Trump to Decertify Iran Deal

[schwarzkopf]

That is simply not true.

You really need to look at the big picture dude .... the Iran deal was critical to the US being able to focus attention to more critical places.

Iran deal was just fine.... what hasn't been fine is the lack of effort on NK, and now the idiot Trump is taking us to end times over NK.

Imagine Trump doing to Iran what he is doing to NK if Iran had nukes.

[Skroe]

You really need to look at the big picture dude .... the Iran deal was critical to the US being able to focus attention to more critical places.

Iran deal was just fine.... what hasn't been fine is the lack of effort on NK, and now the idiot Trump is taking us to end times over NK.

Imagine Trump doing to Iran what he is doing to NK if Iran had nukes.

The US is in a far better position now (or 2 years ago) to multitask than around 2030.

Our relatively position to China will sharply decline by 2030 compared to today. The relative positions of both will increase substantially compared to everyone not-US-or-China (which has been the trend since 2000). But that joint-relative increase will not offset the resources needed for the US to meet the challenges of the relative decrease.

A Chinese Carrier Strike group, in the Atlantic, by the mid-to-late 2030s, is going to be a thing if they continue on their present course and execute their plans as they intend. A Chinese permanent presence in Latin America, probably Nicaragua, Ecuador or Venezuela, will happen before then (probably late 2020s). In the next 15 years, the US will be as consumed with China as it was the Soviet Union as we figure a way to defeat them. The world is not big enough for two hegemonic powers.

The US has the choice of getting a permanent solution with Iran in the closing years of the "unipolar moment", before we re-enter a period of superpower competition (between the US and China). Obama kicked it to a time the US will have relatively fewer resources and smaller attention.

That is not a win in any sense of the word. We simply have a stronger hand vis a vis Iran now, than in 2030. That is, unless, we deeply expand our military power over the next 13 years. We are to some degree. We'll see how much.

[ati87]

That is simply not true. Not when the United States had all the leverage (which Obama refused to use). Objectively speaking, at the start of negotiations, Iran needed the deal a hell of a lot more than the United States (which really didn't need it if it wasn't going to be a good deal). No deal would would objectively have been better than a weak one.

Obama achieved a weak one, because he didn't utilize the leverage he did have.

It comes down to this. Both NewSTART and the Iran Deal cannot be held up as examples of "diplomatic achievements", due to the competely opposite way in which they were achieved. NewSTART's negotiation, then ratification, and now implimentation process is everything the Iran Deal was not. Either NewSTART was a masterwork and the Iran Deal badly handled in every conceivable way, or the US was a superpower aggressor that exploited weaker Russia, and the Iran deal was a "good deal". It can't be both.

Americans, for a lot of really complicated and bad reasons, shy away from utilizing our disproportionate might to achieve outcomes that are very favorable to us and far less favorable than our opponents. We shouldn't be. Trump is obnoxious, reckless and far too sloppy in what says, but he's not entirely wrong that the US doesn't throw its weight around when it is (1) in its rights to and (2) in it's interests and smart to. Game of Thrones gave us a few weeks ago that wonderful and entirely relevant kernel of wisdom: "Are you a sheep? No. You're a dragon. Be a dragon." There are times... not always, but times... the United States should remember and act like the superpower it is, rather than "just another country", which is the approach of on and off over the past 25 years. That doesn't mean we throw our weight around recklessly and obnoxiously, as Trump wants to. But in something like the Iran deal situation, as we did with NewSTART, we absolutely should.

That's really the takeaway from this because, again, I don't want the Iran deal repealed. But it is an example of "How to do Everything Badly and Stupidly, by President Barack Obama". When the US enters future negotiations with North Korea, China, Russia, and yes even Iran, over various things... it simply must do better, and not be afraid of no deal. For a superpower, no deal is almost always better than a bad deal.

The Iran deal is a perfect deal for a situation that was never a real problem

The goal is to reduce the risk of having a nuclear armed Iran but since Iran never invested or put time into having nuclear weapons the treaty achieved exactly that.

Everything else like sanction relieve was based on a false notion that Iran was developing nuclear weapons which was never taking place. And if you can't handle increase Iran influence then maybe countries should stop destabilizing neighboring countries (because that works so well) and stop supporting countries who are destabilizing other countries (Saudi Arabia).

Compared to the US and Israel, Iran is a bloody saint in all of this

[Macaquerie]

Our policy toward nuclear proliferation these last few decades has just been downright shameful. The rest of the world now knows that, if you don't have nukes or any chance of developing one like Iraq, we'll badger you about it constantly and then come and take you down anyway, if you are actively testing nukes like North Korea, we'll talk tough but won't back that up with any action, and if you have an established nuclear program AND are an active state sponsor of terrorism like Pakistan, we'll not only not try to stop you, we'll actually sell you billions of dollars worth of weapons!

For Iran, what reason would they have NOT to develop nukes? What would complying with our demands actually gain them, versus the ironclad security an active nuclear deterrent buys?

[Skroe]

Our policy toward nuclear proliferation these last few decades has just been downright shameful. The rest of the world now knows that, if you don't have nukes or any chance of developing one like Iraq, we'll badger you about it constantly and then come and take you down anyway, if you are actively testing nukes like North Korea, we'll talk tough but won't back that up with any action, and if you have an established nuclear program AND are an active state sponsor of terrorism like Pakistan, we'll not only not try to stop you, we'll actually sell you billions of dollars worth of weapons!

