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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Something about that line stinks. I did a quick Google Search to check its veracity. (https://goo.gl/p6ni4E)
... in next weeks’
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
That's it. There are hundreds of articles out there made up of that one line.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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