MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Decides to Tear Up Iran Nuclear Deal, Reimpose Sanctions

The move pisses off America's allies, and makes military confrontation with Iran more likely.

State Department/Sipa USA/NewscomState Department/Sipa USA/NewscomPresident Donald Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal.

According to a Tuesday New York Times story, Trump told French President Emmanuel Macron that he intended to withdraw from the Obama-negotiated deal—formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA—which saw the Iranian government agree to limits on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Trump has been uniformly critical of the deal both on the campaign trail and in office, threatening to withdraw from the arrangement numerous times.

The president had planned an announcement about his administration's continued participation in the nuclear pact for this afternoon. Trump's reported comments to Macron apparently confirms many analysts' assumption that the president would use the announcement to scuttle the deal.

According to the Times, the deal-breaker for Trump had been his demand that limitations on Iran's nuclear fuel production continue past 2030, when current restrictions are scheduled to be lifted. The United States' withdrawal means the re-imposition of sanctions that had prevented the sale of Iranian oil and froze billions of the country's assets.

Trump's decision is sure to upset America's European allies, who were also party to the agreement, and who have been urging the president to remain in the deal. Britain's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson met with Vice President Mike Pence this week to try and persuade the administration to keep the JCPOA in place. France's Defense Minister has referred to the deal as "a factor of peace and stabilization in a very eruptive region."

Voices inside the administration had likewise worked to keep Trump from tearing up the deal, most prominently former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. Their ouster in favor of Iran uber-hawks Mike Pompeo and John Bolton effectively removed any internal opposition to today's decision.

Reason contributor Steve Chapman has objected to the conflicted reasoning of Trump and other critics for ending the Iran deal, who've taken the JCPOA to task for both imposing ineffective restrictions on Iran's nuclear program and for putting an expiration date on those restrictions.

"The weird logic of the opponents is that because parts of the accord will end too soon, we should end the whole thing even sooner—right now," wrote Chapman. "Their implication is that all the flaws would be acceptable if only they would remain in effect until the end of time."

Tearing up a deal now "would be diplomatic malpractice" argued Reason contributor and Defense Priorities Fellow Daniel DePetris, who argued that whatever its imperfections, the JCPOA has lowered the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran.

"Jettisoning a nuclear deal that is working, despite the problems buried in the text, would run counter to the realism embedded in the Trump administration's national security doctrine," wrote DePetris. "And it may very well put the United States in the position of fighting a fourth war in the Middle East, a possibility the American people are neither prepared for nor willing to support."

Trump is scheduled to officially announce his withdrawal from the deal at 2 p.m. Eastern today.

Photo Credit: State Department/Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • I can't even||

    "Jettisoning a nuclear deal that is working..."

    Citations needed

  • The Last American Hero||

    There are no US planes flying over Tehran, and there are, to my knowledge, no US troops in Iran. In that sense, it is working.

  • Hugh Akston||

    There's also the thing where multiple inspections by the UN have found no evidence that Iran is failing to comply with the terms of the deal.

  • I can't even||

    proving that the Iranians are able to clear any non-military site given 30 days notice. Military sites are off-limits which makes one wonder what kind of jackass signed the deal.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The kind of jackass known as Barak Obama - who wanted something to claim as a legacy and which everyone else is evidently supposed to pretend actually accomplished something in the way of assuring that Iran was not working on nuclear weapons.

    Which it didn't.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well the Marxist Moron has already wrecked everything else he touched. So he must have figured his one chance at a 'legacy' was some sham deal, desperately praying it wouldn't quickly fall apart like everything else he fucked up.

  • gaoxiaen||

    The Iranians aren't quite that quick. They didn't clear out one place before Mossad did.

  • Ron||

    Mossad didn't give Iran 30 day notice of their spys

  • Brett Bellmore||

    This means absolutely nothing, as the UN has an explicit policy of not inspecting anywhere Iran objects to their inspecting.

  • John||

    Those inspections were supervised and announced ahead of time and did not go anywhere except where the Iranians allowed them. Are you really so stupid that you think those inspections are meaningful or are you just lying?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I'm not sure how much of Hugh's bullshit is stupidity, and how much is blatant dishonesty.

  • SIV||

    Why can't it be both?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Probably is both.

  • Ron||

    There's also the thing where multiple inspections by the UN have found no evidence that Iran is failing to comply with the terms of the deal."

    not True Iran has not allowed inspectors into certain areas and thus the inspectors have said we will let you self inspect. what kind of fox guarding his own hens BS is that

  • Whorton||

    Apparently most of the readers have forgotten the folly of WMD inspections and Saddam Hussein. Inspections required notice and delay. Every time, he moved evidence and obfuscated when it came to inspections. The WMD's were eventually transferred to Syria, where they have been used against their citizenry.

    And how did Iraq turn out for the world?

    Kerry and Obama should be brought up on treason for their pseudo treaty. Especially Kerry, who seems to think he is still secretary of State.

  • Ron||

    "There are no US planes flying over Tehran, and there are, to my knowledge, no US troops in Iran. In that sense, it is working."

    there were none before either.

  • JoeBlow123||

    The deal was worthwhile to try and a good shot to try and incentivize Iran to act like a normal country, reign in the Revolutionary Guards, stop funding proxy wars all over the Middle East, and generally antagonizing everyone.

    We gave it the good old college try, Iran declined to join the club of countries with acting in a responsible manner.

    There really is no reason to continue this deal and kick the can down the road, keep putting money in the Revolutionary Guards so they can arm Hezbollah and the Houthis and others. This does not mean we need to invade them (like we have not invaded North Korea despite their repeated provocations), but there is no reason to pretend we are friends and that Iran is a responsible country.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    You know how sometimes the text is a different color? It means you can click on something for more information. You could actually read a whole post by DePetris!

    Oh wait, you did, and commented all over it too.

  • Flinch||

    I believe that was at the opening of the piece: it's a story on a story barfed up by the NYT. When you begin your day with that and consider it source material, the odds of getting anything right are slim to none". I recommend the author do what I do: when asked if I want a subscription by the occasional cold caller, I invariably ask "how much are you going to pay me?" Damages are in order for exposure to Pinchy's travel fund.

  • Just Say'n||

    Garbage Trump. What's his next move? Nothing.

    Good job, Bolton

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Actually yes, this is a good move.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • Zebra Jr.||

    Why would this excite you? I guess it's Obama's association with it. You're like a child.

  • Ecoli||

    Why is it that nearly everything Obama did was a mistake, or a malicious act whose main effect, or side effect, was to damage America?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Obama probably has terrible instincts. He's also surrounded by far left academic types. That's a recipe for incompetence.

  • BigT||

    Exactly. No real world experience combined with idealistic bad theories is a recipe for.....

    ....Obama!

  • Flinch||

    A real question Ecoli...uh, maybe it's because Obama was our first vandal in chief? His marxist bent was tinged by an anarchist streak, which caused him to deface much of our domestic policy/society along with our foreign policy. If we had plucked somebody off a trail in the Andes somewhere to be president he would have been less of a foreigner [in spirit].

  • The Last American Hero||

    Whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing, perhaps next time POTUS should push a treaty through the Senate if he/she/xe wants it to stick. That makes it harder to repeal/amend/change.

    It's amazing how this lesson about the executive hasn't been absorbed by anybody as far as I can tell. It's all about people wishing they had a different king than questioning whether having a king is a good idea in the first place.

  • Just Say'n||

    The fact that the deal was never approved by the Senate is really the only good argument for dumping the deal. It is, by definition, illegal.

    Nonetheless, no deal just increases the odds for a conflict

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, the fact that the Iranians have been violating the deal from the very start, and the very administration that made it knew that, and our allies have no stomach for anything that would force compliance, is a very good reason, too.

    What's the point of a deal that isn't even being complied with? Might as well just stop pretending.

    Worst part is that we front loaded all our obligations, and back loaded all of theirs, and then shipped them a couple billion in small unmarked bills just to top it off.

  • BigT||

    Our allies stand to profit from the deal selling stuff to Iran and having another source of oil. This move will freeze their business sector in place. So eventually they will cave in to Trump.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "The fact that the deal was never approved by the Senate is really the only good argument for dumping the deal. It is, by definition, illegal.

    Nonetheless, no deal just increases the odds for a conflict"

    The best argument for dumping the deal is that the deal is shit, and is completely one sided, favoring the Iranians who have violated it left and right.

    Dumping the deal also will likely keep us out of a war.

  • Ron||

    a bad deal is worse than no deal since deals often include methods of punishment for failure that are backed by the UN. no deal means less chance of war just like we weren't at war before the deal.

    How many Treaties did we have with NAZI Germany and Japan before WWII or the Native americans for that matter

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You make a good point Ron.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How many Treaties did we have with NAZI Germany and Japan before WWII or the Native americans for that matter

    How is that relevant since WE were the aggressor with Japan.
    Educate yourself on the Flying Tigers, who were shooting down Japanese planes over China, in the war between China and Japan.

    Educate yourself on the oil embargo we had against Japan, an embargo being an act of war.
    Educate yourself on why FDR had moved the almost the entire Pacific Fleet, from San Diego to Pearl -- MUCH close to Japan (whose planes we were shooting down.
    Educate yourself on WTF Japan would attck Pearl -- in the OPPOSITE direction of the REAL war they were in.

  • BYODB||

    "Remember how World War 1 was fought because there weren't enough treaties and obligations?"

    ~Just Say'n

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Excellent point. Everybody has a pen and a phone; very few have treaty power.

  • DajjaI||

    I was banned on twitter so I don't have any 'boots on the ground' so to speak. So I don't have great intel on this. But I don't think he'll end it. I think he'll postpone the announcement and ultimately continue with it (as he always does).

    On the other hand, in the unlikely event that he rips it up, note how often he blames 'Israel'. The goal is to frighten the Jews into the waiting arms of the Zionists.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    To understand Drumpf's motivation for this disastrous decision, it's only necessary to keep in mind two facts: (1) Drumpf is a racist, and (2) Drumpf is Putin's puppet. So this move was either ordered by Russia, or else it's being done purely to diminish the legacy of an African American President.

  • lap83||

    I'm curious to know how you think this move will impact abortion access

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Excellent question, and unfortunately I don't have an answer just yet. I would need to consult with someone more knowledgeable about intersectionality than I am. It's obvious how other decisions of this administration, for example on Net Neutrality, impact reproductive rights. But as terrible as this Iran decision is, I cannot yet articulate how it relates to The Handmaid's Tale.

  • lap83||

    Thanks and you should know that your unique insights don't go unappreciated

  • Nardz||

    Reason really needs to give him a regular column. He's more talented than most/all they publish.
    Maybe they can call it...
    OBL's Lair

  • Aloysious||

    How about "Better than Chapman"?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    AKA as "Even a Monkey With a Pencil'.

  • ThomasD||

    "Better than Chapman"

    Low bar.

    Darn near a backhand insult.

  • Sevo||

    "Commie Kid with a new Handle"

  • BigT||

    I thought he was Chapman!

  • creech||

    I want to know how it will impact volcanic activity in the great state of Hawaii.

  • Ariki||

    I want to know how the volcanic activity is effecting the abortion rights of dolphins in the context of feminist nuclear proliferation.

    #"science"grant

  • Bender B. Rodriguez||

    I want to know what the queers are doing to the soil.

    #deadmilkmen

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    All domestic violence is Reagan's fault. QED

  • DajjaI||

    Don't worry, Mueller's on top of it. He'll expose the Flynn-Bannon plan's fatal flaw: to think they could cut ties between Russia and Iran. Justice will be served warm.....

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Putin is a supporter of the Iran nuclear deal

  • Azathoth!!||

    Who's this 'Drumpf' guy?

  • Michael Hihn||

    The original Trump family name.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    the realism embedded in the Trump administration's national security doctrine

    Huh.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Presupposes an actual doctrine.

    Presupposes an understanding of "realism".

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I just don't know what to do with that whole phrase.

  • John||

    It is well established that Iran lied about its intentions before the JCPOA and is violating the agreement now. The last big war the US got involved with was Iraq. Why did we invade Iraq? To enforce the terms of the cease-fire agreement we made with Iraq after the first Gulf War. If anything gets the US into needless wars, it is the desire to enforce international agreements. So walking away from an agreement that we know the other side is violating and never had any intention of keeping makes armed conflict less likely not more likely. The only reason Reason and their collection of internationalist idiots think the opposite is because they believe in the magic power of words and think that as long as we have an agreement, the words of the agreement will magically make reality conform to their expectations.

    You either have to be on the other side, which Reason is not, or a very special sort of stupid to think continuing to abide by an agreement everyone knows the other party is breaking and just pretending they are not is anything short of madness much less something that will make the world safer. Lying to yourself never makes you safer.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    and is violating the agreement now

    lol

  • John||

    It is.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....77768.html

    http://thehill.com/opinion/nat.....g-the-deal

    To give just two examples. You are just a hopeless moron Hail. Did your parents have any children that lived?

