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.

62 of 900 comments (clear)

  1. If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by pesho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What Trump did is not going to be corrected for decades. Sure, next administration may reinstate these treaties. What they cannot fix is the total loss of credibility. Who is going to negotiate with US in good fate when they now that any accord may be gone with the next administration? US has had a strong influence on the world and steady allies, because of steady policy, generous aid, certain moral high ground, and ideas like free trade and democracy. All this is now gone or on the way out.

    2. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's nothing for Iran to wait out. They wanted the US out of the deal from beginning.

      The only reason they even came to the table was European sanctions, not US sanctions, that Obama got Europe to implement with the idea to draw Iran to the table. With the deal now directly between Europe and Iran all US leverage is gone. Iran got exactly what they wanted with this action. The US has no leverage in the deal anymore, Iran gets the European sanctions removed that actually hurt their economy and the US no longer has an leverage over the deal or enforcement of it's conditions.

      Iran wins, USA loses.

    3. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      America's credibility is assured by our military strength,

      That only assures the credibility of our threats.

      our technological superiority,

      Waning

      by our scientific and cultural dominance,

      Also waning, the former as per usual and the latter as per Trump

      by our economy,

      Faltering, worsening, in large part due to Trump.

      and by our nuclear stores.

      That is not a separate point, that is part of the first point.

      Instead, your fair weather "allies" are bleeding this country dry. Believe me, $20 trillion in debt is no joke. We can no longer afford to keep buying friends, particularly such shitty friends.

      Just wait until you see what it costs to stop.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "What they cannot fix is the total loss of credibility."

      I think this is particularly where the analogy to the Mule is apt.

      Trump has damaged America's credibility, but honestly, we're largely trading on Trumps credibility right now, not "America's"; so when Trump goes, the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh and assume things go back to normal -- provided they do, a do so quickly the long term damage should be small -- the chaos will belong to "Trump" not so much to "America"; especially if America is seen struggling to contain Trump, which it is; and things go back to normal when he's gone.

      America's credibility is only damaged to the extent that Trump was elected in the first place. But after that, to quote Mulaney... he's like a horse loose in a hospital.

    5. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about this? Negotiate with those with treaty making authority, e.g. the Congress. None of what Trump has undone is a recognized 'treaty' in the US. Only Congress can pass treaties, Presidents can't. So if you don't want your agreements undone by another Administration don't make agreements with the Administration, make it with Congress. Anything else & you're setting yourself up for failure AND you are treating the President as a Monarch.

      You may have a treaty undone by a new Congress but that's far less likely and harder to occur.

    6. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the next president is reasonably likely to just put a lot of the pieces pretty much back where they were

      And then the President after him will just undo (or "correct", depending on which team you are on) it all and put it back to the way Trump has it.

      Instead of this, how about if Presidents start actually representing the people of the country? A good start would be not entering into international agreements that intentionally circumvent congressional approval because they could never be ratified by representatives of voters.

    7. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The one life experience I have that makes me hope you are right: In ~2000, I was in western Cambodia that was bombed to hell by the US. I asked people what they thought about the people that bombed them back then, and they were rightly infuriated with those Damn Nixon's... but they love Americans. I just hope things get sorted out for good and not just this bullshit ping-pong shit going on now.

    8. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America's credibility is assured by our military strength, our technological superiority, by our scientific and cultural dominance, by our economy, and by our nuclear stores.

      No. America's credibility, like anybody else's, rests first and foremost on America keeping its word.

      It's a sad day when a US President makes the mullahs look more credible--and reasonable--than he is.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How exactly does reneging on an agreement (regarding nuclear weapons no less) gain you credibility with North Korea for their nuclear weapon agreement?
      Same with China, how do you gain credibility for negotiating agreements by acting like a lose cannon to whom agreements mean nothing and can be undone by the next twitter tweet.

