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

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I disagree.  Both Russia and the USA are well aware of the consequences of MAD.  The biggest threat to our existence is a rogue nation selling their technology to terrorists.  Kinda like Pakistan selling it to Saudi Arabia.  China helping Pakistan develop their nuclear weapons program.  Pakistan giving the technology to North Korea.  Etc, etc, etc.

 

I see this being the biggest threat to our existence.  Especially if it continues. 

 

The US and Russia are not going to nuke a country unless they are hit first.  The others?  Not so sure.

We think differently. For me, if everybody in USA, Russia, China etc. dies, it would be a big news day and would cause some fundamental changes to the world. I would not cry as I would be more busy to adapt to the new world we are living in.

Vast amounts of nuclear weapons, used in urban regions can wipe out most of the life in earth. That's the threat to humanity. Not killing everybody in some individual countries. 

[riclag]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

At this stage the IAEA, signatory parties, including the US, have not provided any grounds to require inspections of sites not covered by the current inspection regime. Trump wishes to push the envelop with Iran, personally I cannot see the benefit for the US to again alienate itself from allies.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-inspections/u-s-pressure-or-not-u-n-nuclear-watchdog-sees-no-need-to-check-iran-military-sites-idUSKCN1BB1JC

 

IMO Trump is IMO, to use a right wing phase, value signalling to his base, without benefit for US and regional security. In Trump's statement attempting to justify his actions, Trump again made statements that are misleading or outright lies. Trump is unfit to hold the Office of the President of the USA.

 

 

 

It's apparent that your hatred of Twitterman blind's you from the facts.Without having to quote and link to the only factual proof as I have posted in prior responses. The  Iran' agreement was contingent on "anytime anywhere" inspection's but Iran rejected that. The world power's who negotiated the deal,did so on  the premise that having access to weapon sites with a 24 day access request  is better than nothing  . As far as the USA is concerned Iran can't be trusted ! As far as other countries who were involved,they probably have less to fear seeing that Iran only threaten's the USA and Isreal.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Not killing everybody in some individual countries. 

Unless you are one of those killed....

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Unless you are one of those killed....

Personally I have been ok with dying since I was teenager and realised the day will come anyway. It serves as good motivation to do funny stuff and push forward without too much fear. 

[ilostmypassword]

43 minutes ago, riclag said:

It's apparent that your hatred of Twitterman blind's you from the facts.Without having to quote and link to the only factual proof as I have posted in prior responses. The  Iran' agreement was contingent on "anytime anywhere" inspection's but Iran rejected that. The world power's who negotiated the deal,did so on  the premise that having access to weapon sites with a 24 day access request  is better than nothing  . As far as the USA is concerned Iran can't be trusted ! As far as other countries who were involved,they probably have less to fear seeing that Iran only threaten's the USA and Isreal.

First off, how can the agreement be contingent on instant access when 24 days is stipulated? This makes no sense.

And as I pointed out earlier, the IAEA doesn't have a problem with the 24 day delay:

"But, during the debate over this provision, intelligence officials noted that they could surround the facility with surveillance tools, which would detect any clean-up effort, and that, once inside the site, inspectors could spot, for instance, radioactive debris. So, it’s a bit tricky, but the deal allows more intrusive inspection and verification than any arms-control treaty in history."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/10/why_trump_s_iran_speech_was_one_of_the_most_dishonest_and_dangerous_ones.html

[simple1]

29 minutes ago, riclag said:

It's apparent that your hatred of Twitterman blind's you from the facts.Without having to quote and link to the only factual proof as I have posted in prior responses. The  Iran' agreement was contingent on "anytime anywhere" inspection's but Iran rejected that. The world power's who negotiated the deal,did so on  the premise that having access to weapon sites with a 24 day access request  is better than nothing  . As far as the USA is concerned Iran can't be trusted ! As far as other countries who were involved,they probably have less to fear seeing that Iran only threaten's the USA and Isreal.