  • BigT||

    It's abortions all the way down....with one exception.

  • JFree||

    Why did we invade Iraq? To enforce the terms of the cease-fire agreement we made with Iraq after the first Gulf War.

    That's just bullshit. We invaded Iraq in order to violate the terms of the ceasefire ourselves. They weren't violating it. We chose to because our own 'strategy' (keep troops in Saudi in order to protect Kuwait - which morphed into dual containment) became a bigger clusterfuck after 9/11. Turns out OBL was able to convince 15+ Saudis that our occupation of the land of the two mosques was a valid reason for jihad.

    So we had to get out of Saudi - and the only way to do that was to get rid of Saddam. Which created an entirely new clusterfuck because Iran was able to step into the power vacuum when it turned out Iraqis didn't throw flowers at us and we had no plan B for what to do after overthrowing Saddam.

    So now all the fucking chickenhawks who advocated that policy of nonsense based on ignorance last time are advocating an entirely new policy of nonsense based on ignorance.

  • John||

    First of all, I went to Iraq. So take your chickenhawk bullshit and shove it up your ass. Second of all, the entire inspections regime was the result of the ceasefire and the resulting UNSC resolutions. We invaded Iraq after Saddam refused to allow inspections as required by the UNSC resolutions and the US claimed the right to use force to enforce both the ceasefire and the associated resolutions. Iraq was done in the name of the UN and the credibility of the international order.

    Those are the facts. If you don't like them, tough shit. Go live in another universe. In this one, that is what happened. Yes, we needed to get out of Saudi Arabia. Yes, the sanctions regime was falling apart thanks to oil for food. But those things just brought the issue to a head. The issue and the reasons behind the war and why those things mattered was because of our desire to enforce the ceasefire. Hell, we could have just left Saudi Arabia altogether. But we couldn't do that and continue to contain Saddam and enforce the terms of the ceasefire. It was all about the ceasefire and maintaining the credibility of the UNSC.

    So go tell yourself lies somewhere else. The facts are what they are.

  • JFree||

    Hell, we could have just left Saudi Arabia altogether. But we couldn't do that and continue to contain Saddam and enforce the terms of the ceasefire. It was all about the ceasefire and maintaining the credibility of the UNSC.

    Saddam didn't need WMD's to take over Kuwait again. And he claimed up to his hanging that Kuwait was legitimately part of Iraq - and the two countries do only exist as a remnant of British colonialism and WW1. So no we couldn't have just left. The 'ceasefire' had nothing to do with his view of Kuwait - or for that matter the Baathist view of a united Arab state - or enforcing a WW1 view of what the Middle East should look like.

    Regime change was necessary. Because we assumed that Saddam would hand off to his kids - and their kids - so it becomes a 'forever' occupation. And 9/11 showed that that now had a cost for us. Everything else was simply BS to sell that - since 'regime change' is explicitly forbidden under international law.

  • John||

    We only cared about any of that because we were entangled in it in the first place. We could not walk away and let Saddam win and come back into the international community without losing ours and the UN's credibility entirely. Iraq was far and away the most Wilsonian war we have ever fought.

  • JFree||

    But we WERE entangled in it. That's why it came back to bite us. It is called BLOWBACK. So stop fucking pretending that we were doing something idealistic on behalf of others here.

  • Finrod||

    Yes, how horrible that Iraq has a democracy now. Granted it's a shitty democracy but it's a damn sight better than they've had in decades.

  • Flinch||

    Bush was a simpleton, and got taken for a ride by British sources [and perhaps some others] it seems. Apparently nobody told him one of the Clinton administrations goals was to remove boots on the ground [to provide qualitative advice/vet items of interest overseas] and just rely on electronic surveillance. The thinking that emerged after that time [where virtually nobody left DC to find out or do anything of consequence] allowed the vacuum to occur that plagues even the FBI to this day: if somebody reports suspicious mosque activity, their first response is a conditioned 'outreach' plan, not to investigate suspicious activity - that comes second. I hope corrections get made, but... the number of Clintonistas still in place in senior positions is formiddable enough to keep Sessions in check and boxed in (just barely). Nobody knows what the CIA does until years later, so maybe we can comment on them in a decade or so.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Boots on the ground"........

    I'm so tired of this overused hackneyed slang phrasing. The correct term is "ground troops".

    Not dumping on you in particular, but this shot has got to stop.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They're both correct terms.

  • Stilgar||

    No John, they did not and it is you (and your fellow travellers) who is a very, very special sort of stupid. Missiles were NOT part of the agreement. And Bibi's little dog and pony show displayed documents already known (and published!) by the IAEA.

  • John||

    Yes, the whole thing is just a slander by the evil Jews. And they violated the agreement by more than missiles. It was supposed to be verified. And they have refused to allow inspections to do so. That alone puts them in violation of the agreement.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Stilhar piss off. John is right. Only a piece of shit backs Iran over Israel.

  • Stilgar||

    No John, they did not and it is you (and your fellow travellers) who is a very, very special sort of stupid. Missiles were NOT part of the agreement. And Bibi's little dog and pony show displayed documents already known (and published!) by the IAEA.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal.

    As he has every right to do, as the next executive and re-engage it, and the next executive can again rescind it, and so on and so on.

    There's another formal system for brokering deals between nations, perhaps we should look into it.

  • John||

    I know. Maybe we could have some advice and consent about the issue from the Senate. It is just so crazy that it might work.

    For Reason to bitch and moan about this after cheering Obama shows how they have completely walked away from the rule of law. This thing should have been sent to the Senate and if the Senate would not agree, should have been ended then. The President should not get to sign the US up to international obligations without the public getting a vote in the form of submitting it to the Senate. And allowing the President to do so on his own accord and over the wishes of the Senate makes it more likely for the US to get involved in foreign wars. As I said above, what gets the US involved in needless wars is usually the desire to enforce international agreements because not doing so damages US credibility. So, the last thing any actual noninterventionist should want is for the President to be able to make international commitments without regard to the Senate. And that is exactly what Reason has supported in this case because carrying water for the Light Giver and belief in the magic power of words on a paper outweigh all other principles and concerns.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    As I said above, what gets the US involved in needless wars is usually the desire to enforce international agreements because not doing so damages US credibility.

    So no deal at all? So now it's full speed ahead for Iran to get the bomb? Then what?

  • Just Say'n||

    ^ Exactly

    Bolton has got a boner right now and the only cure is more murder

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    See this is also what worries me. The hardcore anti-Obama crowd of *course* likes the idea of tearing up the deal, but only because Obama. Doesn't matter what the deal said or if Iran is following it or not, if Obama is for it, they're against it. But in so doing they are empowering the pro-war Republicans.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why can't we make a new binding deal with advice and consent of the senate?

  • John||

    Because it wouldn't be Obama's deal. Making a new one would just be racist.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why don't we resubmit the existing Obama deal-- the one with His anointed fingerprints all over it... the one the He is Responsible For, the one that He brokered, Word for Divine Word, but resubmit as a treaty?

    Seems like there are a million ways to skin this cat.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That would be fine with me.

  • BYODB||

    Why is it so naturally assumed that the deal was preventing Iran from getting the bomb, when the deal explicitly let Iran have the bomb?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Right, this deal changed all of that. Perhaps we csn get Shikha to come back to tell us how these centrifuges can't enrich to weapons grade again. Good times.

  • John||

    It was full speed ahead anyway. Iran has lied and violated this agreement from the start. Why do you think pretending otherwise helps? What reason does Iran have to abide by the deal? They already got paid. None of the conditions are verifiable. Why on earth would they abide by it. Moreover, even if they did, it ends in ten years. The best case for this deal was that it would pause their efforts for ten years. it does nothing to reduce their capability or in anything to prevent them from building a nuke after ten years. All Obama did was ensure that Iran got nukes but only until well after he left office and could avoid being blamed for it. The whole thing was about ensuring Obama could blame someone else for Iran having nukes, either because they walked away from his worthless agreement or it happened ten years after he left office and was too far in time removed from his being President to blame him.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't think anyone really believed that the deal would totally stop Iran from getting a bomb. The deal was only intended to slow it down for a while. So the real question is whether it was slowing down Iranian progress. The inspectors didn't have full access, no, which is part of the problem. But the inspectors did have partial access, and did the inspectors snooping around make it harder for Iran to make progress?

  • John||

    I don't think anyone really believed that the deal would totally stop Iran from getting a bomb. The deal was only intended to slow it down for a while.

    By giving them nearly a billion dollars in cash and ending the sanctions? Do you realize how dumb that sounds? The deal would slow them down by saving them from bankruptcy and ensuring they had the money to stay in power and finish their program either now or later depending on their preference. That is what you are saying here.

    The inspectors didn't have full access, no, which is part of the problem. But the inspectors did have partial access, and did the inspectors snooping around make it harder for Iran to make progress?

    No. There are entire locations the inspectors never see. Are you this dumb or just that unwilling to concede a point?

    Look Iran had anything but bad intentions here, why would they not be open to all inspections? And why would even you admit that deal just slows them down? You do understand that saying it slows them down is admitting that they want nukes?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You just hate Obama, John.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    By giving them nearly a billion dollars in cash

    It was their own money, frozen since 1979. They actually did have a right to get their own property returned to them.

    and ending the sanctions?

    Yes, that is the price of a deal. By the way, it was a pretty easy price to pay, because the sanctions regime was going to end anyway - the Europeans weren't going to keep it up, for starters. So "ending the sanctions" was really just "acknowledging reality".

    You do understand that saying it slows them down is admitting that they want nukes?

    Everyone acknowledges this! Of course Iran lied if they said they only want nukes for peaceful purposes. They want nuclear weapons. Per the NPT, however, they do actually have a right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. So unless WE were willing to trash the NPT, we weren't going to take away all of their nuclear material in any event.

    So the real question is, what is the correct course of action when you have states like Iran who have a treaty right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, but they are intent on developing nuclear weapons despite the desires of everyone else? Without going back to the drawing board on the NPT itself, and short of war, I don't think there is anything that can be realistically done besides just slowing them down.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And by the way John, I agree with you that a deal predicated on enforcement via inspections is problematic, I said so from the outset. Because it's easy to cheat and fool the inspectors. But I don't have a better alternative in mind, especially if the Europeans are no longer going to be imposing sanctions on Iran along with us.

  • Nardz||

    I'm not going to address the rest of your Appeasement Doctrine, but a note about the money being "their" money - it was not. That money was the Shah's government's money. The shah's government was overthrown. All contracts with the Shah's government were voided, not inherited, by the party/government which violently deposed him.

    A contracts B to sell A B's car. A gives B a down payment, but before delivery of the car A is murdered by C. Thus, B neither delivers nor returns the down payment. Decades later, B's supposed to give A's money to C (who, again, murdered A)?

  • John||

    It was their own money, frozen since 1979. They actually did have a right to get their own property returned to them.

    No it wasn't. That money was supposed to be used to pay judgments against them from the victims of their terrorism. Moreover, the money belonged to the old regime, not the new one anyway. It was never their money. It was just money that was out of their reach thus making it impossible for them to loot it.

    Yes, that is the price of a deal. By the way, it was a pretty easy price to pay, because the sanctions regime was going to end anyway -

    Then why is our reimposing the sanctions such a big deal then? You are just trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, claiming that the sanctions didn't matter because they Europeans were going to end them anyway and then on the other claiming our unilateral reimposition of them is a big deal that will lead to war. Both those things can't be true. And the Europeans would not have gotten have gotten rid of the sanctions without an agreement. They wanted to but needed the agreement for political cover. That was what this was about, letting them do something and pretend they were still stopping Iran from getting nukes. It was a shame.

  • John||

    Everyone acknowledges this! Of course Iran lied if they said they only want nukes for peaceful purposes.

    Now they do. But they didn't at the time of the agreement or for the decade before that. They bought the Iranian lies and called anyone who questioned them a liar. And now the same people are claiming "well everyone knows that". No we don't.

    I get it that you want to defend Obama. But you are defending the indefensible here. Obama committed an enormous blunder with this deal. it is what it is.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Obama was super weak at foreign policy, mainly because he worked from a weak position that the USA would not stand up for itself.

    Trump has changed all that. His foreign policy is putting American first and we don't give a shit about what the candy-assed socialists in Europe scream about.

    Iran and North Korea have threatened to nuke the USA multiple times. NK has nukes and ICBMs but lacks accuracy. Iran wants nukes and has short-medium range missiles.

    Kicking the can down the road relating to these aggressive nations has not worked and really has not worked. Once these nations are a credible threat and threaten to nuke the USA- fuck 'em. The NAP is off. Don't like it, don't threaten to nuke the USA.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Legally, they had no right to the money until it had been used to satisfy judgments against them. There was a perfectly on point law barring it.