    10. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Credibility means that you keep your word. You military strength only helps you to bully others. bullies are never credible (beside being an ass).
      - Your technological superiority is not really there. You lost a lot of technology capability to China. Your steel sucks and you have to import it elsewhere.
      - You scientific dominance is based on past reputation and the ability to attract foreign scientists. Without them you would not be able to fill all positions.
      - I do not know where you get the cultural dominance thing from? Just because people watch US movies all around the world? In the past the US were a beacon of hope and enlightenment (even if that was not really the case, but that was how people looked at the US). Nowadays, you inability to provide freedom to all people living in the US, giving them education, healthcare, real jobs, etc. shows that you are not the model other want to copy anymore. SO cultural dominance was a thing in the past. Now no one really looks at the US to see how things are done in a better way, you have become an example of how not to do it.
      - Your economy has one edge that is having the Dollar as a global reserve currency, which allows you to create money in the currency if needed. However, if you look at the complete industry of the US, you can see that the producing parts marginalized while money-based companies are generating more and more of the GDP. They are fueled by money lend by others.
      - Your nuclear arsenal only helps you to bully others.

      BTW nobody asked you to have the over 40% of the world's military budget. And regarding your state deficit, this is because Trump and other republicans before him lowered taxes for the rich and big companies. Also Trump and other didn't work towards a global fair tax system where companies and individuals cannot trick the system. Quite the contrary, the US itself incorporates tax safe havens. If you want to reduce your debt. Stop spending for more and more military, make less war and tax the rich. Instead you lower taxes for the rich and start wars.

      And one final thought: You really want to fix Afghanistan alone? Or is the help provided by allies not helpful.

    11. Re:If I were Iran I'd just wait it out by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ummm, members of the U.S. Senate warned Iran that the "deal" President Obama was making with them was non-binding on future administrations before the deal was made unless it was ratified by the Senate.. This was done very publicly after Obama had declared that he was not going to submit the deal to the Senate for ratification. In other words, America never gave its word on this deal because there is a very specific process which must be followed before America has "given its word." Obama chose not to follow that process. What is funny is that Obama repeatedly gave his word that America would honor his agreements without taking the necessary actions to ensure that it actually would...and people still believe him.


      Saying that America has broken its word would be like saying that a company has broken its word after the CEO employee signed a contract with another company which exceeded that employees authority and the other company had received a letter from the first company's Board of Directors stating that the CEO did not have the authority to enter into such a contract. There are limits to the types of contracts that even the CEO of a company cannot commit the company to without the approval of the Board of Directors.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. 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
  2. Re:Nice by nonBORG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They were already preparing to build nukes, the were never honest the deal was broken before it started. Did you see the intel from Israel?
    How the US deals with them should be correct, we would be stupid (were being stupid) to let enemies get Nukes if we can stop them. Only someone sick in the head would let that happen (by the way this is what happened prior to WWII with Germany.) They burn our flags chant death to America etc. They announce themselves as our enemy.

    For some sort of insanity people want to let our enemies get Nukes. How long have we heard crying that Trump was going to cause a nuclear war with North Korea?

    Now we are going to get the same crying about Iran for a while from the same people. I say go ahead and cry, but fortunately as good or bad as trump is he is not all FUD (like Obama wrt Iran and this whole sh*t deal we just canned. It was a sham to make people feel good.)

    --
    You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
  3. Re:Petro-dollar is so 20th century anyway by Berkyjay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you realize that this is a complex issue then why would you suggest such a simplistic and short-sighted action? Also, we don't produce anywhere near the amount of oil needed to match our consumption.

    https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl...

  4. Re:Nice by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did you see the intel from Israel?

    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.
  5. Re:Petro-dollar is so 20th century anyway by Mark+of+the+North · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US absolutely can not produce all the oil it needs domestically, even with fracking. The US consumes approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day and imports just over half of that. Doubling domestic oil production is just not something that the US can do. Even if it could (it can't) that production would require a huge investment and would be very short-lived.

    More to your meaning, the US could probably live without imports from the middle-east (about 2.6 million barrels of oil per day). It would be immensely painful. Certainly, many many countries would like to see the US pull out of the region, but I think US interests in the region have as much to do with the Jewish community's strong connection to Israel as oil interests.

