Trump to Withdraw from Iran Nuclear Deal

[Shad]

Who cares?

Given some of the posts you made about Russia you should. Funny that you do not.

 

[YmirGF]

Given some of the posts you made about Russia you should. Funny that you do not.

It is hard to follow, admittedly. We can only marvel at the ingenuity of our intellectual betters I suppose.

 

[Mister Emu]

False, as such equipment simply isn't that mobile.

They wouldn't have to remove the equipment, only evidence that it was used in ways that violated the deal.

There simply is not one shred of evidence that they have not complied.

I never said there was, only that the deal did not provide the tools necessary to ensure that it was maintained.

But then a new agreement could be in order when that time arrives, so one shouldn't prejudge what might happen then.

That's my line. You can't pin your hopes for a real solution on future generations. Iran will walk away from this deal in less than 20 years with nuclear weapons capability and economic progress.

What the Trump administration has clearly shown is that the U.S. cannot be trusted

Obama was never "the U.S."; what Trump showed is that Obama's ineffectual statesmanship can't be trusted. Also, the idea that the executive branch can unilaterally institute permanent obligations for the country is absurdly against the principles of governance, representation and balance of powers, that this country was founded on, and borders on kowtowing to autocracy. Though the left has never been shy about that.

bluster and saber-rattling is what we now what we specialize in with him at the helm.

Yes, certainly more than I care for, still preferable to cravenly servile.

Have you forgotten the make-up of Congress back then?

Better have been a real good deal then, something you could throw in the faces of Reps at the next election instead of bleeding your own support by pushing something that had bipartisan opposition.

 

[Shad]

It is hard to follow, admittedly. We can only marvel at the ingenuity of our intellectual betters I suppose.

They must be flipping a coin daily to decide when Russia is good or bad....

 

[Shad]

What the Trump administration has clearly shown is that the U.S. cannot be trusted

The deal was never ratified. EOs are not edicts as if a king.

So your spin or your ignorance of the ratification process?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

They wouldn't have to remove the equipment, only evidence that it was used in ways that violated the deal.


I never said there was, only that the deal did not provide the tools necessary to ensure that it was maintained.


That's my line. You can't pin your hopes for a real solution on future generations. Iran will walk away from this deal in less than 20 years with nuclear weapons capability and economic progress.


Obama was never "the U.S."; what Trump showed is that Obama's ineffectual statesmanship can't be trusted. Also, the idea that the executive branch can unilaterally institute permanent obligations for the country is absurdly against the principles of governance, representation and balance of powers, that this country was founded on, and borders on kowtowing to autocracy. Though the left has never been shy about that.


Yes, certainly more than I care for, still preferable to cravenly servile.


Better have been a real good deal then, something you could throw in the faces of Reps at the next election instead of bleeding your own support by pushing something that had bipartisan opposition.

Now that the Iran deal is kaput there are absolutely no inspections and Iran can do whatever it wants. I don't see how that is an improvement. Even more, Iran has no reason to enter into another deal because the US will go back on its word.

 

[Shad]

Now that the Iran deal is kaput there are absolutely no inspections and Iran can do whatever it wants. I don't see how that is an improvement. Even more, Iran has no reason to enter into another deal because the US will go back on its word.

Get the deal ratified next time perhaps? Obama is not the US nor it's king.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Get the deal ratified next time perhaps? Obama is not the US nor it's king.

Why would Iran enter into any deal if the US is just going to throw out the deal a few years later? In the mean time, Iran can do whatever it wants.

 

[Subduction Zone]

John Oliver's talks are a bit different than Colbert, or Kimmel. The people at Last Week Tonight actually research these things, the humor is there just as a side dish. And "This video is not available."? It worked when I clicked on it.

Different country. I have sometimes tried to watch British videos here and they have been blocked. The same might have happened to the official John Oliver channel, there is sometimes a way around this. Other YouTuber's put up their own versions and those smaller channels may avoid being blocked. Since they even have complete shows at times, something that the official channel lacks, it looks as if their pirated versions will be more widely viewable.