    That's why Obama "structured" the payment in the form of dozens of amounts too small to trigger the reporting requirement, and then sent it to them secretly in order to prevent an injunction. Because it was illegal to give them that money.

    One of Obama's favorite tricks was to do unpopular, illegal things secretly, in such a way that the facts on the ground could not be reversed afterwards, even if he lost in court. This was an example of that: Even if a court ruled the payment was illegal, Iran would already have the pallets of unmarked bills, no getting them back.

  • damikesc||

    Iran has said they will start processing more uranium than ever within weeks.

    So, no, it was not slowing them down. At all.

  • JFree||

    Iran has lied and violated this agreement from the start. Why do you think pretending otherwise helps? What reason does Iran have to abide by the deal? They already got paid. None of the conditions are verifiable. Why on earth would they abide by it. Moreover, even if they did, it ends in ten years.

    You obviously are just repeating some talking points that you've seen on Fox or somewhere - fed to them by Israel.

    FACT is that the only thing that 'ends' in 10 years is fuel reprocessing which is a component of nuclear ENERGY. There is no 'expiration' for nuclear WEAPONRY. And everything in the agreement - and any accusations of non-compliance - is verifiable. The deal ASSUMED dishonesty - like most arms control and similar type agreements.

    And the stuff that Netanyahu just talked about on TV (which is the reason Trump is walking away from the JCPOA) is related to a covert program that Iran had in 2003 called Project AMAD - NOT now.

    Americans are such fucking idiots when it comes to the rest of the world. Not one brain cell in the entire foreign policy establishment. Which is why we are so easily used by others to serve their own purposes.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Hard to argue with the stunning success of Libya or the triumph of Picot-Sykes.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Are you really this deluded?

    Your response is essentially 'Faux News!', and 'That liar Bibi!'.

  • John||

    FACT is that the only thing that 'ends' in 10 years is fuel reprocessing which is a component of nuclear ENERGY. There is no 'expiration' for nuclear WEAPONRY. And everything in the agreement - and any accusations of non-compliance - is verifiable. The deal ASSUMED dishonesty - like most arms control and similar type agreements.

    And you accuse me of repeating talking points. It is not verifiable you half wit. Iran is not allowing inspectors into any site it deems military. Second, fuel reprocessing is otherwise known as enrichment. At the end of ten years they are free to enrich as much uranium as they like. And that is the hard part of making a nuclear weapon. Once you have the HEIU, constructing a weapon is not that hard. Do you even know how this works? Do you know what enrichment even is?

    And the stuff that Netanyahu just talked about on TV (which is the reason Trump is walking away from the JCPOA) is related to a covert program that Iran had in 2003 called Project AMAD - NOT now.

    It says they had a nuclear weapons program in 2003 and lied about it. That is kind of important to know, unless you think magically decided to be honest now, despite always lying about their intentions. They have always claimed not to want the bomb.

    You are a fucking moron. I don't even think you know what uranium is or what a nuclear weapon is. You sure as hell don't' know the details of this agreement or how a nuclear program works. Give it the fuck up.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Actually fuel reprocessing is quite different from enrichment, but what's worse is that the restriction on enrichment are what go away.

  • John||

    It is different skippy but it is just doing the same thing only not as much. It is the same facilities and processes.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No it's not. Fuel reprocessing is actually easier but generally useless for making bomb material unless you use special reactors like the norks do.

    Enrichment is where it's at.

  • JFree||

    It says they had a nuclear weapons program in 2003 and lied about it.

    That project was mentioned in IAEA reports issued in 2015 and in 2005. Nor is 'Iran is a liar' of insight.

    They have always claimed not to want the bomb.

    Iran has a LONG history of expecting to be taken seriously dating back to Cyrus the Great. If 'nukes' are what defines 'being taken seriously', then nukes they want. The US helped Shah set up a test reactor with high-grade. Iran's desire for nuclear power was used in advertising here in the US. We understood in 1974 SNIE - p 35 that he would develop weapons if his neighbors did. Nothing changed with the revolution except the neighbors now have nukes.

    At the end of ten years they are free to enrich as much uranium as they like.

    No. They are free to enrich low-grade (basic reactors) and medium-grade (used for MOX/breeders) after that. The agreement does NOT allow high-grade. But the reality is that you don't need as much volume for weapons as you do for energy. Which is the problem of all nonproliferation efforts. No agreement can ever get at motivations. Only actions. Long-term a neighborhood issue - and they now have 10-25 years to decide whether they want to kill each other or not.

  • JFree||

    And by volume I mean the number of centrifuges that you're running. If you run enough to supply a fuel source, then that's more than enough to supply weapons-grade too. It is ONLY will/motivation that stops one. At core the rhetoric from both Israel/US now is that we want to deny Iran nuclear power itself. At minimum, that pits us two against the rest of the world (since international law gives them the right to develop nuclear energy).

    And the more we do that, the more likely it is that Iran will continue to view us as a threat - and have the will/motivation to develop nukes instead.

  • damikesc||

    And everything in the agreement - and any accusations of non-compliance - is verifiable. The deal ASSUMED dishonesty - like most arms control and similar type agreements.

    Which explains sites being off limits and no surprise inspections but, instead, ones with massive advanced notice.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Liar

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Why is it any of our business if Iran wants nukes?

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    So now it's full speed ahead for Iran to get the bomb?

    Yeah, nothing has changed other than we pulled the wool off our own eyes.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hey Jeff, it was always full speed ahead. And now they have s shitload of extra money to make it happen.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The move pisses off America's allies, and makes military confrontation with Iran more likely.

    At least now the USA can deal with iran's desire to nuke the USA honestly, rather than let Iran build nukes in secret.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Iran has no intention of nuking the US. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Right, they just threaten to do it on a regular basis, but that's no evidence they intend to do it. /sarc

  • BigT||

    Of course, Baron, all that "Death to America" stuff is just talk. They are really friendly, peaceful, reasonable types. Look how nicely they treat the rest of their neighbors!

  • GILMORE™||

    ""makes military confrontation with Iran more likely.""

    You know what else makes military confrontation with iran more-likely?

    How about:

    - Putting the 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf since the 1980s
    - Bombing Iranian proxy forces in Lebanaon
    - Bombing Iranian proxy forces in Iraq
    - Bombing Iranian proxy forces in Yemen
    - Bombing Iranian proxy forces in Syria

    iow: "the US being the proxy-force of Iran's greatest enemy in the region - the Saudis - for 40 years or so"

    We are and have been having military-confrontations w/ Iran for decades. And the "Iran Deal" changed absolutely nothing re: this dynamic.

    Pretending whether it remains in place or is abandoned is some hugely significant step which drastically alters the nature of US/Iranian relations is idiocy.

    It was a bit of faux-diplomacy constructed entirely for purposes of Team Obama giving themselves a PR victory-lap. It did not alter Iran's posture vis a vis the US, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, by one iota.

    if anything Iranians used the deal as an opportunity to demonstrate that neither the US nor UN would enforce their own vague terms;

    by openly flaunting provisions of related agreements, they showed that diplomats would look the other way in order to preserve the appearance of diplomatic accomplishment.

    The "Deal" is a vacuous, unenforceable tissue that relies on a presumption of goodwill which simply doesn't exist. Trying to preserve it is trying to preserve an unhelpful fiction.

  • GILMORE™||

    It was in its form very much like the Paris Agreement

    "A deal made solely for the purpose of claiming to your domestic, voting audience that a deal happened"

    Neither involved any 'actual diplomacy' - both were *simulacra* of diplomacy.

    All the 'pomp and show', all the handshaking and press-releases and photo-ops, but none of the actual "Hard Stuff", of actual 'verifiable commitments', enforceable provisions, or sincere effort on any side to make any real gesture of good-faith

    *it would be easy at this point to note that ALL diplomacy - even the 'real' kinds - have lots of this bullshit, symbolic, icing-on-the-cake stuff as well.

    Its just that there is at least *some* cake underneath all the icing. In the case of Team Obama's efforts w/ Iran? None.

    Its not about possible 'war w/ iran'. If we want to avoid war w/ Iran, we need only tell the Saudis and Israel "you're on your own, fellas".

    Its about the US wanting to have its proxy wars, and pretend to be peacemakers too. I don't mind that the general public is otherwise bone stupid about this sort of issue, but ffs, if you're going to write about it, get your head out of your ass first.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Even worse we paid the Iranians for the privilege removing sanctions which were actually hurting. But reason with all of its third way thinking can only ever see two options here: give the Iranians everything they want or global thermonuclear war. Must be tough handling all of that nuance.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Obama once again made it harder for the Iranian people to overthrow this shit regime. Obama really is an enemy of freedom around the world.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Yeah, because we all know how well sanctions work at fomenting revolutionary change. Just look at Cuba! Elias you're an idiot.

  • SunkCost||

    It was their money. We froze the accounts in 1979. The sanctions only hurt because of global participation. The rest of the world would have walked away if we refuse to take yes for an answer.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I care why?

    And if the rst ofnthe world walks away, then why do you have your panties in a wad over this? The rest of the world presumably doesn't want a nuke iran too, right?

    The fact is we front loaded the goodies for Barry's legacy instead of getting a meaningful, enforceable agreement.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Gilmore, you left out the part about us giving Iran shitloads of money. Obama supporters want to be proud of that.

  • GILMORE™||

    I don't think that was particularly important, to be honest.

    Much of it was oil revenue which they had sold long after we had un-frozen many of their seized assets, but not yet given them access to the financial system that would allow them to repatriate funds.

    I would have endorsed simply unilaterally lifting sanctions against iran, and unilaterally giving them those funds. And putting NO conditions on doing so. And simply trying to open real channels of diplomatic dialogue.

    THAT by itself would have been a significant diplomatic accomplishment (while it would have made any Hawks apoplectic). Because it would have changed the way the US (never mind UN/Europe) handled these rogue-regimes.

    Instead they created this charade by which we were pretending to "get something", but putting no means in place to ensure that 'something' ever happened.

    basically, they damaged american diplomatic capital rather than strengthened it, and they did it for no reason other than to burnish Obama's FP legacy, which was complete shit otherwise

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Tearing up a deal now "would be diplomatic malpractice"

    As was the creation of a deal which didn't seek the advice and consent of the Senate.

  • Alcibiades||

    Thanks Mr. President, it's past time the previous occupant was put in their place.

  • damikesc||

    Classic Reason: "Churchill pulls UK out of Munich Agreement, making war more likely. Evidence shows that Munich Agreement was putting a cap on German territorial desires as long as nobody was fucking with Germans or something"

  • John||

    They had an agreement. Don't you know that? You can't have a war where there is an agreement.

    This is what the staff at Reason actually believe.

  • Alcibiades||

    Obumbles also neutralized an investigation into drug trafficking by Hezbolah to fund their terrorist activities that could have compromised the deal. Yeah, take that Israel!

    God, I'm so glad that fucking idiot is no longer at 1600.
    It'll take years, if not decades, to fix the damage he did to this country.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Fundamental transformation" and "long term damage" can be pretty hard to distinguish, can't they?

  • Alcibiades||

    I personally hate the fucking idiot.

    He left this nation with our enemies stronger and on his way out kicked our friends full in the face, e.g. Israel and the UN.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    He shit on our allies with remarkable regularity, including, France, Britain, Poland, etc..

  • gaoxiaen||

    Ribbentrop and Molotov agree. Oh, wait...

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    chickenhawk.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Who, John? Pretty sure he's a war vet. So am I. Are you?

    Might want to watch who you're calling that. Other than Tomy, who is the gay kind of chickenhawk. Which means something different.

  • lap83||

    "Evidence also shows that the odds of Germans putting Jews in concentration camps is lower than being struck by lightning"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I am personally somewhat agnostic on the deal. Enforcement of the whole thing was based on an inspections regime, which is of course problematic. Then again, inspectors snooping around, even with incomplete access, are better than no one snooping around. And of course it should have been regarded as a treaty because that's what it was.

    But what is the concrete evidence that Iran is breaking the deal? Does that even matter?

  • John||

    Iran has refused access to any site it deems a "military facility". This would be like the US signing on to a treaty agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons in 1944 and allowing inspections anywhere except Los Alamos, New Mexico, Haniford, Washington and the Y-12 site in Tennessee. The JCPOA requires Iran to be fully transparent and for full verification of the agreement. So, hard to see how that is not a violation.

    We know from the document trove the Israelis stole that Iran has had a nuclear program since the turn of the century and lied when it claimed otherwise. Further, the IEA will give any country that wants it low enriched uranium to power its nuclear plants in exchange for a verifiable promise not to enrich its own uranium. Yet, Iran has insisted on enriching its own uranium at enormous cost for what it claims is a peaceful nuclear program.

