Slashdot Mirror


Trump Withdraws US From Iran Nuclear Deal (nytimes.com)

President Trump on Tuesday announced he is withdrawing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, a historic accord signed in 2015 that aims to limit Tehran's nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions against the country. "This was a horrible one-sided deal that should never, ever been made," Mr. Trump said at the White House in announcing his decision. "It didn't bring calm, it didn't bring peace, and it never will." The New York Times reports: Mr. Trump's announcement, while long anticipated and widely telegraphed, plunges America's relations with European allies into deep uncertainty. They have committed to staying in the deal, raising the prospect of a diplomatic and economic clash as the United States reimposes stringent sanctions on Iran. It also raises the prospect of increasing tensions with Russia and China, which also are parties to the agreement.

One person familiar with negotiations to keep the accord in place said the talks collapsed over Mr. Trump's insistence that sharp limits be kept on Iran's nuclear fuel production after 2030. The deal currently lifts those limits. As a result, the United States is now preparing to reinstate all sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord -- and impose additional economic penalties as well, according to another person briefed on Mr. Trump's decision.
Despite Trump's decision, President Hassan Rouhani said that Iran would remain committed to a multinational nuclear deal. "If we achieve the deal's goals in cooperation with other members of the deal, it will remain in place. [...] By exiting the deal, America has officially undermined its commitment to an international treaty," Rouhani said in a televised speech. "I have ordered the foreign ministry to negotiate with the European countries, China and Russia in coming weeks. If at the end of this short period we conclude that we can fully benefit from the JCPOA with the cooperation of all countries, the deal would remain," he added.

19 of 900 comments (clear)

  1. Ben Rhodes admitted lying to sell it by schwit1 · · Score: 1, Informative

    New York Times Magazine piece where Ben Rhodes explained how he led the administration’s efforts to misrepresent the truth in order “to sell” the JCPOA to the press.

    1. Re:Ben Rhodes admitted lying to sell it by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      New York Times Magazine [nytimes.com] piece where Ben Rhodes explained how he led the administration’s efforts to misrepresent the truth in order “to sell” the JCPOA to the press.

      That's not what the article says, at all.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Ben Rhodes admitted lying to sell it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you blind or you just can't read English? That's exactly what it says...."...that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal". How is 'largely manufactured" not 'misrepresenting the true' an it's right there 'for selling deal'.

      I do not know nor can predict (nor can anyone else) if Trump's decision is going to turn out 'good or bad', but if the deal was sold to the public on lies & misinformation. And even if Obama truly believed the efforts would disentangle the US from a complex set of relationships & pave the way for the US to get out of the Middle East..it has absolutely failed in that regard specifically because Iran took the money & used it to escalate tensions in the region. We have Yemen bombing Saudi Arabia now (and I'm certainly no fan of Saudi Arabia...but seriously "escalation anyone"???).

      This agreement entirely failed to do what Obama believed it would and it was sold using 'smoke & mirrors'. You really think Khomeini put 'moderates' in power because he changed? LMAO.

      Dude you live in a fairy tale world where apparently 'everyone just wants to get along', that is so far from the truth (at least in leadership levels in various countries) that I fear for your sanity when reality comes & bites you in the ass.

    3. Re:Ben Rhodes admitted lying to sell it by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well folks that sums it up. We no longer can question anyone's honesty because "Trump".

      That's correct. Honesty no longer matters. Truth no longer matters. That's what the entire Trump presidency has been about: destroying norms, including the most basic ones about Americans hating serial liars and expecting honesty. The biggest inauguration ever. The hugest victory ever. I never paid that woman $130,000. I did, but I didn't know why. I met with the Russians to talk about adoption. I refused to enact sanction on Russia, even though they were in a law I signed, but there's no quid pro quo. I'm happy with my legal team. I hire the best people. I have full confidence in General Flynn. Obama was born in Kenya. I have a very good brain. Nobody respect women more than me. I watched Muslims celebrating in the streets of New Jersey after 9/11. I graduated top of my class at Wharton. I never spoke to any Russians. There is no evidence of collusion. It's all a witch hunt. The tax cuts hurt me financially.

