Trump strikes blow at Iran nuclear deal in major U.S. policy shift

[thaihome]

19 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's not a treaty. 

You are, of course,  correct, the Iranian nuclear agreement is  technically not a "treaty, requiring 2/3 ratification by the the Senate.  I should have used another term, such as "agreement " . 

 

To me, the deal again showed Obama's skill at pushing the limits of executive power in negotiating a "deal"  that did not require a 2/3 vote to ratify, with a hostile congress  but one that required a 2/3 vote to kill, which the republicans were (and continues to be ) unable to muster. 

 

I do find it interesting that the only comment you make to a post, which I suspect you actually agree with the the main point,is a rather pedantic one on semantics.

 

The fact remains, Trump, again, has managed to appear to fulfill a campaign promise with virtually no personal consequences and gaing approval of his base by giving the problem to Congress to solve ( or not).

 

Not what one would consider actual leadership, but certainly at this point his base has no idea what leadership actually is. Demogues are rarely are required to pay the consequences of their rethoric until the very end. 

 

The long term impact to US foriegn policy remains to be seen. 

 

This is going to be a long 4 years for the US allies around the world. Indications are they understand that and are willing to wait it out until rational policy returns. 

TH 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by thaihome

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, thanks to recent moves by the Trump administration, we can see why Iran has a legitimate case about blocking quick access to military sites. Nikky Haley recently made such a request and the IAEA turned her down clearly because despite her claims, the Trump administration had no compelling evidence of any violation. It looked like a move just to harass the Iranians and gain access to a military site for reasons other than nuclear inspection.

 

I wasn't referring to Trump, but to what may be a potential weak point in the agreement. Both Iran's worries (which I find legitimate) and the reasons for parties not insisting on this point were previously acknowledged. It still doesn't change the fact that there's a potential problem with this.

 

Trump's administration is a circus, and Haley is one of the sideshows. Wouldn't expect them to get much right, simply due to the bumbling buffoons that they are. Failing on protocol etc. is just right up their alley.

 

What you may wish to call harassment of Iran could be seen as IAEA being reluctant to confront Iran, or to exercise the full scope of it's powers under the agreement.

 

Military sites may be relevant to the nuclear program even if they do not host direct nuclear experiments. There are other components, such as specific explosives which require development and testing.

[boomerangutang]

Any future deals involving the US will be met, by foreigners, by "why should we trust you? You squelched on the Paris Accords, you squelched on the Iran deal.  The US is not dependable."

 

To which American negotiators will reply, "Oh, that was just ding dong Trump.  He'll be out by 2021, and then we'll have a reasonable president."

 

Foreigners will then respond; "Maybe he will be out, or perhaps he'll be in until January 2025.  Either way, Americans are not good on their word.  How do we know whether the next president after Trump will nix any prior deals with the stroke of a pen?  Sorry, Uncle Sam, we're going to negotiate the dangerous straits ahead without US assistance.  You were a friend in the past, but now you're just too erratic and undependable.  Bye bye, and good riddance."

[simple1]

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

All of which are great if one assumes Iran will be playing along. Not this month, not next year - but long term. It's a fair comment that Trump's version didn't include the full picture, but it's also wise remembering who's the side he was referring to.

As the President of the USA one would expect the individual not to make misleading statements which have already led to escalating international tensions. IMO Trump constantly attempts to undermine the Rule of Law which is an extremely dangerous game to play.

Edited October 16, 2017 by simple1

[Morch]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

As the President of the USA one would expect the individual not to make misleading statements which have already led to escalating international tensions. IMO Trump constantly attempts to undermine the Rule of Law which is an extremely dangerous game to play.

 

Indeed, although I don't know that his "attempts to undermine the Rule  of Law" are all that planned and structured.

But that said there are issues with the agreement, there are weaknesses, and there are limitations. These can be pointed out, and even addressed without Trump's rhetoric, exaggerations and outright lies - but his involvement and style causes such discussions to quickly become yet another partisan battlefield. Comes to a point that issues are judged by their partisan point scoring value above all else.

 

 

[heroKK]

you dont have to be a rocket scientist or genius to figure out who's behind the decertification of the JCPOA deal

 

"Egypt, Saudi Arabia  and Israel urged us to bomb Iran" - John Kerry