    Iran wants nuclear weapons and is intent on building them regardless of what this agreement says. That doesn't necessarily mean we should go to war to stop them from doing that. But, we should also not lie to ourselves and pretend the facts are anything other than what they are.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Once again, what gives us the right to demand inspection of anything? They are a sovereign nation. They have a right to nukes, the same as we do. If we want to say that we oppose it because a de facto state of war exists via proxies in the ME, then let us say so. But that also brings up the problem of us being just as morally culpable as they are by our involvement in the ME. So ethically we should give up our nukes as well. Or are we to believe that when we bomb weddings that we are spreading peace and democracy, but when Iran does it, they are spreading evil and oppression?

  • BYODB||

    They have the right not to sign agreements they have no intentions of honoring, too, yet they signed treaties saying we could do inspections. So...the 'right' comes from their agreement to let us and as far as I'm aware they have not pulled out of those treaties.

  • damikesc||

    They are a sovereign nation. They have a right to nukes

    They signed the NPT and that says otherwise.

  • JFree||

    Iran has refused access to any site it deems a "military facility". This would be like the US signing on to a treaty agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons in 1944 and allowing inspections anywhere except Los Alamos, New Mexico, Haniford, Washington and the Y-12 site in Tennessee. The JCPOA requires Iran to be fully transparent and for full verification of the agreement. So, hard to see how that is not a violation.

    Well that is just nonsense too. The JCPOA specifically mentions a number of different sites (Natanz, etc - and presumably EVERY site we and anyone else knew about where nuclear stuff was happening). Yes there is a potential problem that they create new sites from scratch and just move the work to there - and call that entirely new site a 'military facility' and refuse inspections. But that is mostly theory at this point since a)you can't just open up new facilities from scratch and b)we DO know who the 'Iranian nuclear experts' are and they ain't likely to also re-create that talent base from scratch too.

    Yes - POTENTIALLY IN FUTURE - there will be a violation problem if all the Iranians the inspectors talk to say Nothing happening here but then all spend their workdays at a facility that inspectors can't access. But when that happens it will be based on an actual SOMETHING. Not on the usual chickenhawk warboners.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay I just saw John's links above. Seems as though Iran has tested ballistic missiles in violation of the agreement. it also seems as though the other signatories aren't very concerned about the violation. So, I don't know.

  • John||

    They have done more than that. And they are not concerned about the violation because to be concerned would mean having to do something, which they do not want to do. The entire purpose of this agreement is to allow the western signatories to pretend they have done something while avoiding blame for Iran eventually obtaining nuclear weapons.

  • Ron||

    so True it would be more honest to offer Iran help with building nuclear weapons and get money out of the deal. At least that way we would know what they have and we could maybe even sabatoge some computer chips to allow failure commands.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    I think this would be a better option. If we can make money off it, then all the better. Commerce with all, is what I say.

  • BYODB||

    Yes, because it's totally ethical to sell nuclear weapons to nations known for human rights violations. Bonus points for selling both them and their mortal enemies nuclear weapons, right? We call that a 'self correcting problem', am I right?

    Sheesh, you're pretty dense but the name screams 'troll' so maybe I'm wasting breath.

  • BYODB||

    What, like Stuxnet type help or, like, real help?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Of course the other signatories aren't concerned. Iran says they're going to turn Israel into a glassy desert, and for most of the signatories, what's to dislike about that?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh give me a break. Britain and France don't want Israel turned into glass.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Not actively want it, no, but neither do they want it to not happen enough to do much about it. The Europeans really just wish Israel would go away. Iran proposes to accomplish that, and all Europe needs do is be ineffectual in stopping them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    France and Britain defended Czechoslovakia from the Germans too.

    The French are cowardly when they need to stand up to any nation with real power.

    Britain is garbage island now.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    We also said we want to bomb Iran....many times. So what is your point?

  • Stilgar||

    No, they did not. You want to believe they did because it fits your narrative.

    What is hillarious about all of this is.. if Iran had wanted a nuke, they could have had one many times over before now. Maybe Bibi will be right about it before he is dead, though he is starting to get up there in years.

  • John||

    You keep making the same point as if it matters. They violated the agreement beyond missiles.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Who gives a shit?

  • damikesc||

    Clearly we do as we pulled out of the "agreement" Iran ignored.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Apparently, not Iran. So not much point of having an agreement with them, is there?

    Best we provide as much moral and logistical support to the Iranian people to overthrow those Mullahs.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And for those implacably opposed to the Iran deal, what is the plan now to stop Iran from getting a bomb? Is that even a goal now? Have the deal opponents suddenly turn into defenders of international sovereignty?

  • Just Say'n||

    www.theamericanconservative.co.....lear-deal/

    Nothing or war. That's the plan

  • Just Say'n||

    Garbage Trump

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The sweet song of the Buchanan isolationist.

  • Just Say'n||

    Non-interventionist Buchanan is "good Buchanan"

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    As long as you swear your fealty to the underlying judeo-christian beliefs, of course.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's "bad Buchanan". You can like some things about a person and dislike other things.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Maybe that might apply to other people as well.

  • Just Say'n||

    I agree. I have a grading scale for Trump too. There is "good Trump" and "garbage Trump". We just disagree on what counts as "garbage Trump". I think we would agree with what counts as "good Trump"

  • Elias Fakaname||

    We get it. You're an appeaser and an isolationist. That shit doesn't work for everything.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Odd that you don't ask the same question of those staunchly in favor.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah, how odd.

    Why it's almost as if there's a whole bunch of people who are opposed to the Iran deal only because it was Obama who signed it, and not because they have any better idea of what to do about Iran.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And a whole bunch of gullible people who believe that a non-compliant regime with a clear history of hostility in the region and no pracrical reason for domestic enrichment capability suddenly needed it for purely peaceful purposes.

  • Just Say'n||

    I am amazed how many people are putting their trust in *squints* John Bolton to not get trigger happy

  • John||

    Who is putting their trust in Bolton? I have no idea what he thinks about this. Whatever it is, that doesn't change the fact that this agreement was never sent to the Senate and is illegal under US law as far as I am concerned and that it is a sham agreement that accomplishes nothing even if it were legal.

  • Ron||

    sometimes the biggest war hawks are the real peace makers note how its the War hawk working out the peace treaty between North and South korea

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I'm amazed at how many people think theocratic Iran doesn't want and isn't working on a bomb.

  • Just Say'n||

    Did I ever say they weren't working on a bomb? They probably are (but not under Netanyahu's time table, who has said that Iran was a year away from a bomb since the late 90's), but how does exiting the deal deter them from building a bomb?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    How did entering the deal do so? Because they pinky swore? Their centrifuges weren't destroyed. Arak was disabled (sorta) but Pu isn't bootstrapable to begin with. Sanctions hurt and we just gave them huge breathing room so barry could look good and the gullibles could lie themselves to sleep at night. Returning to sanctions would help but obviously not as much as if we hadn't sold out to begin with.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Staying IN the deal didn't deter them either. Why keep a treaty that is 100% phony? Unless you think dishonesty is somehow the standard all treaties should follow, I fail to see what value is actually gained by a treaty that accomplishes nothing tangible and only affords a short-term PR victory for the dishonest hacks that dreamed it up in the first place.

    Months ago people were worried that the Nork's were going to bomb us because of garbage trump, and now they aren't a threat.

  • Ron||

    And for those implacably opposed to the Iran deal, what is the plan now to stop Iran from getting a bomb? Is that even a goal now? Have the deal opponents suddenly turn into defenders of international sovereignty?"

    My idea is to help them build the bomb. that way we know what they have and we can add a little something into the flight control hardware. we would also be able to account for anything missing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine!

  • ||

    The deal was useless. And to think the Iranians took it seriously is naive in my view.

    On the one hand, Trump nixes an Obama initiative that didn't pass through the Senate which is good. On the other, Bolton agreed with it.

    There you have foreign policy in a nutshell.

    And if anyone knows anything about the 'balance of power' alliances formed in Europe c. 1648-1914, you know there's always ways to work around deals. Iran was never going to play ball in my view and I never really saw a compelling argument it was indeed a 'good start'.

    Again, Obama. He was no foreign policy guru so I'm just betting the tearing up of the deal is a non-event/starter.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It was worse than useless, because it dissolved a sanctions regime which actually was somewhat inconveniencing Iran, and which will likely be impossible to reimpose.

  • John||

    The Mullahs were going broke and running out of money to pay their security forces to oppress their population. And along came Obama to save them with an end to the sanctions and several hundred million dollars in untraceable cash.

    The only good news is that being idiots, they have long since blown that money and the reimposition of sanctions is likely to hurt them very badly. Hopefully badly enough to enable a revolution.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "and several hundred million dollars in untraceable cash."

    If only. It was a couple billion.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ~$1.7 Billion IIRC.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The US's partners in the sanctions regime (the other signatories) weren't willing to keep it up forever. That is why we got a deal in the first place. If Britain, France, etc., were content with sanctions they wouldn't have pushed for a deal in the first place.

    The sanctions were going to dissolve one way or another.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    The US's partners in the sanctions regime (the other signatories) weren't willing to keep it up forever.

    The sanctions were in place especially because of the threat to Israel - yet you twist yourself into thinking the partners still give a shit about Israel despite their unwillingness to support the sanctions much longer. The Iranians could use your spinning head for a centrifuge.

  • JFree||

    The sanctions were in place especially because of the threat to Israel

    Crap. Israel is one of the four 'rogue states' (India, Pakistan, NKorea are the others) re nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran is a signatory to NPT. They were under sanctions because of activities they did that were contrary to NPT.

    You gotta be a real special kind of moron to believe that the nuclear powers of the NPT are going to sanction an NPT signatory because an NPT rogue state wants to decide how the NPT is to be enforced.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Somewhat inconveniencing?

    Inflation was at Weimar Republic levels.

    Iran had burned through all of their foreign reserves.

    That's why they came to the bargaining table!

    You think they came to the bargaining table because of one of Obama's heartfelt speeches or because they read something FD'A wrote about the NAP here at Hit & Run?

    They were desperate.

    Sanctions don't work to make regimes withdraw from power, but Iran was economic free fall, and they were desperate for access to world oil markets and world credit markets.

    I suspect people have a hard time remembering the situation Iran was in because they can't grok that Obama gave them the farm for nothing--when they were so desperate. Obama's childish and naive behavior in no way indicates the dire position Iran was facing.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The have a hard time remembering because that interfered with the Manichean choice of war or capitulation.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    According to retarded Trumponomics, we are actually helping their economy by reinstituting sanctions. Just think of all the jerbs it will create for Iran!! Oh nos!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "makes military confrontation with Iran more likely"

    It does not make a military confrontation with Iran more likely.

    You know what makes military confrontations through proxies almost unavoidable?

    A nuclear deterrent.

    No, the Cold War was not an era of peace. The Cold War was a never ending series of proxy wars that continuously erupted--and not just in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. There was never ending conflict throughout the Middle East, throughout South America and Central America, throughout Africa, . . .

    Make no mistake, if and when Iran develops nuclear warheads, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will all get nuclear weapons of their own--as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. The resulting proxy conflict will seize them all. You think Syria was ugly? What happens when North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia all turn into the way Syria is today?

    The best, most likely path to peace is through forcing Iran to comply with the tenets of the NPT--under which they forfeited the right to enrich their own uranium. Anyone who thinks that Iran will choose to go to war over the right to enrich their own uranium--when they can already procure uranium sufficiently enriched for civilian use according to the NPT--needs to explain their "logic". Why should anyone believe that Iran would go to war with the US and its allies--rather than comply with the NPT? Go ahead and explain that.

    I dare you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The best, most likely path to peace is through forcing Iran to comply with the tenets of the NPT

    The signatories of this deal ARE the enforcers of the NPT. This is how they've chosen to enforce it.

  • John||

    Yes and that is an enormous mistake. That is Ken's point. All you are doing here is begging the question.

  • Ken Shultz||

    1) That's what they chose to do when Obama decided to cave. What they decide to do now that Trump has withdrawn remains to be seen (although European leaders from Macron to Merkle have been talking to Trump about this for months).

    2) Our only obligations to the Iranians are through treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. Obama's get out of jail free card had no validity.

    According to the NPT, which our Senate has ratified, Iran gave up the right to enrich their own uranium--when they broke the treaty and enriched uranium in secret.

    Once Trump pulls out of the agreement, Iran has no basis to enrich their own uranium whatsoever according to the NPT.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You want the NPT enforced? The Iran Deal was how the NPT signatories chose to enforce it. It sounds like what you really want is a different imaginary NPT in which some external body enforces the agreement neutrally on everyone. That is not the NPT that we have however. Maybe Trump can convince the other 4 partners to enforce the NPT in a different way. But if not, then what? We can't really do anything more vis a vis the NPT.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The Iran Deal was how the NPT signatories chose to enforce it."

