arms control deals.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#18 Posted by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

Obama’s statement:

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.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155854913976749&id=6815841748

Avatar image for narlymech
#19 Edited by narlymech (1677 posts) -

OH Trump can get out of several deals he claims are bad because obama did them, but can he actually make any deals with these countries??

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#20 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (1922 posts) -

Everyone should've known this would happen as soon as Pompeo became SecState. He was one of the loudest voices against the deal.

In any case, good. The Iran steal isn't a Treaty of any kind, it's not even a signed document. It was designed to have as little oversight from the US as possible. The only thing that can explain the reasoning behind delivering pallets of cash, as opposed to just wiring the money, is to make the money untraceable. Absolutely despicable when dealing with a terrorist sponsor state. Everything about the deal reeks of shady deep state garbage.

Avatar image for drlostrib
#21 Posted by DrLostRib (5022 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

Do they have a plan for what happens next? Is there anything even remotely resembling a strategy here?

I assume John Bolton just wants to bomb shit

Avatar image for deactivated-5b797108c254e
#23 Posted by deactivated-5b797108c254e (11245 posts) -

Nobody should be surprised by this move but it still pisses me off, especially given the BS reasons Trump's been offering for killing it. "In seven years that deal will have expired, and Iran is free to go ahead and create nuclear weapons. That's not acceptable. Seven years is tomorrow. That's not acceptable." so let's make it literally tomorrow...huge victory!

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#24 Edited by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

@vl4d_l3nin: Are you aware “the money” in your silly post is money that is already Iran’s, right? It’s just unfrozen assets. The US didn’t give them anything that wasn’t already theirs lol. It was the removal of sanctions that unfroze their assets.

“Deep state” hahahaha blimey, you Trump supporters are nuts

Avatar image for zaryia
#25 Edited by Zaryia (9482 posts) -

@vl4d_l3nin said:

shady deep state garbage.

We're not going to take your seriously if you continue to end your posts with conspiracy theories on the level of birtherism and 9/11 truthers.

But can you give citation that proves the deal was bad and Iran wasn't honoring it? Not an opinion piece please.

And as such, vl4d_3nin can you please fact check any of this as incorrect:

@perfect_blue said:

Obama’s statement:

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.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155854913976749&id=6815841748

Avatar image for theone86
#26 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

@blaznwiipspman1 said:

Trump is temporary. He will get his ass and all his family kicked out of office soon enough. Every single policy he's made will be reversed. Be they good or bad, including the tax cuts. After that, someone will come after his ass and throw him in jail where he belongs.

This is a multinational nuclear treaty that took years to come together. This is not just something we can reverse with legislation, it's something that has to be renegotiated in order to reestablish the previous status quo. And, worse, given that we already spearheaded the negotiation then backed out, it's difficult to envision other countries trusting us enough in order to be bargaining partners again. This is exactly what we meant when we said that Trump was dangerous and bad for America. He can do permanent damage that can never be undone and completely do away with our standing in the world with one reckless action.

Avatar image for Shewgenja
#27 Posted by Shewgenja (21456 posts) -

This will only send the price per barrel of oil to the moon, of course. Now, your la li lu le lo will wait and see if the price goes up enough to make it lucrative to invade or they have already decided to invade because it will boost the popularity of Republicans during the midterms.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#28 Edited by blaznwiipspman1 (7234 posts) -

@theone86 said:
@blaznwiipspman1 said:

Trump is temporary. He will get his ass and all his family kicked out of office soon enough. Every single policy he's made will be reversed. Be they good or bad, including the tax cuts. After that, someone will come after his ass and throw him in jail where he belongs.

This is a multinational nuclear treaty that took years to come together. This is not just something we can reverse with legislation, it's something that has to be renegotiated in order to reestablish the previous status quo. And, worse, given that we already spearheaded the negotiation then backed out, it's difficult to envision other countries trusting us enough in order to be bargaining partners again. This is exactly what we meant when we said that Trump was dangerous and bad for America. He can do permanent damage that can never be undone and completely do away with our standing in the world with one reckless action.

of course the US will lose credibility. In hindsight, Hilary would have been a million times better, even if it meant the good times, corporate handouts and subsidies would have continued. At least with hilary there would have been some sense of responsibility in the decisions made. Trump is just a lose cannon, you never know which way he will fire. One good thing about him is that he is entertaining, though im not sure that will help people in a few years when the US is bankrupt and all its allies have gone separate ways to form connections with the Chinese/Russians. Simply put, Trump is a moron, and the people the voted for him are clowns. Oh well, c'est la vie.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#29 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (1922 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

@vl4d_l3nin: Are you aware “the money” in your silly post is money that is already Iran’s, right? It’s just unfrozen assets. The US didn’t give them anything that wasn’t already theirs lol.