I do not hate Trump, just find it staggering his base still supports a liar and a person with such a destructive agenda which is counterproductive for the well being of the US people and the world in general. From your post it seems you have no idea about the history of Iran's interactions with the European nation signatories and their ongoing concerns regards regional balance of power. From Trump's speech concerning Iran he communicated some deliberate lies, misinformation and lack of knowledge of US interference in Iran after WW11 and support for the very cruel dictatorship which led to the Ayatollah's rise to power. Trump has the power to only pull the US out of the Treaty, what such an isolated action would achieve for the benefit of the US is yet to be articulated.

[pieeyed]

Hussien Obama was a fool to give the agreement the support that he did.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

.......in reply to  Tonray's post  .........Some people are simply stooges of Israeli policy and that supersedes what is good for America's security. 

Wow, Israel are not responsible for Netanyahu, and the US is not responsible for Trump. We should also note that those lovely Saudis are in there cheering Trump on. Without wishing to appear too cynical I think the question is simply how much does it cost to buy a congressman nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis are going for the ones that are not already signed up by the Israelis.

 

In the UK no one can say anything against the Saudis for a start. Whether or not this is linked to Tory MPs ownership of shares in the arms business is unproven, however likely it may appear. To top that they have an absurd buff00n as Foreign Sec. 

 

The most worrying thing for ordinary US and UK  citizens - expats or others - is the dwindling amount of control their nations now appear to have over their foreign policy.

 

The point was that both leaders' views and positions do not necessarily represent their respective countries interests, or even garner much support from related national agencies and organizations. So while what they do and how they act definitely reflects on the way their countries are perceived, it's not exactly that they are promoting policies which represent wide support or objective considerations.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The point was that both leaders' views and positions do not necessarily represent their respective countries interests, or even garner much support from related national agencies and organizations. So while what they do and how they act definitely reflects on the way their countries are perceived, it's not exactly that they are promoting policies which represent wide support or objective considerations.

I dare say the leaders of most countries don't reflect their respective countries nor citizens interests.  Only their own.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I dare say the leaders of most countries don't reflect their respective countries nor citizens interests.  Only their own.

 

Guess it's a matter of degree and of political interests. For example, May is not "same same" as, say, Mugabe. And for better or worse, politicians do things benefiting voters, even if the motivation is not necessarily altruistic. So while in a sloganish way the above is somewhat true, it cannot be said that most routinely ignore advice, public opinion, accepted norms of conduct or diplomacy. And not that many of them (at least not in the West) outright act in "their own interest". A bit more subtle than that.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Guess it's a matter of degree and of political interests. For example, May is not "same same" as, say, Mugabe. And for better or worse, politicians do things benefiting voters, even if the motivation is not necessarily altruistic. So while in a sloganish way the above is somewhat true, it cannot be said that most routinely ignore advice, public opinion, accepted norms of conduct or diplomacy. And not that many of them (at least not in the West) outright act in "their own interest". A bit more subtle than that.

My comment comes from traveling to some 60 countries over the past 8 years or so.  Rarely do I encounter a local who says they are happy with their government.  2 biggies recently were Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. 

 

But you are right.  They do try harder in Western countries.  But then again, look at the approval rating for congress in the US.  Under 20% now?

 

Trump definitely doesn't represent the feelings of a majority of Americans.

[ilostmypassword]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The point was that both leaders' views and positions do not necessarily represent their respective countries interests, or even garner much support from related national agencies and organizations. So while what they do and how they act definitely reflects on the way their countries are perceived, it's not exactly that they are promoting policies which represent wide support or objective considerations.

I think in the case of Israel, Netanyahu's policies against the Iran nuclear deal clearly enjoy the wide support of the Israeli electorate whatever the national security elite might believe.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-opinion-toward-the-2015-iran-deal

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.670835

https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-47-percent-of-israelis-back-iran-strike-following-nuke-deal/

[Morch]

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

At this stage the IAEA, signatory parties, including the US, have not provided any grounds to require inspections of sites not covered by the current inspection regime. Trump wishes to push the envelop with Iran, personally I cannot see the benefit for the US to again alienate itself from allies.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-inspections/u-s-pressure-or-not-u-n-nuclear-watchdog-sees-no-need-to-check-iran-military-sites-idUSKCN1BB1JC

 

IMO Trump is IMO, to use a right wing phase, value signalling to his base, without benefit for US and regional security. In Trump's statement attempting to justify his actions, Trump again made statements that are misleading or outright lies. Trump is unfit to hold the Office of the President of the USA.