    The NPT signatories voted to strip Iran of their right to enrich their own uranium and imposed sanctions pending their return to compliance with NPT safeguards.

    The Iran deal gave Iran an exception to the NPT.

    P.S. The signatories are now changing their minds. They can do that! Trump can do that, especially, since the Senate has ratified the NPT but not the Iran deal. We are not bound by the Iran deal in any way.

    If you want that, you have to go to the Senate--like the Constitution says. Are you not familiar with that process?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The Iran deal gave Iran an exception to the NPT.

    That's right. That is how they chose to enforce the NPT. By granting exceptions to it.

    Again it sounds like what you really want is a different NPT.

    And I am totally with you on the procedural element of the deal. It should have been submitted as a treaty.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Non-enforcement is now enforcement. Hard to argue with that logic.

    No, he doesn't need a different NPT. He just needs a government willing to enforce it, which is the potential path that trump just put us back on.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's right. That is how they chose to enforce the NPT. By granting exceptions to it.

    Again it sounds like what you really want is a different NPT.

    Do you not see the self-contradiction here?

    Do you not see that Obama's Iran deal was not part of the NPT? It was a side deal.

    It's easy to become emotionally invested in things we care about--but caring so much makes it harder to see things clearly. Some people are so emotionally invested in not repeating the huge mistake that was Iraq, that they've convinced themselves that Obama's Iran deal is the alternative to doing that again.

    I assure you that isn't the case.

    Now that Iran no long has standing to enrich their own uranium, we are further away from invading Iran than we were before Trump made his announcement. All the pressure is now on Iran to abide by the tenets of the NPT--publicly acknowledge they won't enrich their own uranium and comply with NPT safeguards to ensure their compliance. The same old NPT. It worked from 1970 to 2015, and there's no reason it won't work the same way today.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Do you not see that Obama's Iran deal was not part of the NPT? It was a side deal.

    That is correct, but the same signatories to the Iran deal are also the same ones in charge of enforcing the NPT. It is difficult to imagine the same people agreeing to the Iran deal and then turning around and agreeing to something much different when it came to enforcing the NPT.

    All the pressure is now on Iran to abide by the tenets of the NPT--publicly acknowledge they won't enrich their own uranium and comply with NPT safeguards to ensure their compliance. The same old NPT. It worked from 1970 to 2015, and there's no reason it won't work the same way today.

    Okay, fine. So suppose Iran decides to flout the NPT and publicly start developing nuclear weapons. (Which isn't really all that non-public at this point anyway.) So you expect the NPT enforcers, the *same people who just signed the Iran deal*, to do... what, exactly?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So withdrawing hurts how? You seem to think that there's nothing we can do at this point, so what exactly are we getting out of this agreement?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We get time, which is all we were ever going to get out of this agreement. At least before, they had to sneak around the inspectors. Now, they are going to kick out the inspectors and rush full speed ahead.

    At the end of the day, deal or no deal, Iran is going to get a bomb as long as they are determined to get a bomb. The only way they are not going to get a bomb is if they can be convinced that they don't need a bomb.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We have satellites and hopefully human intel to keep an eye on Iran. It is unfeasible to build the huge facilities necessary to construct nuke material and weaponized nukes without being noticed.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    We get maybe a few years. Maybe. Long term we made them a much more potent threat.

  • BYODB||

    ^ Exactly this. It's more can kicking, but everyone's basically refusing to see that central truth.

    The major point is that the deal makes a mockery of our internal processes that are explicit in how our government deals with foreign policy. It's absurd to think that kingly edicts won't be reversed by the next chucklehead in office.

    Anyone who is 'surprised' by deals like this being axed hasn't been paying attention to politics for something like twenty years, and definitely not paying a lick of attention during the entire Obama administration. It's probably the #1 critique of his administration that they basically didn't give a fuck about separation of powers, but it's hardly unique just to Obama. He's just the poster child.

  • damikesc||

    That is correct, but the same signatories to the Iran deal are also the same ones in charge of enforcing the NPT. It is difficult to imagine the same people agreeing to the Iran deal and then turning around and agreeing to something much different when it came to enforcing the NPT.

    Britain and France were, treaty, obligated to fight on behalf of Czechoslovakia. That didn't seem to work well.

    Shockingly, just ignoring treaties when they become mildly inconvenient isn't a new thing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What are the odds that no one answers this challenge?

    "Anyone who thinks that Iran will choose to go to war over the right to enrich their own uranium--when they can already procure uranium sufficiently enriched for civilian use according to the NPT--needs to explain their "logic". Why should anyone believe that Iran would go to war with the US and its allies--rather than comply with the NPT? Go ahead and explain that.

    I dare you."

    Those of you who say that ending this deal makes war with Iran more likely, aren't you required to make this logical leap?

    Go ahead and explain your "logic". I can't wait.

  • Ken Shultz||

    *crickets*

  • SunkCost||

    Civilian enriched uranium is no where near concentrated enough to make a bomb. They need their own centrifuges or illegal transfers.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm aware of that. That's why the NPT specifically allows them to procure civilian grade uranium from other parties to the NPT. We even offered to supply them uranium sufficiently enriched for civilian use ourselves at one point.

    So the question is why they would go to war with U.S. and its allies rather than get their uranium from elsewhere. I believe even Russia supported holding them accountable until they complied with NPT safeguards.

    I suppose one answer might be that they want to procure a nuclear weapon and point it at the U.S. Anyone who thinks that's the solution to our problems needs to come out and say so.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Russia does not want Iranians flinging nukes into southern Russia via a tiny window of notice. Russia tried everything to get the USA to keep nukes out of Turkey for the same reasons.

    The USA would never tolerate a belligerent Mexico with nukes threatening the USA.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So you admit they just want a bomb. This agreement let them keep their centrifuges.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    It's not our job to enforce peace in the world. We have tried. We are terrible at it. Aside from that, you have no right to waste my tax dollars and or life in this pursuit.

  • Alcibiades||

    At least Obama gets to keep his legacy — just like everyone got to keep their doctor

  • Ken Shultz||

    And he shut down Guantanamo!

  • Tony||

    Why aren't you up Trump's ass about Guantanamo? Oh, you don't give a shit about Guantanamo and otherwise have no principles, you just like it when Obama gets a good zing?

    This place sucks.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'll condemn Guantanamo whenever it comes up.

    Why do you only seem to care about who gets the blame for not shutting it down?

    You're not worried about the right of terrorists, are you? Aren't you the guy who's always arguing that no one has rights unless the government in power says so?

  • Tony||

    Republicans get the blame for not shutting it down. That hasn't changed now that Republicans control everything.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So who gets the blame really is the only thing that matters to you. You don't give a shit about the Constitution or our rights--and we already knew that, didn't we.?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Obama campaigned that he would shut down Gitmo and never really tried.

    Even if a Republican Congress refused to allow budget cuts to Gitmo's detention center, a president could transfer all prisoners to Antarctica or some other barren wasteland, without Congressional approval. Obama lied.

  • John||

    Obama had 8 years to shut it down but never did. You never said a word about that Tony. Do you think no one notices these things?

  • Tony||

    And Trump has now had more than a year. Except he doesn't even want to. He wants to expand it. So why aren't you glad that Obama didn't shut it down?

    (And obviously that happened because Obama couldn't find the "shut down Gitmo" button.)

  • John||

    I didn't give a shit when Obama didn't shut it down and I don't give a shit now. Obama didn't shut it down because there is no way to shut it down. You can't turn those people lose because they are dangerous. But you can't necessarily prove them guilty in a trial either. Obama was right not to shut it down. Fortunately, he was able to do that without much hassle because partisan morons like you are incapable of holding your own side to any standard of behavior.

  • Tony||

    I will give you kudos for being honest, but I will have to rescind them for your underlying support of unconstitutional imprisonment and torture.

  • Sigivald||

    What's "unconstitutional" about holding unlawful combatants?

    They're not criminals, so arguments about criminal procedure are irrelevant, just as they'd be for POWs.

    Torture is another matte, being pretty clearly unconstitutional*, but ... seems to be more overblown than The Whole Point Of Gitmo.

    Esepcially since all people got is "waterboarding a few guys". Maybe argue to stop that, not Close The Whole Place Because.

    (* Well, maybe. I mean, "cruel and unusual punishments" are prohibited, but "torture" for interrogation is not a punishment, just a wicked means of forcing someone to talk.

    Wicked not being a synonym for "unconstitutional", however; they're different claims.

    "This is an awful thing we should not allow to be done" is not the same argument as "the Constitution prohibits this". Plenty of awful things are completely Constitutional.)

  • Just Say'n||

    Why don't we start by affording American citizens in Gitmo a legitimate trial?

  • Nardz||

    Are there any American citizens in gitmo?

  • Ken Shultz||

    There were. They were denied a trial, a lawyer, etc.

    And the point for me isn't just whether they were American citizens. The Fifth Amendment isn't reserved for American citizens. The Eighth Amendment isn't reserved for American citizens.

    Those amendments apply to the U.S. government. Those are my rights the government was violating, and I won't have it. Standing up for the Constitution is what I mean when I say I'm a patriotic American.

    Anyone who willfully violates the Constitution in its defense might as well be the enemy. Not only should they be stopped from violating the Constitution, they should be prosecuted for doing so.

  • Tony||

    The normal criminal justice procedure dealt with terrorists just fine. Gitmo is a sinkhole of no good choices. A total mistake, a part of Bush's need to make this an existential war rather than a law enforcement matter. When does the War on Terra end? And do we release them then? The US judicial system decided that prisoners there have constitutional rights. Even if they hadn't, I think the matter is fairly clear-cut on libertarian grounds.

    "Should the president be able to lock people up he claims are enemy combatants forever with no due process whatsoever?" Not a hard question!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Obama continued those Bush mistakes. Obama did that.

  • Tony||

    Obama clearly wanted to close it. Nobody would take the prisoners to their states. John actually explained it well.

    You have to examine your arguments for sanity every now and then. What do you think happened? He kept trying to close it but kept tripping over a broom on his way?

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Obama campaigned on shutting down Guantanamo. Trump didn't.

    Leave Tony to his fantasy world. "This place sucks" but he never leaves. He's either a moron or a liar, and probably both. But we knew that already.

  • Tony||

    So as people who like liberty and the constitution, we agree that Trump is worse for actually wanting to expand it?

    Since when did whether a president fulfills campaign promises become the be-all-end-all of policy goodness?

  • damikesc||

    Did he say he'd close Gitmo?

  • Tony||

    "Trump did it, thus it is good."

    How about anyone expressing this sentiment just not for once?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Repost in English.

  • Tony||

    Too late anyway. It's like 90% of the posts. Fucking depressing.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm still confrused, you mean the deal that Must Be Kept Because Obama Brokered It?

  • Tony||

    Some of us are capable of thinking beyond shirts and skins, even (maybe especially) those of us who are willing to admit to being partisan.

    I watched Trump's speech. He didn't explain why this move was better than the status quo. By all appearances he did it to fulfill a campaign promise that was based on misinformed premises.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You're not one of them.

  • Just Say'n||

    Why are people putting their faith in Trump's foreign policy team to try to renegotiate in good faith?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Why are people putting their faith in Barry's agreement?

  • Ken Shultz||

    They just want to avoid another Iraq, and they've been sold a bill of goods saying that Barry's agreement is the alternative to that.

    It's like arguing over global warming in this way--my opposition to authoritarian socialist solutions has nothing to do with the science of climate change. You can stack a chart of temperature studies a mile high, and I'll still oppose authoritarian socialist solutions. The science doesn't even address my biggest concern--I have a visceral reaction to authoritarian socialism. I hate it for even qualitative reasons.

    Their love for Barry's agreement is like that--in a way. They associate Barry's agreement with avoiding war with Iran, and we can hit them with all the facts and logic we want. Until we get them to see that Barry's agreement is NOT, in fact, the path to peace--but almost guarantees continuous wars with Iran in the future (a la Cold War proxies like Vietnam and El Salvador)--they're pretty much invulnerable to persuasion.

    Barry's agreement is the alternative to war with Iran because the neocons invaded Iraq and Trump is crazy. None of it makes sense--but the reluctance to go to war with Iran.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I watched Trump's speech. He didn't explain why this move was better than the status quo. By all appearances he did it to fulfill a campaign promise that was based on misinformed premises.

    Look, I'm not going to disagree with this. It's likely Trump has no idea why he's canceling the deal. But if you're willing to, you know, look past 'shirts and skins', you'll realize that a deal unilaterally brokered by the executive can be unilaterally unbrokered by the next executive, no matter how the deal was bathed in the Holy Light of Wisdom and Sublime Foreign Policy Gamesmanship.