  6. 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.
  7. Re:Ben Rhodes admitted lying to sell it by mrclevesque · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Misrepresent the truth, yes, to help the region deescalate. Too bad Trump and Netanyahu seem to be trying to inflame the situation.

  8. Re:Good, was a terrible deal. by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea that Iran, who has lied,

    Who hasn't?

    The point of the deal is you didn't have to trust Iran because they're subjected to rigorous inspections.

    who has claimed to want to destroy entire countries

    You mean their blowhard former President once made a comment that sounds like that when translated and taken out of context.

    But you can't relate to anything like that.

    and it the worlds leading sponsor of terror,

    Whether or not that's true is irrelevant. The deal was about Nukes, not missiles, Hezbollah support, or anything else.

    would not use the principle of Taqiyya (Shia being much more flexible in its use) to lie about their goals is ridiculous.

    WTF? You think the only people on the planet capable of lying are Muslims following your distorted understanding of religious practice? Was it really that necessary to discredit your already dumb argument by demonstrating to everyone that you're an ignorant Islamophobe?

    The perfidy of the Iranian government is well documented as is the avoidance measures they took to truly by limited in their goals to become a nuclear power.

    Good for Trump.

    Yeah, good for Trump. He's destroyed a perfectly good non-proliferation deal and risked a Nuclear arms race in the Middle East because he's too big a wuss to admit that he got suckered by the Fox News/GOP push to smear Obama in the lead up to the 2016 election.

    Risking Nuclear war is one thing, but admitting you were wrong??? That's unthinkable!!!

    --
    I stole this Sig
  9. Re:Iran withdrew first by pesho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where is the evidence for what you are saying? Every partner in this treaty agrees that Iran has maintained their obligations. So do members of the Trump administration (James Matis). You are just a troll spewing bullshit.

  10. 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
  11. Kenh, you are being lied to by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It wasn't a legally enacted treaty - never went to Congress for approval as all treaties must.

    It's not a treaty. It's an agreement. Iran agreed to do a thing, the UNSC permanent members and the EU agreed to do a thing, all within the bounds of their respective executive powers. Congress's approval was not necessary, because nothing in the deal required legislative authority.

    We were prevented from inspecting numerous locations considered 'military' by Iran's leaders - which is the most likely place to develop a nuclear program.

    False - that is categorically and unquestionably incorrect.

    The agreement provided for guaranteed inspection of *any* location the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors deem potentially in violation. Iran has a limited ability to push back - they have a 24-day window to negotiate an alternative, but if we decide we *need* to see it, we will see it or the sanctions will kick back in. 24 days is not enough to hide a nuclear weapons facility from close inspection - particularly not when we have satellite surveillance and can easily see any large movement of equipment and materiel away from the site.

    Additionally, a term of the agreement required Iran to accede to the "Additional Protocol", which has even more stringent requirements allowing short-notice inspections of any site by the IAEA - and that protocol will *not* expire with the rest of the agreement.

    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.

    Schumer and Menendez were the *only* two Democrat senators to oppose the deal. A symbolic resolution decrying the bill was passed through the House on party-line vote, and was never formally voted on in the Senate due to lack of sufficient votes. And I have not seen either of them publicly support the deal to this day. I strongly suspect your sources are being misleading on this, as they clearly are on other issues.

  12. Re:This is not for /. by CaptainDork · · Score: 3

    So I saw a TRS-80 at the Smithsonian museum several years ago.

    I got mine in February of 1978.

    I wrote articles for Kilobaud Microcomputing back in 1980.

    How'd you get your start?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  13. Trump Hands Iran the Win by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And in one fell stroke Trump handed Iran the win.

    The US has never had any material pressure economically against the Iranian regime. We've had sanctions on them for 30 years. The only thing that drew Iran to the table was European sanctions that through the hard work of the Obama administration was able to draw Europe to the table and get them to implement sanctions to drive Iran to a deal. By withdrawing the US from the deal all US pressure is now gone and the deal is directly between Europe and Iran (what Iran wanted from the beginning). The US will implement sanctions, Europe won't and Iran gets what they wanted, the US out of the deal and monitoring regime and Europe on board to maintain the deal and keep sanctions off.

