President Obama made a bad deal with Iran without support from Congress, and today President Trump is pulling out of President Obama’s personal commitment, and he doesn’t need Congress’s support to do so.” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) tweeted that “President Trump had every right to withdraw the U.S. from what was effectively an Obama executive agreement.”
“The overriding reason to prefer a nonbinding international arrangement to a treaty is the need to preserve the greatest possible flexibility to re-impose sanctions if we believe Iran is not meeting its commitments under a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” the official wrote in a statement.
The Iran deal is one example. The White House contends Congress has no business in that deal. It's an executive agreement, not a treaty. Lawmakers in both parties demanded a voice. Many dislike the deal — a lot.
I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health. Also, good meeting with Kim Jong Un. Date & Place set.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 9, 2018
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/9/17333964/n ... ease-trump“Releasing the three Americans is a good sign that North Korea wants a good meeting between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un and, eventually, a peaceful resolution of the nuclear and other issues with North Korea,” says Joseph DeTrani, a former intelligence official who previously negotiated peace talks with North Korea.
The Trump administration worked with Egypt to release Aya Hijazi, an Egyptian-American aid worker, from captivity in April 2017.
And last October, Trump announced the release of Caitlan Coleman, her husband, and the three children that they bore in a captivity that lasted five years.
“Releasing the three Americans is a good sign that North Korea wants a good meeting between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un and, eventually, a peaceful resolution of the nuclear and other issues with North Korea,” says Joseph DeTrani, a former intelligence official who previously negotiated peace talks with North Korea.
Steve James wrote:Trump just tweeted that there would be "severe consequences" if ... IF ... Iran restarts its nuclear enrichment program. Um, isn't that why the sanctions were lifted? Now, ya want them to stop, but you want the sanctions too? Or else ... But, if the sanctions are imposed and Iran doesn't restart its program, when would the sanctions end?
Anyway, I think he could build a much stronger case by continuing the argument that Iran is already doing nuclear enrichment, etc. Well, maybe the prez's "if" was just a slip of the thumb.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the sanctions were designed to do and were doing and why the deal entered into was a bad deal to begin with.
It never really stopped their development only delayed them
Steve James wrote:You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the sanctions were designed to do and were doing and why the deal entered into was a bad deal to begin with.
It never really stopped their development only delayed them
Hmm, "what the sanctions were designed to do." Well, yeah, the sanctions weren't delaying them at all, were they?
A matter of opinion of what the sanctions were doing and supposed to do....they were canceled, never achieved their objective.
Otoh, by "it" you mean the deal was what "only delayed them." And, now with the reimposition of sanctions, they will stop. Right? But, if they don't, do we have the right to bomb them? They've declared their intentions towards the US, they lack the means to implement them at this time. The point is to prevent them from ever having the means, by what ever action is necessary
You say it was a bad deal, like Trump. But, the other signers of the agreement didn't think so. Probably because it affects them much more than the US. Let's see what they do, since the sanctions will affect their business with Iran. All have an interest just depends on what that interest is based on, losing business and a energy source is a little different then dealing with an active agent trying to destroy you. Once the sanctions kick in, it will be interesting to see how those doing business with Iran try get around them if they can
Ya never know. If Trump is like Reagan, we might end up selling Iran some arms. In all these deals, there's always a quid pro quo. kinda why its called a deal. no? The conditions for getting out of the deal have not changed for the major player who controls many of the options the others need to play. ..
Though, I doubt we'll ever know what the other sides get out of these "good" deals. Well, I'd bet money that very few people have any idea of the details of the past "bad" deal or be able to tell it from any "new" deal. They'll say it's be better, if it comes; if it doesn't, they'll say the Iranians forced Trump or that Trump forced the Iranians.
Well, the Iranians are saying that they will continue to honor the agreement.
“In explaining his no-vote, Schumer said, “It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”
“Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be. For all of these reasons,
I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.”
Iran has continued to test ballistic missiles and has warned it won’t allow inspections of military sites — highlighting ambiguities in the agreement.
“when key nuclear restrictions of the JCPOA expire, Iran will be free to build up its nuclear capabilities, especially its enrichment capacity, and drastically reduce the time it would need to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.”
Sounds very similar to what happend with N-Korea.
They achieved their goal and became a threat to the US.
Between 2025 and 2030, the agreement to limit Iran’s stocks of low-enriched uranium and the number of centrifuge cascades it can operate will expire, allowing Iran to erect an industrial-scale nuclear program if it chooses.
“There is no need to force a crisis over it at this very moment — as Trump and some deal opponents seem inclined to do — given that elements of the JCPOA don’t begin to sunset until 2026-2031,” he wrote. He added that any negotiations to further restrict Iran ought to include “possible positive inducements” for Iran. The same type of thinking that allowed N-Korea to attain its goal now being dealt with
Perhaps. But Iran negotiated the current deal only after the US imposed and enforced sanctions that cut its banking system off from the international economy and cut off its ability to export oil. Those so-called secondary sanctions crippled Iran’s economy, because they applied not only to Iran but also to any foreign entities that did business with it. Why the other players will not be able to play, "any foreign entities" all those in favor of keeping the agreement was only possible with the consent of the US,. Something when the sanctions are re applied they will not be able to do....maybe never know ...
What’s to say the threat of bringing back those sanctions won’t persuade America’s European allies to try to fix the nuclear deal’s flaws?
It worked before.
More: House Democrat: I opposed Iran nuclear deal but now I think we should keep it
More: Trump and Iran nuclear deal: Smart chess play could motivate the mullahs
Trump kept the Iran deal on life support for his first year in office, extending sanctions relief “for the last time” on Jan. 12. The president said that final 120-day grace period was to provide time for Congress or our European allies to fix the plan.
While there have been some proposals for a better deal, actual changes were not forthcoming.
Rather than fix it, he nixed it. Now with a clean slate, the United States and the international community can forge a more sensible agreement.
It gets worse for Iran. Under the JCPOA, if one or more parties are found not to be in compliance with the agreement, “the provisions of the old U.N. Security Council resolutions would be reimposed, unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise.”
Because the United States has veto power, it is unlikely the council will vote to block this, which means seven suspended United Nations sanctions resolutions will come roaring back into force. This is the famous “snap-back” mechanism Obama touted while promoting the agreement in 2015: “We won't need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council. America can trigger snap back on our own.”
Of course, Obama never expected his successor to push this self-destruct button, probably because he envisioned a much different 2016 presidential election outcome.
Steve James wrote:
Absolutely good news. (Even if not a precondition). Pompeo meeting with Kim is invaluable. Pompeo's smart and will learn a lot about how Kim thinks. He'll know whether Kim is really a loonytoon or whether that was a caricature --and Dennis Rodman was right.
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:I guess it depends on what one means by "lightly." Certainly, the decision was made a long time ago, regardless of what you seem to imply. I haven't seen anyone else (and that's saying a lot) try to paint Trump and his ever-revolving group of cronies as such masters of intrigue and calculation. He is trashing the Iran deal because it's pretty much the last part of Obama's legacy that he hasn't smashed.
Different view point.
The arguments used for pulling out of the agreement are some of the same ones voiced entering into the agreement under Obama, way before DT was elected.
While true he didn't feel it was a good agreement, he also extended it to allow others to make a case for remaining in it. They couldn't.
The global environment.
Our environment.
Healthcare.
Trade (really strategic alliance in Asia).
The bilateral and internationally supported Iran Deal...
All changes voted on by the election of DT, now being enacted. Something the last president
recommended https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q3GJhUkLr0
And, yes, he could have changed the timing. He can make the decision every three months.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests