Iran: Deal or No Deal

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-unfit_us_5af29233e4b0a0d601e7bdbd?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__050918&utm_content=__TheMorningEmail__050918+CID_fd567e4393c369e2bdb3311cd80065ae&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Reuters&ncid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__050918

Alternate headline: Drumpf is a POS

Obama's Iran "deal" was simply a path to legitimate nuclear power by a rogue terrorist backing regime. They've even broken the original agreement numerous times... ballistic missiles, heavy water,  enrichment... etc.

The (self) inspection terms might've been the most naive part... if not for the ultimate outcome.

I thght leftists were against religious autocracies?

Btw... how many American prisoners did Obama get released in his "deal"?

It's deja vu all over again:


Trump's Iran move reminds some of run-up to Iraq war

Fifteen years after invading Iraq over weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda that both proved non-existent, the United States is again steering towards a possible confrontation with a Middle East power for suspected work on nuclear weapons and support for terrorism.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s Iran policy sounds hauntingly familiar to some current and former U.S. officials who witnessed the buildup to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, where sectarian and ethnic fractures and some 5,000 U.S. troops still remain.

More than 4,400 U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the conflict, which many analysts have called one of the major U.S. foreign policy debacles of modern times.

“There are disturbing and eerie similarities” in the misuse of intelligence then and now, said Paul Pillar, who was the top U.S. intelligence analyst for the Middle East from 2001 to 2005.

“The basic thing that is going on is a highly tendentious, cherry-picked, ‘we know what the conclusion is’” use of intelligence, Pillar said.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-intelligence/trumps-iran-move-reminds-some-of-run-up-to-iraq-war-idUKKBN1IB0H3

Gas prices are already rising and will rise even further as a result of this move. How in God's name he thinks this is an appropriate prelude to his talks with N Korea I cannot fathom. What he did accomplish is a giant gift to Putin, who needs the economic boost in o&g. And, apparently, to hell with the repercussions on Americans. When, oh when will we be rid of this excuse for a human being? Please let it be soon. Amen.

Iran is a bad actor, what the ultimate effects of withdrawal from this treaty may be are unknown. One thing will never change - Iran is not to be trusted as long as they perpetuate radical Islamist activities - you know, terrorism.

Since the Trumpet pulled out of this treaty this would be an excellent time to withdraw completely from Iraq and Afghanistan. Then let's see what happens.

BREAKING: Trump to reverse Obama-era killing of Osama bin Laden - Michael Hughes


I thought using the Ayatollah's money to support the Nicaraguan resistance was a neat idea. - Oliver North at the Iran/Contra hearings

THE OFFICE OF BARACK OBAMA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 08, 2018

Statement from President Barack Obama on the JCPOA
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://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/obama-full-statement-on-trump-exit-from-iran-nuclear-deal/

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html

Haley's demand for increased access for IAEA inspectors in Iran came after she met last week with IAEA experts in Vienna, Austria.

"As good as the IAEA is, it can only be as good as what they are permitted to see," she said Friday.

"Iran has publicly declared that it will not allow access to military sites. But the JCPOA makes no distinction between military and nonmilitary sites. There are also numerous undeclared sites that have not been inspected yet. That's a problem.

"I have good confidence in the IAEA but they are dealing with a country that has a clear history of lying and pursuing covert nuclear programs, so we are encouraging the IAEA to use all the authorities they have and to pursue every angle possible with the JCPOA and we will continue to support the IAEA in that process."

I honestly haven't drilled enough into the ins-and-outs and history of the JCPOA or whatever it's called to have a firm position.

But ... if Trump's gonna walk out on it, I just want to know what's the new plan/policy toward Iran?  

Doesn't seem to me the leadership in Iran will be very inclined to negotiate a new deal with the US seeing as how they had one long-negotiated deal in place for over two years and the US just suddenly walked out on it cold.   Seems to me it really hurts US credibility to welch on international agreements every 4 or 8 years when a new Pres comes in.   If that's how it's gonna be ... why would any country take any negotiations with the USA seriously?   Is that what we want to be known as internationally?   A country of welchers?    It's just short term thinking and a bad precedent to set so far as I can see.

And don't think Kim Jong Un's not paying attention to this.

It wasn't ever a "US" deal. It was never ratified (or even considered) by Congress... hell we didn't even find out some of the backhanded "deals" in it for months due to clear obfuscation by Obama's admin. This was simply an Obama "deal"... clearly beyond executive powers. Further... it was a roadbump at best... and objectively simply a path toward a legitimate religious fanatic nuclear regime. That's supposed to be a good result? C'mon

PkrBum wrote:It wasn't ever a "US" deal. It was never ratified (or even considered) by Congress... hell we didn't even find out some of the backhanded "deals" in it for months due to clear obfuscation by Obama's admin. This was simply an Obama "deal"... clearly beyond executive powers. Further... it was a roadbump at best... and objectively simply a path toward a legitimate religious fanatic nuclear regime. That's supposed to be a good result? C'mon

All international agreements aren't ratified by Congress .. only formal treaties. We have lots and lots of international agreements that are not formalized treaties ... just because they are not formal treaties doesn't mean other countries don't expect us to keep our word unless there have been major and repeated violations. Anyway ... had it actually been ratified I seriously doubt Trump would even be able to get the Congress to undo it. (lucky for him)

And so what do we have now vis-a-vis Iran and their nuclear ambitions?   What's the policy?  What's the plan? Unilateral sanctions?  Are we going to sanction all the European (and other) companies currently doing business with Iran since the agreement?    "Enquiring minds need to know" as they say (Nikki Haley for one )