 

 

 

 

Yes, well...this actually represents one of the agreement's weak points. While it is true that the inspections regime is of a wide scope, it is not perfect or fail-proof. And whether people wish to accept it or not, Iran is pretty good when it comes to subterfuge and testing the limits of understandings.

 

Iran's suspicions and reasons concerning espionage are warranted. Less clear is the agreement's apparent acceptance of a disconnect between Iran's military (and hence, military bases) and Iran's nuclear program and aspirations.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, how can the agreement be contingent on instant access when 24 days is stipulated? This makes no sense.

And as I pointed out earlier, the IAEA doesn't have a problem with the 24 day delay:

"But, during the debate over this provision, intelligence officials noted that they could surround the facility with surveillance tools, which would detect any clean-up effort, and that, once inside the site, inspectors could spot, for instance, radioactive debris. So, it’s a bit tricky, but the deal allows more intrusive inspection and verification than any arms-control treaty in history."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/10/why_trump_s_iran_speech_was_one_of_the_most_dishonest_and_dangerous_ones.html

 

It's not that IAEA "doesn't have a problem" with the 24 delay. The comment describes it as "a bit  tricky", if doable - and is associated with intelligence officials rather than the IAEA.

[selftaopath]

23 hours ago, simple1 said:

That's correct and the full quote is...

 

"Two administration officials privy to the Iran policy debate said Trump this time ultimately ignored the opinions of his secretary of defense, secretary of state, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his chief of staff and his national security advisor.

Instead, one of the officials said, Trump listened to the more hardline views of (CIA Director Mike) Pompeo and some outsiders"

 

In other words Trump has gone with an ideological driven decision, flicked over to Congress to minimise personal ownership, which along with a number of his other decisions degrades US credibility and influence. Demonstrates Trump still adheres to Bannon's incredibly destructive agenda.

Or Putin's agenda.

 

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I think in the case of Israel, Netanyahu's policies against the Iran nuclear deal clearly enjoy the wide support of the Israeli electorate whatever the national security elite might believe.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-opinion-toward-the-2015-iran-deal

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.670835

https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-47-percent-of-israelis-back-iran-strike-following-nuke-deal/

 

Netanyahu does get more public support for his views compared with Trump, but still acts counter to level headed advice. Worth pointing out that the links provided are from 2015, at the height of the public debate and scaremongering concerning the agreement. And also, for Israelis, even ones not generally supportive of Netanyahu, Iran represents a more concrete threat than it does to, say, Trump voters.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Netanyahu does get more public support for his views compared with Trump, but still acts counter to level headed advice. Worth pointing out that the links provided are from 2015, at the height of the public debate and scaremongering concerning the agreement. And also, for Israelis, even ones not generally supportive of Netanyahu, Iran represents a more concrete threat than it does to, say, Trump voters.

I think it's very clear that on the Iranian nuclear agreement, Netanyahu does speak for his country. Of course, I mean by "country" the majority of its voters.  Not the specialists who work for the government. I may not agree with Israeli public opinion,, but unless you've got evidence otherwise - like some major leftward shift in the Israeli electorate's  political opinions, the data I provided will have to stand.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, well...this actually represents one of the agreement's weak points. While it is true that the inspections regime is of a wide scope, it is not perfect or fail-proof. And whether people wish to accept it or not, Iran is pretty good when it comes to subterfuge and testing the limits of understandings.

 

Iran's suspicions and reasons concerning espionage are warranted. Less clear is the agreement's apparent acceptance of a disconnect between Iran's military (and hence, military bases) and Iran's nuclear program and aspirations.

 

 

Where did come up with the notion of the "agreement's apparent acceptance of a disconnect between Iran's military (and hence, military bases) and Iran's nuclear program and aspirations."