    Again, if you look beyond shirts and skins, there's a way to make these international agreements, and Obama fucked up by literally not being able to see past shirts and skins. So that's on him.

  • Tony||

    Are you implying that he could have gotten a proper treaty but he just didn't want to?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Um . . . there's sure as hell no way Obama could have gotten the Senate to agree to send the Iranians pallets full of the taxpayers' cash.

  • BYODB||

    ^ This x1000.

    I'm still not positive how that was actually legal. No offense, but that seems like pretty literal treason since Iran is actually an enemy of the United States and 1.7 billion dollars is a lot of money to buy missiles to shoot at Americans.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The truth hurts Tony.

  • Tony||

    Interesting claim considering you wouldn't know truth if it sawed your leg off.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    My truth is for everyone to see. I could die tomorrow and the truth is still there to scare the shit out of people like you.

    Nazis were/are socialists. Truthful fact.

  • Ron||

    I didn't like it when Obama made it and its good that a president, in this case Trump, got rid of it. I'd also be glad if he ended the Drug war and got us out of lots of other countries. Happy Now

  • NoVaNick||

    Trump wants war with Iran so he can be re-elected like Bush was as a "war president"...the neocons will line up to suck his dick, and Bubba will gladly pay $5/gallon to fill up his F350 because war makes America great

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well I don't think it's fair to say that Trump "wants war". It was probably just the case that Bolton was the last person he talked to before making the announcement. I do think there's a whole bunch of Republicans who do want war, and the Obama-haters who object to the deal just because Obama are empowering the war hawks whether they want to or not.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You might as well throw in racism too since you're incapable of understanding the arguments against the deal in the first place.

  • Just Say'n||

    No one is accusing anyone of "racism". But, you are all guilty of instinctively opposing this deal because it was done by a president you don't like.

    I'll grant you that the agreement was illegal, because it was never approved by the Senate, but rather than trying to fix its flaws and then submit it to the Senate the Trump administration is just basically shooting for the hip. There is no plan now. And I don't trust his foreign policy team to pursue diplomacy.

  • John||

    I'll grant you that the agreement was illegal because it was never approved by the Senate, but rather than trying to fix its flaws and then submit it to the Senate the Trump administration is just basically shooting for the hip. There is no plan now. And I don't trust his foreign policy team to pursue diplomacy.

    How do you think he can fix its flaws? The Iranians would never agree to anything that was any better. If they would, even dumb ass Obama would have gotten them to. This treaty was never approved by the Senate and was always null and void. And if you think it is possible to get a real agreement with Iran, why do you think Trump can't do that now? Why does he have to pretend this illegal agreement is legal to do that? Isn't the first step of getting a real agreement to stop pretending this fake one is real?

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe Obama got the best deal possible. What if that is the case? Then what?

  • Just Say'n||

    More foreign policy position is far more dovish than yours John. You oppose the Russia fever dreams, because you just think its a Democratic talking point. I oppose it because its nonsense meant to facilitate war in Syria and Ukraine.

    I'm lukewarm about the Iranian deal, because there is no plan for what is to be done once it's gone.

  • John||

    Facing the truth that this agreement was a shame has nothing to do with how hawkish or dovish you are. It is just an issue of whether you are willing to face reality or not. And if this is the best agreement that can be had, we are better off with no agreement, because this one is both illegal and meaningless.

    You seem to think agreements have some magic power to change the facts on the ground. They don't. The agreement is only as good as its terms and their adherence to reality.

  • Just Say'n||

    No, John, you seem to think that the US exiting the deal will somehow change the facts on the ground. The US imposing sanctions will be meaningless if the Russians, Chinese, and Europeans continue to trade with them. Unilateral sanctions don't work. Just ask Cuba

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And appeasement releases don't work. Just ask north korea.

  • Just Say'n||

    Actually our sanctions on Cuba were probably more effective than anything we do to the Iranians. Unless we want to go all in and forbid Iranian oil from being refined in the US. But, you do realize that that will necessitate a military response from the Iranians, which inevitably will lead to war

  • John||

    But, you do realize that that will necessitate a military response from the Iranians,

    No it wouldn't. That would not be an act of war by any legal standard. We are under no obligation to refine Iran's oil. You are now claiming that we should allow Iran to blackmail us with the threat of military force into refining their oil. Fuck them and fuck you. Giving in to blackmail is never a good idea.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So now sanctions lead to war? Oh this is good. So literally the only way to avoid war in your world is complete capitulation.

    And the rest of the world doesn't sanction cuba, so how can ours have been effective? That is your argument, isn't it?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sanctions are NOT embargoes.

    Sanctions are notice that certain refuse to trade with you. This is NOT casus belli.

    Embargoes are active military measures to prevent trade between the target nation and their trading partners. This is a casus belli for war and violates international law relating to trade freedoms.

  • John||

    We should leave the agreement for no other reason than it is illegal under US law. That alone requires Trump to do this in my opinion. And even if leaving it doesn't stop Iran, it doesn't help them either. Is there any agreement you wouldn't leave? It is like a fucking religion with you.

  • Just Say'n||

    If the crux of your argument is that the deal is illegal, I can't argue that point, because it's true. I think it would have been better to try to gain concessions from the Iranians and then submit it to the Senate. Maybe concessions from the Iranians wouldn't be possible, but it would have been worth a try rather than just abandoning the deal

  • John||

    I think it would have been better to try to gain concessions from the Iranians and then submit it to the Senate

    I think it would be better if Kathryn Winnick gave me a call tonight and told me to meet her at her hotel room. But that isn't going to happen. Moreover, Trump has been in office for over a year. You don't think he didn't try this? If it were possible to fix this deal and get it approved by the Senate, he would have every reason to do so. But you can't fix it because you can't fix it without the Iranians and they don't want it fixed. You keep coming back to this same fantasy point of somehow getting the Iranians to agree to a real deal. Sorry, they won't do that. Life sucks like that sometimes.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Maybe Obama got the best deal possible

    What the fuck???

    It was Europe that was begging for a deal because they have Russophobia more than they have Islamophobia - and that's due their their "green" idiocy that makes them dependent on gas they don't have. Obama was only trying to get the best green-proggie deal possible, and didn't give a flying fuck about anything other than that.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, Iran already refused to renegotiate the sunlight provisions.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    To be fair, I don't think ALL of the deal's critics are opposed to the deal just because of Obama. But they have made it no secret that their antipathy to Obama is a large portion of why they object to the deal.

    And yes there are legitimate arguments against the deal. It wasn't submitted as a treaty to the Senate. It allowed Iran to keep too many of their 'toys'. Its chief enforcement mechanism is inspections, which are comparatively easy to evade. All that is true. If they would just leave their Obama-hate out of it, however, it would make their arguments stronger.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Quite a different tune from what you started.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some people are against Obama because he fucked up multiple times as president. Obama has a track record of being horrible with America's foreign policy.

    Obama picked Hillary who was one of the worst Secretary's of State of all time.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You are just supporting the agreement because obama made it. There, do you like that 1st grade level.of argumentation?

    The agreemeny was a bad agreement regardless of who made it. The fact that you can't argue past your emotions doesn't change that.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Such mind reading powers you have. My own powers tell me that you support the deal only because trump opposes it. This is fun.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's not exactly mindreading to surmise that when someone writes "we just gave them huge breathing room so barry could look good", that this person isn't criticizing the deal on its merits, but is criticizing the deal in large part because of Obama.

    There is no one in this discussion (except maybe Tony, who doesn't count) who is arguing "we should keep the deal because Obama signed it".

    But there are quite a few people in this discussion who are arguing "we should scrap the deal because Obama signed it".

  • Nardz||

    That is absolutely criticizing the deal on it's merits. Obama got literally nothing from the deal other than looking "good" and bailed the regime out, all while creating a massively destabilizing future situation.
    The deal is absolute garbage, and Obama gets deserved criticism.
    Do people criticize the Munich agreement because they do t like Chamberlain?

    Maybe you could try defending the deal on it's merits?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Would you rather I wrote we gave them huge breathing room because our negotiators were morons? Both are true. The motivations don't change the fact that this agreement was inept. We front loaded all of the relief with the hope that iran wpuld keep up their end. And that only for at most a decade. Even the damn "snapback" provisions were a lie.

    But continue to clutch those pearls when someone who has pointed out what a bad deal this was also calls out the dealmaker. It's a narrow branch but godammit you're going out on it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And I would add that there are people in this thread saying we have to keep this deal because BOLTON. What would you surmise about that?

  • Ron||

    I do think there's a whole bunch of Republicans who do want war"

    McCain comes to mind and i think a lot of democrats would love a war to blame on Trump even if it was a full scale invasion

  • John||

    If Trump wanted war with Iran, he would have kept the deal. In this day and age, the US can't go to war without some legal basis. Enforcing the JCPOA is a readymade legal basis to go to war. Everyone knows Iran is violating it. The JCPOA requires transparent and verifiable inspections. We have seen this movie before in Iraq. Iran will never allow such inspections and refusing to violates the agreement. If Trump wanted a war, he would just start enforcing the JCPOA down to the letter and then claim Iran's violation of it violated the dictates of the UNSC and that the US had a right to use force to ensure that they complied. It would make the issue about the credibility of the international system and give the us a credible legal case for war. If anyone understands this, it is Bolton.

    Trump walking away from the agreement indicates that he is not going to war and will instead try to use sanctions and isolation to hopefully allow the people of Iran to overthrow the regime.

  • Sigivald||

    Yeah, a war with Iran (if it was the goal, which you have not provided a shred of evidence for, and PS, "neocons" is so 2001...) would totally make gasoline half again as expensive.

    Because Iran is maybe 5% of world production.

    Crude prices would go up some if they were offline, but it wouldn't increase by ~50%.

  • John||

    The US is a net exporter of oil now. So it going up would not hurt the US economy.

  • Sigivald||

    "President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal."

    So?

    It's an awful deal that doesn't do anything to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

    And if European allies prefer fake deals to actually doing something, why exactly is their opinion something to court?

    "Making other nations' diplomats happy" is not the purpose of foreign policy, guys. I'd expect Reason of all places to not fall for that fallacy.

    But I guess in this degenerate age I'd be wrong about that.

  • Tony||

    "Iranian Pres. Hassan Rouhani said he has directed his diplomats to negotiate with European countries, Russia and China about remaining in the nuclear deal despite the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement.

    But Rouhani said Iran is ready to start unlimited uranium enrichment if these negotiations do not yield benefits in a couple of weeks."

    So fucking tired of winning!!! Woo!

  • Just Say'n||

    See Tony this is where me and you agree.

  • John||

    Yeah because the Iranians were not doing this anyway. How can you be this fucking stupid?

  • Just Say'n||

    Is it I who is acting stupid or is it the people who are putting their faith in Trump's foreign policy team to not engage in more war who are acting stupid?

  • John||

    So ending an illegal agreement that accomplished nothing is engaging in more war? Do you know what the word war mean?

  • Just Say'n||

    I've already granted that the agreement was illegal, but the best course of action would have been to try and fix the problems with the deal and then submit it to the Senate. There is no road map now. What happens if the Russians, the Chinese, and Europeans continue with the deal? Where does that leave the US? What kind of pressure, short of a military conflict, can we apply when the rest of the world won't engage in new sanctions?

  • John||

    What happens if the Russians, the Chinese, and Europeans continue with the deal? Where does that leave the US? What kind of pressure, short of a military conflict, can we apply when the rest of the world won't engage in new sanctions?

    What kind of pressure could we apply when we still were part of an agreement that said we couldn't sanction them? Your argument makes no sense. All of that is true whether we stay in the agreement or not. Moreover, what reason would Iran have to give us a better agreement when we refuse to renounce the good one they have? There is no fixing this agreement. Why would Iran want to do that? If there is any hope of a better one, this agreement will have to be scrapped and Iran pressured into making a new one.

  • Just Say'n||

    How effective will our pressure be on the Iranians if the Russians, Chinese, and Europeans continue to prop them up?

  • John||

    I don't know. But however effective it is, it can't be less than zero, which is what staying in the agreement will offer. You can offer no benefits to this agreement other than an irrational faith that any agreement is somehow better than no agreement. That is absurd.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Still haven't seen any explanation of what we lose by withdrawing. Funny how you are convinced that bolton will get us into a war unless we have this piece of paper, while at the same time you have total faith that it will checl the iranians.

    Now that takes devotion.

  • John||

    Funny how you are convinced that bolton will get us into a war unless we have this piece of paper,

    How do people not understand that enforcing that piece of paper is a ready made excuse for going to war? I am dumbfounded how someone can think continuing an international agreement that everyone knows is being violated is somehow necessary to avoid war.