“Deep state” hahahaha blimey, you Trump supporters are nuts

Still doesn't explain why we didn't wire it. Like I said, the deal purposely avoids oversight from the US. Our interim agreement with the Soviet Union for nuclear weapons reduction became talks of a treaties within a few weeks. There is no talk of a treaty with Iran from President Obama. He repeatedly said it's the Iran deal or war, which is basically the diplomatic version of W. Bush saying "you're with us or you're with the terrorists." Absolutely horrible foreign policy, strung up on false dichotomy.

I hated this deal long before Trump was on my radar. I credit this more to Pompeo and Bolton than I do Trump.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#30 Posted by mattbbpl (17353 posts) -

Great, we exited a landmark nuclear arms treaty because of debunked, crackpot theories from alt-right nuts.

Truly a proud day for America.

Avatar image for tocool340
#31 Edited by tocool340 (21381 posts) -

*Sigh* Why did we choose Trump to be president?! What a shit show....

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#32 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (1922 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

Great, we exited a landmark nuclear arms treaty because of debunked, crackpot theories from alt-right nuts.

Truly a proud day for America.

It wasn't a treaty. Treaties live beyond a single president. If a new president can remove it with the stroke of a pen, can you call that a treaty? If we can back out and re-impose sanctions on Iran, and Iran can break the rules of the deal (they have, twice in one year) without any real repercussions, can you call that a treaty?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#33 Posted by mattbbpl (17353 posts) -

@vl4d_l3nin: My apologies for getting a technicality wrong.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#34 Posted by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

@vl4d_l3nin: Who the heck cares about how the money was delivered to them? What a bizarre thing to worry about. It sounds like you’re arguing for a treaty that’s more enforceable then sure, that sounds great! Yet at the same time thinking nothing is better than something is madness. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

But hopefully you know (maybe you don’t) the only reason it wasn’t made into a treaty was because the Senate is against it. Because the current GOP are a pack of anti-reality liars and warmongers, as evidenced by Bolton and Pompeo.

Now the US is stuck with no deal, no strategy, and an Iran emboldened to fight back and continue their nuclear weapons program. There is literally no sane reason I can think of for what Trump just did.

Avatar image for Lach0121
#35 Edited by Lach0121 (11416 posts) -

This administration is like a cancer. The longer it stays, the more damage is done.

Avatar image for sonicare
#36 Posted by sonicare (56812 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

Do they have a plan for what happens next? Is there anything even remotely resembling a strategy here?

It's Trump, so no plan and no clue. I think he has a magic eight ball that he uses for big policy decisions.

Avatar image for SUD123456
#37 Posted by SUD123456 (5322 posts) -

LOL. Watching America destroy itself and its credibility on pretty much everything is hilarious....except for that whole nuclear weapons thing which is a bit of a damper on the party.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#38 Edited by Gaming-Planet (20010 posts) -

War with Iran is inevitable.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#39 Edited by comp_atkins (35805 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

Do they have a plan for what happens next? Is there anything even remotely resembling a strategy here?

of course. trump will use his god-like negotiation skills to single-handledly negotiate teh bestest nukular deal around! it'll be totally terrific and tremendous.

it'll be way better that that piece of shit hundreds of people in multiple nations across 3 continents worked on for a decade. you don't understand. even if trumps own administration certified that iran is complying with the agreement. trump buys and sells real estate. he is teh negotiation king! he'll get us something even better!

forget iran having nuclear weapons capabilities in 1-2 decades. though trump's shrewd dealmaking, he can get that down to well under 4 years. that's like a 80% increase!

talk about winning!

Avatar image for mandzilla
#40 Posted by mandzilla (4157 posts) -

Predictably dumb. Well at least everyone else still seems to be committed to continuing the Iran deal for now anyway.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#41 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -

The Iran deal was a win, win for Iran: they got their sanctions lifted which will ultimately make them more powerful and all they had to do was temporarily halt their nuclear program. The day the deal expired, they would literally pick up their nuclear program right up where they left off. A deal would indicate that both parties got something, but what did America get?