[selftaopath]

18 hours ago, oilinki said:

That's a good list of the damages the current potus has already done to the USA.

However the damage goes far beyond those points. When USA is not to be trusted anymore, it spreads to the businesses and the way people from other parts of the world see the folks from the USA. 

If the reputation of the state of the USA is equivalent to Nigeria, Albania or Myanmar, it makes business people to think twice before committing making business deals with a country which is seen to be in freefall to internal destruction.

Naturally this is not the case yet, but in any business, it's best to think few moves forward. Will the USA based businesses be trustworthy, after couple of years, if this madness continues?

Do we profile people from the USA by their political views? Does it really matter? After all, the country is proud and patriotic, they all must support the same, Trump-values?

Just few pointers, from foreigner.

Ah yes but if 45 gets his way he will be the U.S. dictator, and it will be similar to his beloved Putinland. 45 seems like a very unhappy/troubled/deranged individual and wants to spread dread and unhappiness. He knows he is hated and maybe he realizes many will be jubilant when he dies.  He wants so badly to be the "best ever" President and is going rapidly to the worst ever President. 

 

[selftaopath]

16 hours ago, Psimbo said:

The only person having a wank over this is his mate Benji (the only person who considered his inflammatory UN speech one of the best he had heard in years).

 

Iran complies with a plan-everyone agrees they are then 'The Donald' says'they are not complying wit the 'Spirit of it' - the man is a complete tosser.

 

Edit: I was discussing Trump with  a friend who has just retired from a senior position within the State Department the other day- she shared my assessment that he is indeed a loose cannon and they are constantly trying to sweep up after his chaotic statements. She is wary and disgusted by where he may lead things- a common feeling within the State Department according to her. I reckon Tillerson will jump ship within 2 months.

There has been much written by Mental Health Professionals recently citing a "Duty to Warn."  45 will indeed continue reeking havoc. He can do nothing else but destroy/tear down. I loved what one of his college professors - now deceased - said about him. 

[riclag]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It's not that IAEA "doesn't have a problem" with the 24 delay. The comment describes it as "a bit  tricky", if doable - and is associated with intelligence officials rather than the IAEA.

You are missing the point  

"When Obama spoke on the  Iran nuclear agreement on television  he said it would usher in an era of unprecedented access to Iran's nuclear facilities.

"Inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply,  the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary," .

 

 By the time IAEA goes through the diversion steps(24 day access request) proposed in the agreement  and assuming the majority of  (P5+1) power's agree on Iran's explanation of the suspicious concern's, the proof could all vanish.The other point well noting is  the USA  "America First" policy isn't a (P5+1) friendly policy,these other countries have their own bias economic(trading)  concerns.

This is a bad deal for the  USA .

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by riclag

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

You are missing the point  

"When Obama spoke on the  Iran nuclear agreement on television  he said it would usher in an era of unprecedented access to Iran's nuclear facilities.

"Inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply,  the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary," .

 

 By the time IAEA goes through the diversion steps(24 day access request) proposed in the agreement  and assuming the majority of  (P5+1) power's agree on Iran's explanation of the suspicious concern's, the proof could all vanish.The other point well noting is  the USA  "America First" policy isn't a (P5+1) friendly policy,these other countries have their own bias economic concerns.

This is a bad deal for the  USA .

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/

 

Earlier this poster claimed that no one had refuted this concern. I did twice. Which leads me to suspect that I'm on his ignore list. At any rate, once again the IAEA says it can monitor sites even with the potential 24 day delay. Not just that, but this deal includes an enforcement regime stronger than any previous nuclear arms enforcement protocol.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Earlier this poster claimed that no one had refuted this concern. I did twice. Which leads me to suspect that I'm on his ignore list. At any rate, once again the IAEA says it can monitor sites even with the potential 24 day delay. Not just that, but this deal includes an enforcement regime stronger than any previous nuclear arms enforcement protocol.

Yep. In addition the Treaty does not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons after the expiry of the Treaty date, but is a permanent restriction - a point that Trump has omitted to mention.