EmeraldGhost wrote:

PkrBum wrote:It wasn't ever a "US" deal. It was never ratified (or even considered) by Congress... hell we didn't even find out some of the backhanded "deals" in it for months due to clear obfuscation by Obama's admin. This was simply an Obama "deal"... clearly beyond executive powers. Further... it was a roadbump at best... and objectively simply a path toward a legitimate religious fanatic nuclear regime. That's supposed to be a good result? C'mon

And so what do we have now vis-a-vis Iran and their nuclear ambitions?   What's the policy?  What's the plan?  Are we going to sanction all the European countries now doing business with Iran since the agreement?    "Enquiring minds need to know" as they say (Nikki Haley for one )

Why do we have to do anything? I'd probably rub the EU's nose in it... maybe pull other military cooperation. When it comes down to it... the monster they create will be in their own back yard. Good luck suckers.

PkrBum wrote:

Why do we have to do anything? I'd probably rub the EU's nose in it... maybe pull other military cooperation. When it comes down to it... the monster they create will be in their own back yard. Good luck suckers.

What we are doing is re-instituting economic sanctions against companies from other countries doing business in Iran ... many of those companies are based in countries that are our allies, and those countries are not pulling out of the agreement.  

"Pull other military cooperation" ????  ... what are you on about there?

EmeraldGhost wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Why do we have to do anything? I'd probably rub the EU's nose in it... maybe pull other military cooperation. When it comes down to it... the monster they create will be in their own back yard. Good luck suckers.

What we are doing is re-instituting economic sanctions against companies from other countries doing business in Iran ... many of those companies are based in countries that are our allies, and those countries are not pulling out of the agreement.  

"Pull other military cooperation" ????  ... what are you on about there?

NATO and other coalitions. If they don't want to have a secure and stable region... fuck em.

I think there are some tactics already underway to renegotiate trade agreements... I'd just use those to the same effect. Our economy is the greatest engine in history. They can choose Iran if they prefer.

Good luck.

jan 24, 2018

"Merkel is just the latest leader at Davos to criticize a protectionist and isolationist stance towards the world’s problems. Such comments appear to be directed towards President Donald Trump who has adopted an “America First” stance in his foreign and economic policies."

"“Frankly speaking, the country I have the honor to represent and where I am chancellor has difficulties. And polarization is something that we see in our country as well, which we haven’t had for decades,” Merkel said.

Cnbc.com reports: She attributed increasing populism and polarization to both the euro zone crisis and migration crisis seen in Europe over the last few years following an influx of refugees, but said Germany would not shrink from the world stage.

At the start of her address, Merkel referenced both world wars in the 20th century, saying that the “political actors involved had almost sleepwalked into a horrendous situation.” She said there was a danger that the world had not learned the lessons from history.

PkrBum wrote:It wasn't ever a "US" deal. It was never ratified (or even considered) by Congress... hell we didn't even find out some of the backhanded "deals" in it for months due to clear obfuscation by Obama's admin. This was simply an Obama "deal"... clearly beyond executive powers. Further... it was a roadbump at best... and objectively simply a path toward a legitimate religious fanatic nuclear regime. That's supposed to be a good result? C'mon

Haley wrongly says Congress had no input on Iran nuclear deal

By Allison Colburn on Thursday, October 19th, 2017 at 12:13 p.m.

"And I think that his engagement with Congress is something that never happened under President Obama. They were never allowed to debate it. They were never allowed to discuss it. So, now Congress is going to be fully engaged on the threats of Iran."
— Nikki Haley on Sunday, October 15th, 2017 in comments on ABC

[quote="PkrBum"]

EmeraldGhost wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Why do we have to do anything? I'd probably rub the EU's nose in it... maybe pull other military cooperation. When it comes down to it... the monster they create will be in their own back yard. Good luck suckers.

I expect our "friends" the Saudis and the Israelis might have more to fear from a nuclear Iran ... Europe just wants to do business there and the Iranians are happy to have them.

And then there's the Russia factor:

Iran and Russia have agreed to work together within the framework of a Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) following three years of discussion and negotiations on free trade.
The agreement, which will require ratification in both countries, will bolster bilateral trade and investment and also open Iranian markets and investors to the other EEU members –
Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Vietnam.

Iran’s inclusion into the EEU will help it access markets that may have been previously blocked due to US sanctions.

Once ratified, Iran will be expected to establish a free trade zone for EEU trade.

In 2015, Iran and Russia signed a joint monetary agreement to facilitate mutual trade transactions of Iran’s rials and Russia’s roubles.

In the first two quarters of 2017, Iranian exports to Russia soared 36 per cent reaching $228 million, according to official statistics in Tehran. But imports from Russia fell from $594 to $509 million between the first half of 2016 and the same period in 2017.

In recent years, both Iran and Russia have found that their trade and strategic ties have become more aligned, particularly as both countries fall under US sanctions.

 http://thebricspost.com/iran-moves-closer-to-join-russia-led-economic-bloc/#.WvdNm2gvxPY

Personally, I think we've engaged in a bit of overuse of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool the past decade or two.  In my view economic sanctions are just one foreign-policy tool and to be used only in particular situations and towards particular targeted goods/services .... not as our first go-to tool to be imposed willy-nilly upon every/any country we'd like to pressure to do or not do something or other we don't like.

So ... now that we've re-instituted sanctions against companies doing business in Iran .... how many companies in how many countries (many of whom are allies) will we be sanctioning? It's companies from other countries that get sanctioned you know.