  • SunkCost||

    Even Trump's own administration said Iran was complying with the agreement. You just keep asserting that they weren't.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean State? And how many of those are obama holdovers?

  • Just Say'n||

    We don't lose anything from abandoning the deal other than losing any kind of bargaining power. Without the cooperation from the Europeans, at least, we don't really have any economic power to muscle the Iranians. Unless we want to go all out and forbid Iranian oil from being refined in the US, but that would be seen as an act of war.

    I have yet to hear what are the next steps from here. Probably because there are no next steps. This hasn't been thought through

  • John||

    We don't lose anything from abandoning the deal other than losing any kind of bargaining power.

    What bargaining power did we have saying we were staying with the deal. We had a deal. That means the bargaining is over. What the fuck are even talking about? The deal is what it is. If you don't like it, then get a new one. But you can't do that but then turn around and claim that we must stay with the current deal. Don't you understand how those to things contradict each other?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Is it I who is acting stupid or is it the people who are putting their faith in Trump's foreign policy team to not engage in more war who are acting stupid?"

    I'm still begging someone to explain why Iran would prefer war with the U.S. and its allies rather than getting their enriched uranium from China or Russia, their ally--which is perfectly acceptable according to the NPT.

    What is it about Iran enriching their own uranium that you imagine is so important to them that they'd rather go to war with the U.S. and its allies rather than comply with the NPT?

  • Just Say'n||

    If that is the case then why have they violated those provisions?

  • Ken Shultz||

    They were building a nuclear weapon, and they hoped to complete it and test it before NPT sanctions forced them to capitulate to NPT safeguards.

    Unfortunately for them, the signatories to the NPT had more resolve than the Iranians expected, and we imposed sanctions and bankrupted them before they could complete the program.

    That's why they came crawling back hoping to get access to international oil markets and international credit markets. And that's when Barry gave them the farm in exchange for magic beans.

  • Nardz||

    I wish we'd have gotten magic beans.
    BO didn't even get that

  • damikesc||

    How would they begin unlimited enrichment within weeks if they were remotely honoring the agreement?

  • MikeP2||

    The deal did nothing concrete to inhibit Iran's nuclear ambitions.
    The deal only provided a financial vehicle to keep the theocracy in power. Whether that was by intent or stupidity is a curious question. Hard to think Obama preferred the Mullahs in power in Iran, but then again, he did turn his back on the widespread youth uprising in Iran.

    Good riddance to illegal treaties.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Again, Obamao was only thinking about proggie issues. And you've got Western Europe so dependent on natural gas because of their idiotic proggie initiatives that they set themselves up to be reliant on Russia unless they get gas routed through other parts of the ME.

    This is where all the worry about Russia and Trump Derangement Syndrome comes from. Fuck Communist Western Europe in the asshole.

  • MikeP2||

    "The move pisses off America's allies, and makes military confrontation with Iran more likely."

    It is nonsense that military confrontation is more likely. With or without treaty, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will eventually lead to a conflict with either Saudi Arabia, Israel, and/or the US. Even Pakistan and India will get antsy with a nuclear Iran.
    The treaty provided no enforceable/quantifiable inhibition to Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. It was essentially meaningless to the question of conflict. All the treaty did was keep the theocracy in power.

  • John||

    The idiots at reason never bother to consider that things other than US actions might drive events. They are more self-absorbed than the worst jingoist. Iran is not getting the bomb without war because Saudi Arabia and Isreal are not going to let them. It doesn't matter if the US wants peace, it is not going to get it unless a miracle happens and the Iranian regime is overthrown. Otherwise, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Isreal are going to go to war whether the US likes it or not.

    You really have to live in an epic state of denial not to see that.

  • Just Say'n||

    Saudi Arabia and Israel going to war with Iran is actually just going to be the US going to war with Iran.

  • John||

    Maybe. Nothing says we have to go to war with them. But the fact is they rightfully see Iran getting nukes as a threat to their existence and will go to war to stop it with or without us.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes, they will. And they'll be ineffective without the US. Even the Israelis who have a legitimately strong military cannot withstand the cost of toppling and then occupying Iran

  • John||

    They won't topple and occupy Iran. They will just bomb the shit out of it and destroy its nuclear capabilities and humiliate it such that its own people likely rebel. Neither the Israelis nor the Saudis are dumb enough to even want to invade and occupy Iran much less try and do so. They just would conduct a coordinated campaign to destroy its nuclear capabilities.

  • Just Say'n||

    "They will just bomb the shit out of it and destroy its nuclear capabilities and humiliate it such that its own people likely rebel."

    Then why haven't the Israelis done that?

    I suspect it is because they doubt the effectiveness of such a bombing campaign. Otherwise they would have done the same thing to Iran like they did to Iraq in the 80's

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Range. But all of that changes if they and the saudis cozy up.

  • John||

    Then why haven't the Israelis done that?

    Because it is a very big deal that will entail cooperation from the Gulf States. The Gulf States are not ready to do that. And why should they until the last possible moment? It is still possible that there is a revolution in Iran or Iran does something stupid that gets them in a war with the US. Neither Israel nor the Gulf States are going to attack Iran on their own until they think they have no other options.

  • Just Say'n||

    The Saudis are all in on bombing Iran. The Saudi prince called the Iranian leadership the equivalent of "Hitler". The other Gulf States would fall in line. I think the Israelis don't know how to end the nuclear program short of a full fledged war.

  • MikeP2||

    That is meaningless.

    Neither South Korea nor Japan had the ability to topple and occupy North Korea.
    But they are our allies, and we are committed to support them. Hence it becomes our problem as well. And for all the sanctions, bluster, and saber rattling, we've avoided a hot war for decades.

    Not sure why Iran is any different. Sanctions and economic isolation is a proven tactic and providing the threat of 'overwatch' to our weaker local allies and trading partners is no different than what we did in Asia relative to NK. If we didn't bomb Iran after their active funding of militias in Iraq, mass IED manufacturing, troops in Yemen, and mercenaries in Syria, then why will a reintroduction of sanctions all of a sudden result in war.

    The treaty was meaningless and illegal. It accomplished nothing. good riddance.

  • Ron||

    there is no need to occupy nuclear waste lands

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Saudi Arabia and Israel cannot stop them. Israel's capabilities are far, far overestimated. Outside of dropping nukes themselves, they are not able to do a thing about it. Airstrikes or clandestine operations may slow it, but Iran getting nukes is inevitable.

  • mtrueman||

    Reneging on the deal will drive a wedge between America, Saudi Arabia and Israel on the one side, and China, Iran, Russia, France, Germany and Britain on the other. It will be interesting to see how this new arrangement shakes out.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    America has the option to renew it or not. As president of the USA, Trump chose not to.

  • mtrueman||

    "As president of the USA, Trump chose not to."

    He didn't manage to convince even one of the co-signatories to join him. Trump is taking us from world leadership to palookaville.

  • damikesc||

    What did we "renege" on?

    We just said Obama's deal isn't a good one and we aren't going to stand by it.

    You know, like Republicans said would happen back when Obama passed the deal on his own regardless...

  • Rev. Arthur Ꮮ. Kirkland||

    Finally somebody does something to move against dangerous women-oppressing conservative fundamentalist religious zealots, and the supposedly-libertarian Reason is up in arms about it.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Like most statists, you confuse the morality of individual actions with the morality of forced institutional actions. I think someone going themselves over to the ME and signing up to fight oppression or spread the gospel of democracy and freedom is praiseworthy, and you every right to do so. But there is absolutely no morality in forcing other people to use their lives and their money to accomplish these goals, even if they are moral and just. Methodology is everything in libertarianism.

  • Ron||

    "would be diplomatic malpractice"

    bull shit. contracts and treaties are always continuously re negotiated, thats what keep ambassadors employed.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Why is it any of our Damn business if Iran wants or has nukes? They have a right to them just as we do. How about we mind our own fucking business?

  • Tony||

    Turns out this sort of logic breaks down when we consider the existence of world-destroying weapons.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Turns out being an NPT signatory matters.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Iran has threatened to nuke the USA. NAP is out the window when another nation threatens your nation.

    Solution: Don't threaten other nations.

  • Tony||

    That's interesting. So merely threatening violates NAP and invites actual retaliation? Let me write this down.

    Funny how quickly you start finding reasons you need big daddy government's help for things.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The NAP does not require actual violence to protect yourself. A credible threat of violence is good enough to defend yourself.

    Tony, your socialist buddies invaded eastern Poland to simply get more land for Mother Russia. There was not pretext for war with Poland at all.

  • Nardz||

    If you want to mind your oen business, youre welcome to do so. All it would entail is shutting the f*** up

  • damikesc||

    Well, they signed the NPT, for starters.

  • BYODB||

    It literally doesn't fucking matter, Iran was going to get nuclear weapons no matter what so why is everyone shitting their pants? It must be because people have no fucking idea that the Senate could have been involved and avoided all this, except Obama didn't want to do that. Possibly because they were lying through their teeth about the basis of the deal, or possibly just because it would have been hard. I won't pretend to know.


    However, if someone rules like a King the next King can just undo their shit. That's how it works. Everyone knew that then, and everyone knows it now, it's just that people are dumbstruck that someone had the balls to call their shit. Keep in mind I'm no fan of Trump, and I couldn't honestly give fewer fucks at this point about this whole song and dance with Iran. The deal was to cover the Wests ass so they could say they were 'doing something' while letting Iran go ahead and build intercontinental ballistic missiles with nukes on the tips.


    Or, in short, no one in the west was willing to actually do anything to stop them but they figured they would try to get in their good graces at the last minute and avoid being the target of one of those nukes. Jokes on them, though, because I doubt even Iran would be stupid enough to use an ICBM when they could just walk one across a border with some refugee's.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump gets to put America first and fuck with lefties. Win-win-win.

  • John||

    Or, in short, no one in the west was willing to actually do anything to stop them but they figured they would try to get in their good graces at the last minute and avoid being the target of one of those nukes. J

    It is not even that. They wanted to ensure no one blamed them for the war they know is going to happen. That was all this was about.

  • BYODB||

    This I don't actually believe. Iran may or may not want a war, and they probably do loathe the Jews enough to go for it, but they don't need nukes to do that beyond keeping Israel from lighting them up with their own nukes. Conventional proxy war will, as always, be the go-to solution and I'm sure it will keep the whole region firmly up their own ass for the next century.

    That said, Iran's playing fast and loose with things like the Geneva Conventions so I look forward to his dumb fucking regime popping some chlorine gas into Jerusalem and bringing down NATO onto his ass, but that'll get real interesting if they have ICBM's with nukes. Again, though, that's probably Assads whole plan. Nukes to keep the West from stopping his lunatic regime. That the west actively goes along with something that's pretty obviously self destructive on even just a 20 year timeline is...hilariously stupid but I won't pretend Iran can possibly make enough Nukes to actually make a difference in such a scenario. It's certain annihilation for their nation if they do it.

    Which is why, ultimately, these types of deals will be what see's a nuke slipping through a border and taking out an American city. I mean, it's the obvious thing to do and we're dealing with Middle Ages mentalities and theocrats here.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why do these Trump Trolls keep repeating their LIES and IGNORANCE about Executive Agreements?
    One more time for the morally challenged.

    https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm
    What is the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement?
    ... international agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are "international agreements other than treaties" and are often referred to as "executive agreements." There are different types of executive agreements.

    Britannica
    Executive agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement for ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.
    ... The Constitution of the United States does not specifically give a president the power to conclude executive agreements. However (the President) may do so on the basis of the power granted him to conduct foreign relations. in 1937 the Supreme Court ruled that they had the same force as treaties. Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.

    Trumptards OFTEN babble, incoherently ... even if TOTALLY ignorant ... juts like their Puppetmaster-In-Chief.

    (Let the shrieking begin)

  • Nardz||

    This is the sound of me (and most others) scrolling down past Hihn without reading an idiotic word he says...

  • BYODB||

    Nowhere in any of your half-senile ranting have you managed to point out what specifically prohibits one President from just waving away a previous administrations agreement.

    Fact: There isn't one.

    Also, cat food isn't for human consumption.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, hey, what do you know. You accidentally quoted text that literally proves my point. Thanks?


    Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.

    Also, another fun fact is the Supreme Court can be wrong much like how they are in allowing a President to behave like a King. If the Supreme Court tomorrow rules that gun ownership isn't allowed for private citizens under the 2nd Amendment, would that be constitutional?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why do I use boldface ?... because BOYDB STILL can't see IT!

    1) He BABBLES that I "nowhere" said what I said ... IN BOLDFACE ...
    2) Then IMMEDIATELY quotes me saying ... what he JUST SAID I never said!!

    Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.

    Nowhere in any of your half-senile ranting have you managed to point out what specifically prohibits one President from just waving away a previous administrations agreement.

    Did you hear it NOW?

    One second later ...

    Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.