      I could go on. The Toronto Star has compiled a list of every falsehood Donald Trump has uttered since being sworn in. They update it every few weeks, and it looks like the last time was on April 22, 2018, so the list has almost certainly grown since then. That these were lies is irrefutable. It's not a matter of interpretation, or context. There is no other possible conclusion other than that we have entered into a post-truth era. What's true and who lies no longer matters. (FYI: The list is in reverse chronological with the newest shown first).

      http://projects.thestar.com/do...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Re: Nice by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You know our own SecDef and head of the joint chiefs of staff came out and said Iran is abiding by the terms of the deal?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  3. Re:Amazing to watch politicians defend a lousy dea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The deal gave Iran billions of dollars, while ignoring the much larger debt that Iran owed to the US for stealing US-owned equipment, land, kidnapping diplomats, terrorist attacks against the US - all of which were still unpaid claims that Obama ignored. And much of that money went to fund the largest, deadliest terrorist organization in the world - Hezballah.

    "The deal cut in half the number of centrifuges that Iran could run!" supporters claim. But at the same time, Iran was allowed to upgrade those centrifuges from 1980s technology to modern tech. The resulting facilities are more than twice as efficient, meaning that Iran was allowed to INCREASE the rate of uranium enrichment.

    "Iran was limited in how much Uranium and other materials they could have!" Limits they got caught breaking regularly. Incidentally, the limits were odd - not enough enriched uranium to run any significant number of reactors... but enough to run a moderately sized nuclear weapons program.

    "Iran was prevented from working on ICBMs!" Hahahaha! God, that's funny. They never even slowed their missile program. They were caught just months after the deal started running new ICBM tests. But, like North Korea, they claimed it was for their "space program" and Obama sucked it down.

    "But we prevented war with Iran!" Except Iran still ran attacks against US troops in Iraq, including using drones to try to drop bombs on US bases and civilian housing. If that's not war, then what the hell do they call it?

  4. Re:Nice by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Informative

    The UN observers, US Secretary of Defense and the joint chiefs of staff are satisfied that Iran is following the terms of the agreement. You're so desperate to believe that Iran is doing stuff in secret, *somehow*, that it becomes an easy chip to play for political gain for Trump. It's almost too easy.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  5. Re: Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Jeebus won't come back unless we have a nuclear war in the middle east.

    I wish i was kidding but this exactly what American evangelicals believe. They wish for war so they can be raptured and go spend eternity with invisible sky daddy.

  6. Re:This is not for /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isolationist

    I.e., retracting somewhat from globalism. Compared to the world, the US is hardly isolationist.

    America deciding everything for everyone? "Fuck you, America"
    America not deciding everything for everyone? "Fuck you, America" ...maybe America isnt the problem here.

    nationalist

    The US has always been nationalist, retard. Retards like you help validate the nationalists.

    Islamophobic

    Not any more than most Western countries. There are no laws against Muslims, unlike say, France. Muslims dont form ghettos in the US.

    anti-immigration

    The US is actually enforcing its existing laws regarding illegal immigration. Come here legally... gee, what a concept. Fuck you, America.

    anti-refugee

    The rise of conservative parties across Europe show refugees, entering without documentation and from terrorist-ridden places, isnt popular in quite a bit of the Western world.

    intolerant of its own people

    The US is more tolerant than ever, but reporting has increased exponentially, and it's quality has seen the inverse. But gimme some more of dat juicy 24-hour news feed - I'm so informed.

     

    warmongering, and oligarchical, America's beacon has dimmed and she is doomed

    Been hearing this for a loooooooong time.

    I mean, at least try to insult American well.