I don't think we should be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, but wouldn't a permanent nuclear ban be I don't know, more "efficient" in keeping nuclear weapons away from terrorists?

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#42 Edited by comp_atkins (35805 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu said:

The Iran deal was a win, win for Iran: they got their sanctions lifted which will ultimately make them more powerful and all they had to do was temporarily halt their nuclear program. The day the deal expired, they would literally pick up their nuclear program right up where they left off. A deal would indicate that both parties got something, but what did America get?

I don't think we should be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, but wouldn't a permanent nuclear ban be I don't know, more "efficient" in keeping nuclear weapons away from terrorists?

How would one propose making a "permanent" ban? Hell, for that matter, define permanent. Is it 40 years, 100 years, 1000 years? infinity years? Will the such a ban still be in effect when the earth no longer exits in a few billion years? Would Iran be banned by the US from pursuing nuclear weapons after the US is no longer a nation capable of enforcing such a ban? Limits exist for a reason. You may argue that the terms are not long enough, and that is a valid argument.

The agreement wasn't the US vs. Iran, it was a multilateral agreement. You ask what the rest of the world got in return? It got an Iran that is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. The world got the right to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure compliance and retained the rights to levy additional sanctions should non-compliance be found. We don't live in a black and white world were simply because 'murica! wants everything under the sun that all other nations will bend over and lick their asses. If a deal between adversarial parties has aspects which all interested parties are happy with and aspects all interested parties dislike, it's probably on the right track.

Like many others have said, where is Iran's incentive now to come back to the negotiating table? They're free now to back out on their end and resume weapon's development, the precedent has been set. Or they're free to continue to comply with the terms in agreement with the other participating nations, making Trump's antics looks even more ridiculous on the world stage. Not to mention now the stupidity of putting the US at odd with its closest European allies wrt sanctions on Iran.

Trump made a silly campaign promise that wasn't well thought out, something he's done time and time again. Rather than admit it, to save face he's compelled to follow though on his promises.

His face is more important to him than America's or the worlds interest. We all know it.

Avatar image for mandzilla
#43 Edited by mandzilla (4157 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu said:

The Iran deal was a win, win for Iran: they got their sanctions lifted which will ultimately make them more powerful and all they had to do was temporarily halt their nuclear program. The day the deal expired, they would literally pick up their nuclear program right up where they left off. A deal would indicate that both parties got something, but what did America get?

I don't think we should be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, but wouldn't a permanent nuclear ban be I don't know, more "efficient" in keeping nuclear weapons away from terrorists?

You can't have a permanent nuclear ban, every country in the world has the right to develop a nuclear energy programme.

The whole point of the Iran deal was to ensure that they didn't exceed the levels of uranium enrichment necessary for domestic energy generation, while at the same time respecting their right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy programme. Saudi Arabia operates with nuclear power, and so does Israel. In fact Israel also has a few hundred illegally developed nuclear weapons stashed away too, but I know we're not supposed to talk about that.

Regardless, the Iran deal is a multilateral agreement, and not something that can be broken by one nation. So yeah you don't have to negotiate with anyone, others will pick up America's slack on this.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#44 Edited by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -

@comp_atkins said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:

The Iran deal was a win, win for Iran: they got their sanctions lifted which will ultimately make them more powerful and all they had to do was temporarily halt their nuclear program. The day the deal expired, they would literally pick up their nuclear program right up where they left off. A deal would indicate that both parties got something, but what did America get?

I don't think we should be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, but wouldn't a permanent nuclear ban be I don't know, more "efficient" in keeping nuclear weapons away from terrorists?

How would one propose making a "permanent" ban? Hell, for that matter, define permanent. Is it 40 years, 100 years, 1000 years? infinity years? Will the such a ban still be in effect when the earth no longer exits in a few billion years? Would Iran be banned by the US from pursuing nuclear weapons after the US is no longer a nation capable of enforcing such a ban? Limits exist for a reason. You may argue that the terms are not long enough, and that is a valid argument.

The agreement wasn't the US vs. Iran, it was a multilateral agreement. You ask what the rest of the world got in return? It got an Iran that is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. The world got the right to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure compliance and retained the rights to levy additional sanctions should non-compliance be found. We don't live in a black and white world were simply because 'murica! wants everything under the sun that all other nations will bend over and lick their asses. If a deal between adversarial parties has aspects which all interested parties are happy with and aspects all interested parties dislike, it's probably on the right track.