    And with the stroke of a pen Trump snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory.

    It would be humorous if it wasn't so bloody SAD.

  14. Re:President Rouhani Confirmed Iran Deal was a Sha by eepok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something about that line stinks. I did a quick Google Search to check its veracity. (https://goo.gl/p6ni4E)

    It looks like "someone" made the claim and every single newsbot out there reproduiced it on their respective sites... and JUST that line.

    TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s president says if negotiations fail, Islamic Republic will enrich uranium ‘more than before ... in next weeks’

    That's it. There are hundreds of articles out there made up of that one line.

  15. Re:Nice by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. Or you are complete doofus.

  16. Re:Petro-dollar is so 20th century anyway by gman003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  17. I just hope we survive the Trump dark age by presidenteloco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The sheer force of sucking vacuosity is threatening to disrupt the space time continuum.

    The waves of lies after lies are beating down the defenses of the still sane.

    He's steering his nuclear-armed bumper car into every obstacle at full throttle, while he races down the track backwards against the traffic.

    My slashdot username is truly relevant again. I coined it in the lead-up to the J.W. Bush "weapons of mass delusion" Gulf War.
    I could never have imagined a more dumb-ass president than JW. Boy was I wrong.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:I just hope we survive the Trump dark age by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hear, hear, especially as regards Dubya. Actually I'm almost shocked by the amount of insight I've seen in the so-modded comments I've seen so far.

      You didn't mention one important aspect, however. The reason for this mess and the real driver of Iran's increasing power is Dubya's mess in Iraq, brought to you by the very same fools who have produced today's fiasco. The power vacuum they created in Iraq had to be filled in some way. The only problem is whether to describe it as "irresistible" or "inevitable", but the bottom line is that the winners of Dubya's wars were Iran in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. On America's tab--which is still open and bleeding.

      Don't forget ISIS, that's pretty damn easy to attribute to the Iraq war. And Putin is probably a lot more manageable if the mid-2000's NATO expansion didn't convince him that the US was out to create a military alliance encircling Russia. Not to mention the other contributing factor in the invasion of Ukraine, the Iraq war lowering the international standards for invading other countries.

      Oh and Bush's bone-headed "temporary tax cut" that caused skyrocketing deficits in a time of economic prosperity, making the financial meltdown much worse than it needed to be.

      People spend so much time treating politics like a team sport they forget the actual consequences of political action. Hundreds of thousands of people died because the Bush administration make easily avoidable errors.

      That's not a minor thing, that's a very, very, big consequence of incompetent/irresponsible politicians.

      All these people just falling in line with Trump as he stumbles along making bone-headed decisions based on a Fox and Friends segment. Are they actually thinking about the consequences that kind of decision making will bring?

      --
      I stole this Sig
  18. 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"
  19. Doesn't Matter. by multi+io · · Score: 3, Funny

    Trump will be willing to sign the exact same deal he just abandoned, just with his name on it instead of Obama's, which was the whole point from the beginning.

  20. North Korea will no doubt take note by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of what America's word is worth when they make a "deal".

    Trump will one day be gone, but the USA's untrustworthiness will take much long to repair.

  21. We owe you nothing by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The rest of the world needs to recognize and appreciate that America is becoming a shithole country and move along without the US.

    Isolationist, nationalist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, intolerant of its own people, warmongering, and oligarchical, America's beacon has dimmed and she is doomed.

    You know what? Screw it.

    It doesn't matter how much of our wealth we give away, there will always be someone like you spewing lies and hatred, trying to guilt us into giving more. It will never be enough

    We owe you nothing. We owe the world nothing. We sometimes enter into agreements with allies for a common goal, but these one-side giveaways are going to stop. It's not our problem, and we are tired of all the giving.

    The US allows about 1.1 million immigrants into the country every year, which is remarkably generous by world standards. We are not anti-immigration, we are anti illegal immigration, and would like to look after the safety of our own citizens by filtering out the criminals.