  7. Re:Nice by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    We already knew they had a nuclear program and lied about it, so that's not news. Israel is trying to whip people like you into a froth with some old facts. They have nothing new of interest whatsoever.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Re:Nice by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't think this was a treaty, just an agreement. Congress didn't approve it. Which made congress at the time very very angry, but then the president as executive can abide by the agreements anyway and doesn't need permission from congress to remove the sanctions or insist on inspections. However without congress this agreement doesn't have force of law, and the next president can overturn the agreement on a whim. The executive branch decides on foreign policy, not congress.

  9. Re:Nice by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have no opinion on this issue specifically, but it is indeed possible that the person you are talking to could indeed be smarter than all of Mossad and the CIA put together. And you probably are, too. Any organisation which actively rejects public scrutiny can very easily be far stupider than any single person who works for them.

    In the lead up to the Iraq war, our intelligence services were convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

    Cool story Bro. The people who were convinced were the Neocons running the country at that time. Turns out that was not an intel failure, but a lie.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  10. Re: Nice by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Informative

    One can conclude only that either your ignorance is wilful in nature, or that you just don't read.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  11. Re:We owe you nothing by elainerd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Okian Warrior - Thanks for writing what people with a brain still think in this country. Yeah, the peanut gallery will throw feces at you for it. But you just told them the truth. So screw them.Let them feel the truth. Ouch, it hurts. People are just done with apologizing for reality.

    --
    Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
  12. Re:Nice by quantaman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Exactly right. Had Obama wished to make the deal permanent, he needed to go to the Senate to have them ratify it. Since the Senate at the time was controlled by Republicans he was in no mood to negotiate with

    Your take-away from the Obama administration is that Obama was the one reluctant to negotiate with Republicans?

    Were you even paying attention?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  13. Re: Nice by crunchygranola · · Score: 3, Informative

    Several. Yeah. You know very few, and very little.

    The Late Great Planet Earth predicted in 1970 that the Apocalypse would occur within one generation of the founding of the State of Israel (and thus by 1988 by the reckoning of its author Hal Lindsay). It sold 28 million copies by 1990, and millions who read it believed Lindsay's every word (including my grandmother at whose home I read the book myself). She marveled at the fact that she was living at the "end of days".

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  14. Re: Good by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

    This cash? It was already theirs. The bigger problem with that payment is that it looked a lot like a ransom.

    The $400 million was Iran's to start with, placed into a US-based trust fund to support American military equipment purchases in the 1970s. When the Shah was ousted by a 1979 popular uprising that led to the creation of the Islamic Republic, the US froze the trust fund. Iran has been fighting for a return of the funds through international courts since 1981.

    In announcing the agreement, Obama said that paying the $400 million -- plus $1.3 billion in interest -- was saving American taxpayers billions of dollars. The Iranians had been seeking more than $10 billion at arbitration.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  15. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

    The thing is America did not give its word, that requires the deal to be ratified by the Senate, and Obama clearly stated while he was negotiating the deal that he was not going to do that.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  16. Re:Nice by greythax · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow, what a nice little fairy tale. Let me tell you a real story. I was alive and old enough to remember the runup to IRAQ, and I was politically aware enough to watch the news. TONS of people knew Iraq had jack and squat. THere were NIGHTLY news stories about how the UN weapons inspectors, over and over again, weren't finding even hints of a nuclear program. In fact, when bush finally got his authorization of force, they had to hurry inspectors out who had been begging for time to finish yet another inspection trying to debunk the made up evidence.

    Evidence by the way that Cheney had to essentially create an office in the pentagon to come up with. After our intelligence continually told him over and over that it wasn't the case, he had to create a department to "find evidence at all cost". The most telling thing I remember was watching the state of the union and hearing bush say "...and a european intelligence report states that Sadam Hussien is actively seeking nuclear materials." I remember thinking "What do OUR intelligence agencies think about it? Why couldn't he cite them in the speech?"

    A few days later we learned why, the news started airing reports that our intelligence agency had long considered that particular report fiction. Even the days of the week didn't match up to the numeric dates!

    I don't know if you were a child or an early victim of fox news, but it was widely known by anyone paying attention that the Iraq war was being manufactured. There were protests, constant news reports, general skepticism.