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.
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.
I have a feeling that a lot of Trump's nonsense will be corrected once Trump is gone.
I think there is a potential for Trump to be like the Mule in the Foundation Trilogy; in the same way that he's extremely disruptive in the moment, but may ultimately have little effect on the course of history.
The Paris Accord, the Iran deal, the Wall, ... if the rest of the planet just holds shit together until Trump is gone, the next president is reasonably likely to just put a lot of the pieces pretty much back where they were.
Not that I really expect trump to resign or anything, and we may have several more years of his chaotic nonsense, but he will ultimately have to go and unless America decides to double down and elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho for president... or maybe Ted Nugent, things will probably return to normal pretty quickly.
...Because without this lousy deal we'd have no deal!
It wasn't a legally enacted treaty - never went to Congress for approval as all treaties must.
We were prevented from inspecting numerous locations considered 'military' by Iran's leaders - which is the most likely place to develop a nuclear program.
Even the staunchest supporter of this deal will admit that Iran has a history of lying - yet supporters argue that we have to accept their kids or we have no deal!
As I type this the news on tv is showing me Schumer, Menendez, and other democrats speaking AGAINST the Iran deal in 2015 - who now oddly embrace the deal they were against because Trump ended it.
Ken
Did you see the intel from Israel about WMDs in 2003?
The "intel from Israel" consisted of a PowerPoint presentation with a slide that said, "Iran is Cheating". You could change the word "Iran" to "Iraq" in everything that's been presented by Israel and you'd get an exact copy of the run-up to the Iraq War. Coincidentally, the people who are most keen to believe the "intel from Israel" are the exact same people who insisted that Saddam was hours away from being able to send a nuke to New York. It's been 15 years since Bush invaded Iraq and the Likudniks assume we've forgotten by now.
You've been played. No, you played yourself.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I guess you're not aware of the Green River oil shale that has about 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to run 100% of current US demand for nearly 3 centuries. All it takes is a desire to get it.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We tried doing that with Syria, letting them just sort their own shit out. The resulting civil war led to a refugee crisis and the rapid growth of ISIS, and then let Russia expand its military reach into the Mediterranean.
A Saudi-Iran war would result in a refugee crisis bigger than any since WW2, an oil crisis bigger than any since ever, and if it went nuclear (Israel is a known-but-undeclared nuclear power, Iran and Saudi Arabia are just a serious political push and a year away from building their own nukes), a radioactive crisis when the winds carry it either eastward towards China, or southwestward into Africa.
Peace, if possible, is a vastly preferable alternative.
Well now, if there's an uptick in activity against U.S. interests from Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations that Iran has played sponsor to, we'll know why now won't we? With the Iran deal, we gave Iran enough rope to hang themselves -- assuming they weren't going to play things straight up. If they did play it straight, then great for everyone; if not, then we could all say "We tried! But you screwed the deal, you have no one but yourselves to blame, Iran!" and everyone could then pile on them en masse with a clear conscience. But no, Trump had to stick his thumb in the Iranian pie, didn't he? Well, who knows what the hell's going to happen now? Probably nothing good.
The US absolutely can not produce all the oil it needs domestically, even with fracking.
Not only can it (see sibling comments) but it doesn't need to, either. We have more than enough unused land (crappy land, too, not the good stuff) to produce 100% of our transportation fuel from algae feedstocks with current technology. That accounts for 71 percent of our oil consumption...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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 (and likely bet on another Democrat being elected to the Presidency, or at least a squishy establishment Republican), Obama couched it as an executive agreement. Simply put, Trump used the same pen and phone Obama did. (AC due to modding)
According to everyone including Netanyahu, they were not building nuclear weapons. I guess you must be smarter than all of Mossad and the CIA put together.
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. The "evidence" that they presented in public was laughably stupid, but many (including me) figured that they had better information but couldn't tell us because that would give away stuff like exactly how they got it.
What nobody (including me) seemed to question was the premise that our spies knew what they were doing and had some understanding of how the world worked. It turns out that they knew shit. They did not have any information that the rest of us didn't have. That laughably stupid "evidence" was literally all they had, and they convinced themselves anyway.
I've seen a lot of films and TV shows presenting a fictionalised account of MI5, the British agency responsible (amongst other things) for finding foreign spies. Do you know how many foreign spies they have actually discovered since it was created a century ago?
You probably know the answer already by my tone of voice: The number is exactly zero. Even the ones who worked for MI5. Everyone MI5 "caught" by their own devices was not a spy, and every one who was an actual spy was caught by someone else or they turned themselves in.
The assumption that our intelligence services know more than you do, or understand the world better than you do, is a fatal one. This is, if you like, the anti-conspiracy theory. "They" are not suppressing information, "they" are not arranging atrocities, "they" do not possess secret knowledge that you do not, "they" are not secretly running the show. In reality, "they", more than likely not, are incompetent weirdos who live in a fantasy world.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
No, they don't. No.