    Also, another fun fact is the Supreme Court can be wrong

    *** AS **** DECIDED *** BY **** WHO? **** (lol)

    *** Nardz REFUSES to see DOCUMENTED PROOF! One MORE time for goobers

    Why do these Trump Trolls keep repeating their LIES and IGNORANCE about Executive Agreements?

    This is the sound of me (and most others) scrolling down past Hihn without reading an idiotic word he says...

    None are so blind as those who REFUSE to see.

    (Boldface in defense of aggression by two REALLY dumb goobers!)

  • Michael Hihn||

    (Boldface in self-defense from aggression ... and for the JOY if ridiculing a TOTAL psycho)

    OMG.... Is BYOBD a total psycho?

    Oh, hey, what do you know. You accidentally quoted text that literally proves my point. Thanks?

    Just like Trump ...... Declares is MASSIV, YUHGE fuckup is a VICTORY!
    Says it was HIS point!!! .... because I said it first "accidentally" ... and he attacked ME as "semi-senile" because I was "accidentally" correct.

    THAT is a Trumptard. PROUD to be BOTH a bully AND stooopid.

    READY .... FIRE .... AIM

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What is it about reason.com that attracts meetings of Faux Libertarians For Right-Wing Military Belligerence to convene here?

    Is there no one else who will take in these half-educated, socially inept, intolerant, stale-thinking, disaffected, faux libertarian yahoos?

  • Michael Hihn||

    They suck up to the alt-right, and their psychopathic lies about Islam.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    It is cool for right wingers to claim to be libertarians now. All it means to them is that they are Republicans who watch porn, don't go to church, and maybe smoke weed. They still want to cling to all the nationalist, patriotic bullshit.

  • CapitalistRoader||

    It is cool for left wingers to claim to be libertarians now. All it means to them is that they are Democrats who watch porn, don't go to church, and maybe smoke weed. They still want to cling to all the nationalist, patriotic bullshit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Left - Right = Zero
    Two sides of the same coin, authoritarianism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sevo gets SO pissed that I equate him, with the authoritarian left.
    All he EVER does is ridicule and "fuck off" and "imbecile" ... NEVER any substance or thought, which would expose that the bully is also kinda stooopid.

  • CapitalistRoader||

    Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Obama Derangement Syndrome and a Petulant President.
    Trump must be following the same "adviser" who convinced him that his favorite racists and fascists were the victims of the violence they initiated in Charlottesville..

    As the bobbleheads nod their approval.
    While snarling.

  • Echospinner||

    All I know is that every time Trump opens his mouth my net worth drops.

    Unlike Mr. Trump I worked and paid every penny of taxes. I saved and invested for retirement in our market economy.

    He is fucking up all of that because of his own ego.

    Yes the deal, none of us know what is happening. Mr. Trump thinks he has a deal with the Koreans.

    He does not care. Nobel prize. Screw you. Yep he is right up there with Arafat and Obama.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Every time Trump does something by putting American first, my net worth goes way up.

    He is already a better president than Obama, Boosh, Clinton, HW Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Truman, and FDR.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Let us know when you reach 5 cents.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Trump is not getting a Nobel prize. He isn't the great white hope that Obama was to the Euro-lefties. How this is supposed to help the situation with North Korea is beyond me.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Said "lefties"
    Meets today's quota for the McCarthy-era Loyalty Oath.
    Will get a cookie.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Sevo||

  • Whorton||

    "the deal is working?"

    Are you smoking crack?

    Are you aware of the trove of information just released by Israel, that shows the Iranians lie and have been lying all along?

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's all bullshit for goobers, about the PRE-agreement days which are WHY the agreement was made.. Citing Netanyahu here is like citing David Duke on Martin Luther King Jr.

    The IAEA is the only official inspector. And Israel is in repeated violation of the Geneva Convention, thus war crimes.

  • XM||

    It's disappointing to see one of the better writers on this site become such a demagogue when it comes to immigration.

    Using Shikha's line of reasoning, we can say Canada shares characteristics of slave hunters. Their authorities can seize your phone in the airport and if they find out you were connected to a job and you tried to sneak in using a tourist visa, you're deported on the spot. Non citizens don't get healthcare. French fluency is a requirement in some regions.

    Enforcing immigration laws is a legitimate function of government. Superpowers like the USA must respect the sovereignty and boundaries of other nations, even "$hitholes". There can be no international community without it. To attack this as immoral because some anti illegal immigration activist share tangential attributes of pro slave faction hundred years ago is just pure nonsense.

    Shikha is essentially floating the sort of flawed logic the left uses to establish a pipeline between libertarians and white supremacists. Oh look, that neo nazi was anti government and followed Ron Paul on a few occasion. Viola, libertarians are racists.

    ICE does not hunt down illegals like slaves, and they nabbed people on bus stops even during the Obama years. Trump merely facilitated their actions. Most anti illegal alien activists are open to a political process that resolves this situation. Shikha wrote this article purely to bolster her moral position. It's not based on any reason. Again, disappointing.

  • geo||

    The French are just mad because they banned all oil and gas drilling inside their own borders, and were hoping that their national oil company could participate in a major drilling project inside Iran, allowing them to pretend they were all about "being green" while pumping oil out of the ground somewhere else. The French did not give a hoot about peace, they just wanted the billions of euros they were going to make off of Iranian oil.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Plus Obama is a Muslim!
    And Dubya planned and managed 9/11
    And .... Roswell, NM

  • Sevo||

    And Hihn is a fucking imbecile!

  • UnityFollowsValues||

    I know all Presidential candidates make campaign promises but at that time little is really known so one assumes actions will follow more conscious discussions of what is right and what is wrong, hopefully to strengthen the middle ground. Likewise when a campaign promises Mexico will build a wall and then with zero accountability to the fact that tax payers (translation the middle and poorer classes) will pay that is just one in a hundred reasons why Trump has shown zero competence as a president whose only true reflection of value is in his false promises and his tweets which seem to be, sadly, the only true reflection of who he is. And that word is INCOMPETENT. I support the reason people voted for him yet am befuddled as to why 30%+ still seem to accept him at his word. I hope he can find a success pattern as he is our President but serious betrayals of American values are underway that have little to do with making us Great. Our alliances are important as is our integrity, human rights...and trust in the truth.

    The Iran Deal may be faulted but I much preferred the advice to strengthen it rather than walking away. This man, Ryan and McConnell's tendency to look the other way, and undue attention to the 1% and deconstructing our constitution add up to a dictator wannabe. The only questions is are we stupid enough to let the greatest nation ever fall to that low?

  • mtrueman||

    "The only questions is are we stupid enough to let the greatest nation ever fall to that low?"

    Wait until tomorrow. If by then, Iran's righteous masses haven't risen up and replaced the hated theocrats with a secular, democratic regime, then Trump's hidden genius will finally be revealed. If not, then stupidity it is.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|5.8.18 @ 8:30PM|#
    "Wait until tomorrow. If by then, Iran's righteous masses haven't risen up and replaced the hated theocrats with a secular, democratic regime, then Trump's hidden genius will finally be revealed. If not, then stupidity it is."

    Here is a dose of trueman's 'intelligence':
    mtrueman|5.6.18 @ 1:35PM|#
    "Stalin was more of a network guy than he was a hierarchy one. He was successful in bypassing the hierarchical structures put in place by Lenin like the politburo and the central committee, and ran the country through informal alliances with those he trusted."
    Yep, that Stalin, working both sides of the aisle, right you imbecile?

  • mtrueman||

    Iranian masses did not rise and chase out the theocrats. You're the imbecile.

  • damikesc||

    Taking remittances would pay for the wall.

    With ease, to be frank.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    There's nothing we need more than another war in the middle east. You see, we're not bankrupt enough, and our rivals in asia need us tied down precisely where they aren't. You know North Korea is going to give up their nukes now that the Donald torpedoed this deal. F***ing stupid.

  • SIV||

    MAGA

  • Sevo||

    Let's accept that Obo made a good deal in this circumstance; let's accept that regardless of the inspection questions, the ransom payments and all the rest.
    Let's just, for the sake of argument, for once, assume that Obo wasn't a lying piece of shit interested only in exercising his is power. I know it's tough, because the lying piece of shit did little other than that, but:

    "Why can't we make a new binding deal with advice and consent of the senate?"

    If this is such a good treaty, maybe it should have been treated as a treaty rather than a power-push by that lying piece of shit Obo.
    To be honest, once it became obvious that Trump won over that miserable hag, I was hoping he'd do a blanket "All of Obo's unconstitutional executive agreements are now void" within the first day. It would have saved him a lot of grief.

  • josh||

    I was never sure the deal was a good or bad idea honestly. I just know that once it was in place, the calculus changed. Personally, I see this as Trump's way to make sure he's pissing off the right people, and he could care less about any other considerations. In other words, politics as usual.

  • Fmontyr||

    Trump is so racist, so dumb, and so egotistical that he believes destroying all that Obama accomplished will give him a spectacular legacy. Good luck on that!

  • Sevo||

    "Trump is so racist, so dumb, and so egotistical that he believes destroying all that Obama accomplished will give him a spectacular legacy. Good luck on that!"

    All that Obo 'accomplished'?
    You're a real laugh riot. Vox is over there to the left; I think you lost your way after you lost your mind.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They're both assholes -- Trump and Obama.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Fmontyr||

    Sevo, your ignorance is showing.

    "Let's just, for the sake of argument, for once, assume that Obo wasn't a lying piece of shit..." You are thinking of the wrong man.

    "All of Obo's unconstitutional executive agreements are now void" within the first day. It would have saved him a lot of grief." So you have made the same mistake twice. It's Trump's executive orders which have been found unconstitutional and tossed by the courts.

    On second thought, you probably suffer from an extreme case of dyslexia. Sorry for that.

  • johngray0||

    Iran "Deal". Sorry. Walks like a "treaty". Talks like a "treaty". This is not some minor handshake over some shipping lanes, either, so the fact that other agreements bypassed Congress don't apply. This is a big-time agreement that clearly passes the standard of Treaty, meaning this needs to go through the whole 2/3 Senate thing.
    That this thing took a Constitutional shortcut is reason enough to scuttle. And if it's so critical and important, doesn't that bolster the case shortcuts should be a no-no?
    What, we are already waving past undeclared wars past the Congressional inspection desk, we want to do this with treaties, too?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why do you goobers repeat TOTAL bullshit on treaties and executive agreements -- with such conviction -- when you are TOTALLY ignorant -- tribal puppets manipulated by the political class.


    https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm
    What is the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement?
    ... international agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are "international agreements other than treaties" and are often referred to as "executive agreements." There are different types of executive agreements.

    Britannica
    Executive agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement for ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.
    ... The Constitution of the United States does not specifically give a president the power to conclude executive agreements. However he may do so on the basis of the power granted him to conduct foreign relations.
    in 1937 the Supreme Court ruled that they had the same force as treaties. Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.
  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    There won't be a military confrontation. Iran's government is too smart and pragmatic (relative to the others involved) to go down that road.

  • Flinch||

    Deal? Fiction is the best description, if what I hear about zero Iran signatures on the document is true. And, since the senate did not do their job, the document cannot be called a treaty. It seems there was just a story fabricated within the bowels of John Kerry's sotted mind that the taxpayer paid to print out and distribute to the networks, and... toilet paper has more value. Iran could do anything they wanted to without risking any "breach of agreement" because under Kerry our government was mumbling to itself as EU states quietly did business with nutjobs that deny the holocaust ever occurred. Getting a deal at all costs [to generate a press release] is the weakest thing under the sun. It's so weak, why bother having a state department at all? The president can just capitulate at will and save us tens of millions every year.
    So... why was HR McMaster taking up for Iran?

  • mtrueman||

    Did you know that Mattis, secretary of defence, was for maintaining the fiction? I read it in the Washington Post. Can it possibly be true?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I read it in the Washington Post. Can it possibly be true?

    I read what you said there. Are you possibly infantile?

    Yes, Mattis defended the deal .. which is NOT fiction except to Trump's eaily manipulated puppets on a string.

  • Michael Hihn||

    if what I hear about zero Ian signatures on the document is true.

    You've been LAUGHABLY brainwashed again by Alex Jones and Donald Trump ... because you WANT to beleeb (in fairies and leprechauns)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Flinch -- MORE blowhard bellowing, TOTAL bullshit.

    https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm
    What is the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement?
    ... international agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are "international agreements other than treaties" and are often referred to as "executive agreements." There are different types of executive agreements.

    Britannica
    Executive agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement for ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.
    ... The Constitution of the United States does not specifically give a president the power to conclude executive agreements. However he may do so on the basis of the power granted him to conduct foreign relations.
    in 1937 the Supreme Court ruled that they had the same force as treaties. Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.

    Typical Trumptard,

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online