    We are not anti-refugee, but after awhile the refugees need to go home. The [minor] hurricane refugees have been here for 10 years, we're done supporting them, now it's time for them to go home.

    Paris accord? We foot the bill. TPP? A horribly one-sided deal. Iran agreement? Billions in aid, which they used to further develop nuclear weapons *and* funneled money to terrorist organizations.

    You may not have noticed, but America's beacon has brightened considerably in the last year or so.

    Unemployment is down, and the economy is up. ISIS is defeated, the Korean war is over. Jobs are coming back, and we got money back from the IRS.

    Presidential approval is up around 50%.

    We're doing actually pretty well for a change, despite all the knee-jerk negativity.

    Take a look around and see what's happening.

    People are starting to feel good about our country once again.

    We're done giving away our wealth, we need to look after our own citizens for a change.

    We owe you nothing.

  22. Re:This is not for /. by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope Iran, Russia, China, and the EU pick up the slack and prosper from trade deals with each other.

    Iran? Nope. Too much fundamentalism. Russia? Nope. They've been empire-building since before the USA was even a thing. China? Nope. They'd like to rule the world, too. They're not going to play nice with Russia.

    Truth is, America is still the world's most benevolent superpower. If China or Russia were where we are, things would be even worse. That doesn't mean don't fix the problems with America, but it does mean have some perspective.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. 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.'"
  24. Re:Petro-dollar is so 20th century anyway by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.'"
  25. Re:Iran withdrew first by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Israel claims they have a bunch of evidence and the US intelligence services have confirmed the information. Is that not enough for you?

    No. It's not enough for Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and CIA, either. In fact, none of the information Israel has is new. We already knew Iran lied about their nuclear program; that's actually part of what led to the Iran Nuclear Deal. What Israel has uncovered is the specific details of Iran's former nuclear program, which explains how they lied. But we already knew they lied, so Netanyahu has dropped exactly zero bombshells with his powerpoint presentation.

    While we're on the subject though, I don't believe anything Israel says. Like, literally anything. They deliberately murder journalists to prevent the truth from being heard. That's not a good look.

    You want to see a mushroom cloud before you believe the Iranians are building the bomb? Isn't that a bit too late?

    We have been inspecting the shit out of them for years and we know the state of their nuclear program in some detail from a combination of direct and indirect intelligence gathering. The nuclear deal has been working, and you fell for Netanyahu's dog and pony show. What a maroon.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. 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.

  27. The United States is gearing up for war with Iran by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you don't think that's stuff matters? And this has nothing to do with isolationism. It's the exact opposite. We're prepping for a war. How is that isolationist?

    As for the Trade Deal, Trump already supports TPP and literally said he wants guest workers to do your jobs to a bunch of supporters at a rally (that went over about as well as you'd expect, but his approval rating still hasn't budged).

    America is exactly what it's always been, a global empire by and for our ruling class. Trump didn't change that, but no, we don't want it. Trump I'll remind you didn't win the popular vote. We are not a Democracy

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  28. Re:Nice by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    War is bad no matter who it's with. People forget this. They see WWII and think "we stopped Hitler, yea!" and become warhawks. Never mind that Hitler came to power because of WWI, and WWI happened because of prior wars, and you can follow the chain all the way back to the Romans. And after WWI we majorly screwed up in Vietnam and Iraq, and yet we still have people who think we could have "won" Vietnam even though technically we were only supposed to be advisors there, and people who think Iraq was a good idea and that we just need more troops on the ground. At some point the world needs to just agree to stop fighting over petty issues, like economics, religion, oil, ideology, tribalism, etc.

  29. Re:Nice by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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});
  30. Re: Nice by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  31. 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.
  32. Re:This is not for /. by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  33. 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.
  34. Trolling or ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's no way you have a college education. China is intentionally, willfully, and with decades of planning attempting to be the only superpower and extend their Han-Chinese ethno-nationalism to the rest of the planet. This isn't a secret. It's their public plan. All you have to do is pick up a college textbook and read countless quotes, articles, and books from Chinese officials, military officers, political scientists, and strategists.