I know several who hope fervently that they are raptured in their lifetime. What is the use of the Desert gawd if you don't get to heaven and send most everyone else to hell?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
First, let's not be stingy with the quotes.
When you read the actual paragraph from the article, it sounds a lot less like "lying to the American people" than it does "putting a positive political spin on the events".
It's galling that a Trump supporter would dare to come here and complain about someone else's dishonesty. Trump has forever closed any possible argument about honesty.
Remember, the NY Times has always been a neo-conservative publication when it comes to foreign wars. They love wars in the Middle East. Remember Judith Miller? Tom Friedman? They literally wrote daily columns cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq. Why would anyone be surprised that they would promote a Likudnik perspective on the Iran Deal?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'll quote Nassim Taleb here: "Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).
The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right."
IYI, by the way, stands for Intellectual-Yet-Idiot.
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 DCI during the run up to the war was George Tenet, a Clinton appointee. He told GWB that it was a "slam dunk" to prove that Iraq had WMDs, and GWB had no reason to doubt him. That was an intel failure.
You think that allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon, become more isolated and have the hardliners get back in power is going to lead to disengagement?
It's the same story as 2003, 2006, 2010 and 2014. We're going to bring peace to a Middle Eastern country by doing everything we can to fuck it up.
You don't get it. It doesn't matter who's in office here. It only matters who's in office in Israel. The intelligence and military apparatus of Israel wanted to keep the Iran deal in place. Netanyahu wants it destroyed to help him because like Trump he's facing all sorts of legal problems for himself, and his family. It's the tail wagging the hintele.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Several. Yeah. You know very few, and very little.
I was raised by them - so I know a lot more than you know about them, my friend.
But I certainly will provide some evidence not of my upbringing. Let us start with the little list of the apocalypse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Howard Camping, who's Family Radio group publicized his prediction that the World would end on May 21, 2011 was enraptured with the Rapture. They even made happy songs about it. They are mentioned in this article about the hopeful. https://www.theguardian.com/wo....
Michelle Bachmann, one of the Republican Presidential candidates called specifically by gawd to run - had this to say:
[the U.S.'s funding of al Qaeda in Syria] happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history. Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand. (emphasis mine) When we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this; these days would be as the days of Noah.”
Praying for the Rapture: https://gracethrufaith.com/ask...
Not just pray for it - desire it! http://christinprophecy.org/ar...
Any questions? Like I said, I was raised by these folks, and I can find plenty more of them if need be.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Here's what will actually happen:
Wishful thinking?
-Iran's economy will go from really bad (google it) to significantly worse.
Truish, European sanctions won't return and their economy is probably still recovering from the sanctions being lifted. It's possible they may keep seeing economic growth.
-Political discontent in Iran will grow.
True
-Internal politics will create pressure on Iranian leadership to negotiate directly with the US.
False. Iranian people will be rightly pissed at the US and negotiating with someone who just screwed you over is a huge loss of face, the Iranian leaders won't be able to negotiate with Trump if they wanted to.
Trump just helped but the Iranian hardliners back in power.
-Trump, being Trump, will gladly negotiate.
He'd love to negotiate but he doesn't have much leverage. The Europeans will never re-engage with the sanctions, especially not with Trump in charge. And the US alone can't hurt them enough economically.
-A new nuclear deal, or other peaceful bilateral initiative, will occur.
No new deal is coming. Most likely everyone ignores the US and a somewhat more belligerent Iran keeps trading with Europe. Less likely, Iran drops out and starts working towards a bomb again. And if they ever come back to the table it's with a much weaker deal, otherwise war is the only way to make sure they don't get a bomb.
-Bilateral relations will thaw for the first time since the Iranian Revolution.
They were thawing, not anymore.
Commenters are forgetting that America isn't THAT unpopular among Iranian youth.
Wasn't unpopular, about to get more unpopular. An Islamophobe who screws over your country is not a popular individual.
Discontent runs high. Trump has leverage. Trump has leverage in a few different ways, in fact.
Trump has weak sanctions and a unilateral war, that's about it.
Anyway, guess what...looks like we might get a new deal with North Korea and an end to that war.
Scrapping a deal that the other side was living up to is not a way to build credibility. I suspect Trump just blew his incredibly slim chance of getting real lasting concessions from NK.
Trump winning isn't that far out of reality.
Reality is not your friend.
I stole this Sig
Yeah, you really need to realize that the majority of Christians are far crazier than you.
There's no biblical basis for the rapture, it's 100% recent bullshit but people believe in it because they're pig ignorant.
There is a sizable chunk of the American population that believes a nuclear war is good because Jesus, scripture doesn't enter into it, just like it doesn't enter into their following horoscopes, eating lobster, wearing mixed fabrics, or trying treating diseases with medication instead of assuming blindness, leprosy, etc are all "demons" like Jesus thought (he wasn't very smart, was he?)