 

While specific restrictions lapse in 10, 15, or 25 years, the deal also binds Iran to permanent measures: committing to not pursue nuclear weapons and agreeing to notify the International Atomic Energy Agency when it decides to build a nuclear facility.

Edited October 15, 2017 by simple1

[Morch]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I think it's very clear that on the Iranian nuclear agreement, Netanyahu does speak for his country. Of course, I mean by "country" the majority of its voters.  Not the specialists who work for the government. I may not agree with Israeli public opinion,, but unless you've got evidence otherwise - like some major leftward shift in the Israeli electorate's  political opinions, the data I provided will have to stand.

 

Once more - the links you provided are all from 2015, the same year the treaty was signed, and an election year in Israel on top of that. I don't know that the figures presented on these polls are permanent. Then there's the question of how things are put on polls, which isn't always what we refer to here. Finally, this is somewhat less to do with a right/left divide when it comes to Israelis. As said, it is not hard to find Israeli center/left voters who consider Iran a credible threat.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Where did come up with the notion of the "agreement's apparent acceptance of a disconnect between Iran's military (and hence, military bases) and Iran's nuclear program and aspirations."

 

The agreement give inspectors access to a list of sites - mostly those reported/admitted by Iran as related to the nuclear program. Military bases are largely excluded from this list.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, riclag said:

You are missing the point  

"When Obama spoke on the  Iran nuclear agreement on television  he said it would usher in an era of unprecedented access to Iran's nuclear facilities.

"Inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply,  the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary," .

 

 By the time IAEA goes through the diversion steps(24 day access request) proposed in the agreement  and assuming the majority of  (P5+1) power's agree on Iran's explanation of the suspicious concern's, the proof could all vanish.The other point well noting is  the USA  "America First" policy isn't a (P5+1) friendly policy,these other countries have their own bias economic(trading)  concerns.

This is a bad deal for the  USA .

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/

 

 

Not missing the point at all, I'm probably closer to your point of view (with regard to the access issue, not the whole deal) then you understood.

 

It is true that the current inspections regime, warts and all, is very comprehensive. It is certainly stricter than previous ones. At the same time it is not fail-proof and does not provide the sort of access which some imagined (or were led encouraged to imagine). I concur that it does present some difficulties with regard to possible (and even probable) subterfuge efforts by Iran. And I do not place blind faith in views that such things could be easily tackled by other means. Guess it's a matter of empty half, full half.  

 

How this deal is specifically bad for the USA is not all too clear. If the USA wished to gain economic benefits, it could (and indeed, some companies did).

[Morch]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Yep. In addition the Treaty does not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons after the expiry of the Treaty date, but is a permanent restriction - a point that Trump has omitted to mention.

 

While specific restrictions lapse in 10, 15, or 25 years, the deal also binds Iran to permanent measures: committing to not pursue nuclear weapons and agreeing to notify the International Atomic Energy Agency when it decides to build a nuclear facility.

 

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.

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The agreement give inspectors access to a list of sites - mostly those reported/admitted by Iran as related to the nuclear program. Military bases are largely excluded from this list.

The agreement allows for instant access to those sites. For other sites there is a procedure. It can take up to 24 days but those sites are not excluded.

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The agreement allows for instant access to those sites. For other sites there is a procedure. It can take up to 24 days but those sites are not excluded.

 

 

The agreement allows instant (well, actually it's not instant as such, but let's say short announcement) access to sites which are on the list. The list is set rather than dynamic, and it does exclude many (if not most) military bases. As the procedure for requesting access to an unlisted site is not straightforward as presented above (a more thorough review was provided in one of the links above, possibly in one of your own posts). There is no "instant" access to sites which aren't already on the list.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The agreement allows instant (well, actually it's not instant as such, but let's say short announcement) access to sites which are on the list. The list is set rather than dynamic, and it does exclude many (if not most) military bases. As the procedure for requesting access to an unlisted site is not straightforward as presented above (a more thorough review was provided in one of the links above, possibly in one of your own posts). There is no "instant" access to sites which aren't already on the list.

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.