Like many others have said, where is Iran's incentive now to come back to the negotiating table? They're free now to back out on their end and resume weapon's development, the precedent has been set. Or they're free to continue to comply with the terms in agreement with the other participating nations, making Trump's antics looks even more ridiculous on the world stage. Not to mention now the stupidity of putting the US at odd with its closest European allies wrt sanctions on Iran.

Trump made a silly campaign promise that wasn't well thought out, something he's done time and time again. Rather than admit it, to save face he's compelled to follow though on his promises.

His face is more important to him than America's or the worlds interest. We all know it.

This isn't about 'murica! and bending others to our will, this about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The current leadership of Iran has openly supported terrorism and if the purpose of the ban was to prevent a terrorist nation from obtaining nuclear weapons than I would say that we utterly failed in this regard. What exactly was preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons after the ban expired? I am still waiting for the explanation.

Negotiating table? Since when did we start negotiating with terrorists? When Iran starts condemning terrorists acts, when they stop promoting terror themselves and when they stop harboring terrorists, then we can negotiate- but until then we will call the shots. The deal was bad from the start and the fact that it wasn't even approved by United States Senate makes it unconstitutional- this alone is grounds for the deal to be dismissed.

I just feel bad for the people that were duped into thinking that this was a good deal... Iran got everything they wanted and what did the world get? The got band-aid fix for something that could potentially be a REAL problem in the near future. Hell, ever since the deal Iran has become more violent, hostile and bold which isn't a good indication that they were ever going to be faithful to the original deal.

So back to my main point- why a temporary ban? It literally makes zero sense.

@mandzilla: This had nothing to do with nuclear energy- it was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The United States has pulled out of the deal and I am willing to bet that other countries are going to back us up.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#45 Posted by Serraph105 (33976 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

Do they have a plan for what happens next? Is there anything even remotely resembling a strategy here?

They're going to send in Dennis Rodman to fix things, you'll see.......

Avatar image for mandzilla
#46 Posted by mandzilla (4157 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu: Nothing to do with nuclear energy, did you not just propose a nuclear ban a few posts up?

Besides Israel and Saudi Arabia, who have their own regional power struggle with Iran, which countries? Federated States of Micronesia? Don't count on any meaningful support for this move, when your president is constantly burning bridges and making brash, idiotic foreign policy decisions.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#47 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44161 posts) -

@n64dd said:
@mrbojangles25 said:
@perfect_blue said:

Do they have a plan for what happens next? Is there anything even remotely resembling a strategy here?

Yes, their plan is to regret it later.

The deal was a piece of shit from the start.

Good move on Trump.

Republican strategy seems to be "Oh, there's a hole in the roof of the house. Better tear down the house!". God forbid they try to fix the problem instead of just erasing the whole thing and making a bigger problem.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#48 Edited by KungfuKitten (26746 posts) -

Something must have happened behind the scenes. A deal with Israel?

Or he did something that wasn't too smart? Just because it was part of the campaign, maybe? He has been following his campaign speeches much more accurately than previous presidents.

I don't understand it either given the knowledge I have of the situation. It was not to make the ban more permanent. He could have done such a thing in much better ways, without looking like a baboon. There's very few countries in the world who wouldn't want to see the deal prolonged.

Maybe it was together with the steel/aluminum tariffs, simply a way to enforce a better deal for the USA, all relationships and consequences in the world be damned? Or maybe he just wants to get rid of Iran. Since it's a terrorist nation and all that. Doesn't want them to get any funding, wants them to make a mistake and get run over. A mistake that could involve an atom bomb.

Avatar image for horgen
#49 Posted by Horgen (120925 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

@n64dd: Why is it bad? What is Trump’s alternative?

I think I need to quote this. Repeating the message.

Why was the deal bad? Any sources to back your claims?

As far as I know, Iran has kept their end of the deal. We also have another 7 years before some parts of it runs out. In that time we could have worked out a new deal.

Avatar image for n64dd
#50 Posted by N64DD (11970 posts) -

@horgen said:
@perfect_blue said:

@n64dd: Why is it bad? What is Trump’s alternative?

I think I need to quote this. Repeating the message.

Why was the deal bad? Any sources to back your claims?

As far as I know, Iran has kept their end of the deal. We also have another 7 years before some parts of it runs out. In that time we could have worked out a new deal.

They have 24 days to prepare for inspections. They are one of the biggest sponsors for terrorism. Historically they've broken every promise they've made. Their leaders have openly said they want to wipe Isreal off of the face of the earth.