 

[Phantasman]

So you take the word of Israel over the inspectors who had access to sites all over Iran and ignore the fact that the deal set them back by years at the very least.

Reminds me of the start of the Iraq war. Inspectors said no weapons but suspect intelligence proffered by the US, Britain and Israel led us to ignore the inspectors to our detriment.

I simply see a theocracy that is bent on Israeli and American destruction. Trust who you wish. I don't trust their actions nor their intentions. There is no reason for inspectors to have to wait 24 days to inspect unless there is something that has to be done before an inspection. If you were on the up and up, you should want inspectors to see that asap.

Iran has a bad track record of violations. Only the gullible would believe them now, especially under such circumstances.

 

[Shad]

Why would Iran enter into any deal if the US is just going to throw out the deal a few years later?

As even during the short period it is in effect Iran will see economic benefits. When the deal dies Iran can turn around blaming the US while keep it's population ignorant of the US ratification process for PR points. The Iranian government gets to act like it entered legally binding treaty when it reality it didn't. It is called propaganda.

In the mean time, Iran can do whatever it wants.

So the deal was nothing but a bribe then? After all if Iran has no interest in nukes fearmongering does not work. If it does why are we bribing a nation that is extorting the world with nukes?

 

[metis]

They wouldn't have to remove the equipment, only evidence that it was used in ways that violated the deal.

But either way there would be tell-tale signs.

I never said there was, only that the deal did not provide the tools necessary to ensure that it was maintained.

False, as the inspection process was more detailed than with any other such agreement.

Iran will walk away from this deal in less than 20 years with nuclear weapons capability and economic progress.

You don't know that.

Obama was never "the U.S."; what Trump showed is that Obama's ineffectual statesmanship can't be trusted.

Partisan clap-trap, and the fact that our allies were quite willing to strike deals with the Obama administration shows how wrong you are.

And remember that it was his administration that put together a coalition of countries to fight ISIS and also to fight in Afghanistan. Now with Trump doing his cowboy thingy, how willing will our allies be to cooperate with us since we cannot be trusted to keep deals.

 

[Underhill]

Given some of the posts you made about Russia you should. Funny that you do not.

You think Russia has a shortage of this material? They have it stockpiled (just as we do). Who it goes to is less important than that it isn't in Iranian hands.

Russia loves that Trump is pulling out. It means one of two things.

The likely scenario is that the Iran deal moves forward without us. Iran gets to call us the great satan for another 20 years and gets to trade as needed with other countries. They would also have a deal without those pesky Americans looking over their shoulders. Russia gets more influence in the middle east and gets to watch us lose a piece of our own.

The second scenario is that the deal falls apart. In this case the US also loses influence in Iran and Russia (along with the rest of the world) can make their own backdoor deals with Iran. This Iran gets to do with no oversight by anyone.

Either way, the US is alone while the rest of the world sees us as the bad guys, yet again, in Iran. But it does keep the Israelis and Saudis happy. So there is that.

 

[metis]

Get the deal ratified next time perhaps? Obama is not the US nor it's king.

It was not a treaty, therefore it didn't need ratification. However, I do agree that Congress should have been involved and should have voted, much like Congress should have been involved and voted on Trump's negating the agreement. How come you didn't complain about the latter?

 

[Underhill]

Get the deal ratified next time perhaps? Obama is not the US nor it's king.

It would not have made an ounce of difference.

Analysis | If the Iran deal had been a Senate-confirmed treaty, would Trump have been forced to stay in? Nope.

There are plenty of examples of ratified treaties being overturned by Presidents.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As even during the short period it is in effect Iran will see economic benefits. When the deal dies Iran can turn around blaming the US while keep it's population ignorant of the US ratification process for PR points. The Iranian government gets to act like it entered legally binding treaty when it reality it didn't. It is called propaganda.

That's all window dressing. The truth of the matter is that there were inspections and there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear bomb. Now all of that is thrown out the window.