    Take in what China has done over the last 78 years and compress it down to 5 and you would scream "There's a new Nazi Germany right around the corner! They are at war with us why isn't anyone fighting back!?" Yet since efforts have intentionally been stretched out over nearly a century few notice. But scholars do. Global strategists do. People that read and understand international relations and history do.

    And to say that the US rules the world. Absurd.

    Absurd to even think the US has ever wanted to. The Marshall Plan is hard evidence that the US has not and does not want to "rule the world" in any sense. NATO and the UN exists because of the disproportionate support of the US. Without that benevolence there would be no global international governmental bodies. There are none today.

  35. 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
  36. Re:Ben Rhodes admitted lying to sell it by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where did the original poster say anything about 'lying'

    Here was the subject line of his comment:

    "Ben Rhodes admitted lying to sell it"

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  37. Re:Nice by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The difference is 2003 slides lead to engagement, 2018 slides lead to disengagement.

    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.

    In 2003 a neocon was in office, in 2018 it isn't.

    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.
  38. Re: Nice by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3

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

    I've never been quite able to pierce the veil of the deeply religious after breaking free of it's toxic grips. So many people who are so certain of their fate and their deity, and so many diametrically opposed. Yet all of them the only true belief. And so many willing to kill those who do not share that one true belief.

    Rapture lust and the celebration of the Post Tribulation suffering of the unsaved id a core competency of the group.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  39. Re: Nice by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  40. Re:Most commenters are completely missing the poin by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  41. Re: Nice by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've actually read the whole series, and a follow on, and it's entertaining fiction.

    But it's fiction.

    First, while there is substantial theology devoted to the role of Israel (more specifically Jerusalem) in eschatology, they are two significant points that Christians should agree on:

    1. No man can or will know the time when Jesus will return. Not by signs, not by events, not by prophecy, no. Even Christ said He did not know the time, for it was appointed by the Father.

    2. The manner of the return of Jesus cannot be predicted with any specificity. His descent from Heaven is the best description, we can lay claim to very little detail, though the imagery in Revelation of compelling, one guide to use in interpreting that book would be, as given to me, consider what is written literally as figurative, and what is written figuratively as literal. For instance, though I thought of the Number of Man, 666, as a literal mark, it may be better to consider it as just sorry of perfection, such perfection being represented by the number 7. 777 would be perfection, in body, mind and spirit. But we fall short of the Glory of God.

    Not many Christians subscribe to the theory of some war in the Middle East presaging the return of Christ. No, not really. Many do recognize that Jerusalem is key in God's plans, but how and when are not well understood.

    It is, however, good sport to claim this, especially by non Christians, to attempt to denigrate and marginalize Christians with outlandish and fantastic claims. This tactic is used in politics regularly. Nothing new here.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  42. Re: Ben Rhodes admitted lying to sell it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More specifically, Iran wants security. The US already invaded its neighbour and US politicians have talked openly about attacking Iran for decades.

    Nukes are one expensive, risky way to get that. Another is this type of deal with widespread international support.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  43. 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
  44. Re:Nice by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "intel from Israel" consisted of a PowerPoint presentation with a slide that said, "Iran is Cheating"

    If you read it carefully, it doesn't even say that. It says they were cheating in 2007. Nothing in the Israeli intel is relevant to anything that has happened since the deal was reached in 2015.

  45. Re: Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?)

  46. Re: Nice by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All one has to do is look at the Evangelicals in the American South and their support for apartheid policies to know that arm of the religion thinks of religion in terms of hate. Worse, they will construct logical arguments why Jesus preferred this, it is just that their premises are screwy....garbage in, garbage out, no matter how logical the reasoning.

  47. Re:Ben Rhodes admitted lying to sell it by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. They don't. Mossad, CIA, MI6 all say they don't. Iran wants nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.

    2. It isn't. There is no such thing as an "enemy country". Land masses cannot hate or disagree.

  48. 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.
  49. 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.