So the deal was nothing but a bribe then? After all if Iran has no interest in nukes fearmongering does not work. If it does why are we bribing a nation that is extorting the world with nukes?

If not hitting your children is an example of spoiling them, I guess so.

 

[metis]

So your spin or your ignorance of the ratification process?

See my last post, as the Iran agreement was not a treaty.

At least if you're going to stoop low enough so as to throw insults around, maybe it's best to get your facts straight first.

 

[Underhill]

I simply see a theocracy that is bent on Israeli and American destruction. Trust who you wish. I don't trust their actions nor their intentions. There is no reason for inspectors to have to wait 24 days to inspect unless there is something that has to be done before an inspection. If you were on the up and up, you should want inspectors to see that asap.

Of course there is. Otherwise we could literally look into any of their weapons programs or other initiatives without any warning. Something that would be guaranteed to sink the deal. You cannot just move a nuclear installation capable of making weapons grade material without signs of it being there.

Yours is an argument rooted in ignorance.

Iran has a bad track record of violations. Only the gullible would believe them now, especially under such circumstances.

As do we. On the other hand that is why the deal called for a regime of inspectors. Not to mention the fact that we still watch Iran like a hawk using all the traditional methods.

Without the deal what is improved? Better a deal that, at the very least, gives us a better opportunity to monitor them and know when they are violating the deal. Without the deal, we simply have less access.

 

[Shad]

You think Russia has a shortage of this material? They have it stockpiled (just as we do). Who it goes to is less important than that it isn't in Iranian hands.

I do not think Russia was the best nation to give the supply to because of it's existing relationship and trade deals with Iran. I see it in similar light as the failed policy of letting Russian handle Assad for the world.

The likely scenario is that the Iran deal moves forward without us. Iran gets to call us the great satan for another 20 years and gets to trade as needed with other countries. They would also have a deal without those pesky Americans looking over their shoulders. Russia gets more influence in the middle east and gets to watch us lose a piece of our own.

Iran would call the US that regardless of the deal. It might as well be the national motto.

Nations which are adversaries of Iran will still align with the US as they already have. More so a small regional coalition could form from the improved relationships between Egypt, KSA, Jordan and Israel. A relationship which in part is formed due to Iranian proxy wars. I have little worries about major players flipping sides.

The second scenario is that the deal falls apart. In this case the US also loses influence in Iran and Russia (along with the rest of the world) can make their own backdoor deals with Iran. This Iran gets to do with no oversight by anyone.

I doubt it will lose as much influence as you think.

This deal was made with other nations involved. So in the end all you have done is concede those other nations are not only powerless but a useless addition to the deal.

Either way, the US is alone while the rest of the world sees us as the bad guys, yet again, in Iran. But it does keep the Israelis and Saudis happy. So there is that.

It isn't the USA's job to please other nations.

 

[Shad]

It would not have made an ounce of difference.

Analysis | If the Iran deal had been a Senate-confirmed treaty, would Trump have been forced to stay in? Nope.

Your sources are laughable and manipulates the public.

Carter as per Article 10 of the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of China; December 2, 1954. The ratification process agreed with giving him the authority to do so.

ARTICLE X

This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other Party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.

DONE in duplicate, in the English and Chinese languages, at Washington on this second day of December of the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-four, corresponding to the second day of the twelfth month of the Forty-third year of the Republic of China.

(1) TIAS 3178; 6 UST 433-438. Ratification advised by the Senate Feb. 9, 1955; ratified by the President Feb. 11, 1955; entered into force Mar. 3, 1955. Back

(2) Instruments of ratification were exchanged Mar. 3, 1955

Avalon Project - Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of China; December 2, 1954

Bush, like Carter, used a clause in the agreement giving him the authority to do so as per Article XV, paragraph 2.

Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty)

And that is when I stopped taking your source seriously and doing any further research.

There are plenty of examples of ratified treaties being overturned by Presidents.

Yet not in the way you thought......