For Iran, what reason would they have NOT to develop nukes? What would complying with our demands actually gain them, versus the ironclad security an active nuclear deterrent buys?

Ownership of nuclear weapons by anybody except Russia does not deter the United States. This includes China.

The US and Russia, due to the sheer quantity, have a genuine deterrence relationship. North Korea, Iran, China, or anybody else with a couple dozen to a couple hundred nuclear warheads certainly make the US change its calculations and contingencies, but it is not deterrence. One reason China is not brought into nuclear arms agreements, for example, is because of it's ~250 warheads, only around ~80 are of any danger to the United States, and the US could destroy most of those before they got off the ground. The handful that do, best case, would be intercepted by missile defense.... worst case, destroy half a dozen military installations (where warheads are targeted, not cities).

There is no such thing as a genuine deterrence relationship when one side has 1550 warheads and the other side has like 50. Or 100. Or 200. Hell the problem with Russia and America's mutual deterrence relationship is that Russia's warheads have fell behind so much in technological sophistication and sheer launcher number (the missile that launches the warheads) that there are workable scenarios where the US could knock out all but a few dozen of Russia's warheads (which is why Russia is so against US missile defense... because although it can't stop a first strike, it may be good enough, eventually, for the "ones that got away").

The reason I mention this is because we cannot discuss Iran, North Korea, Iraq or anyone else by operating under the fiction that possessing nuclear arms makes a country untouchable. It doesn't. It just means the US would have to use a different approach.

Hell the USAF, in its report to congress, just gave them the number of bombers they would need for a 180 day conventional air war over Russia if needed. If that's true for Russia, it's true for anybody else.

- - - Updated - - -

The Iran deal is a perfect deal for a situation that was never a real problem

The goal is to reduce the risk of having a nuclear armed Iran but since Iran never invested or put time into having nuclear weapons the treaty achieved exactly that.

Everything else like sanction relieve was based on a false notion that Iran was developing nuclear weapons which was never taking place. And if you can't handle increase Iran influence then maybe countries should stop destabilizing neighboring countries (because that works so well) and stop supporting countries who are destabilizing other countries (Saudi Arabia).

Compared to the US and Israel, Iran is a bloody saint in all of this

Iran working to achieve break-out nuclear capability was security risk enough for the US. It's as simple as that.

Yes it's deeply unfair to Iran. But this isn't a situation about fairness at all. The US and Iran do not share some kind of strategic parity. The US can threaten Iran in countless ways Iran cannot threaten the US.

That's at the foundation of my ENTIRE statements about the deal. I sincerely hope I one day have the opportunity to negotiate against anybody here who, if they have leverage, decides not to utilize it out of the goodness of the heart. I will take you to the cleaners and not blink twice. That same principle is how international negotions aren't supposed to go - and EXACTLY how the Iran deal is supposed to go.

Look, it's okay to be in favor of the Iran deal. As stated, I am. But it's pure fantasy to pretend, especially in comparison to Obama's genuine achievement with NewSTART, it is anything short of a sham. The same Administration, within the span of four years, had the exemplars of what to do and what not to do.

My take away from reading these responses is that some individuals have some kind of problem with maximizing usage of every bit of leverage available as a matter of principle. Cut, but stupid, because Iran, Russia, China and hell, our closest allies with interests of their own don't.

We should step carefully, but when it comes time to twist an arm so hard that it nearly breaks, we should do it. Obama's failure with the Iran deal is that (1) he didn't do it and (2) he broadcasted from the get go he didn't want to do that. Everything that ensued came from that original sin. By contrast with NewSTART with Russia, we got them by the balls early, and sure enough, he signed a Treaty that Republicans were happy enough with, and is leading to our own nuclear modernization.

The contrast couldn't be more profound. Want to praise Obama's foreign dealmaking? Applaud NewSTART. It's a genuine achievement. The Iran Deal? A sham. But for now a necessary one.

[Macaquerie]

Ownership of nuclear weapons by anybody except Russia does not deter the United States. This includes China.

The US and Russia, due to the sheer quantity, have a genuine deterrence relationship. North Korea, Iran, China, or anybody else with a couple dozen to a couple hundred nuclear warheads certainly make the US change its calculations and contingencies, but it is not deterrence. One reason China is not brought into nuclear arms agreements, for example, is because of it's ~250 warheads, only around ~80 are of any danger to the United States, and the US could destroy most of those before they got off the ground. The handful that do, best case, would be intercepted by missile defense.... worst case, destroy half a dozen military installations (where warheads are targeted, not cities).

There is no such thing as a genuine deterrence relationship when one side has 1550 warheads and the other side has like 50. Or 100. Or 200. Hell the problem with Russia and America's mutual deterrence relationship is that Russia's warheads have fell behind so much in technological sophistication and sheer launcher number (the missile that launches the warheads) that there are workable scenarios where the US could knock out all but a few dozen of Russia's warheads (which is why Russia is so against US missile defense... because although it can't stop a first strike, it may be good enough, eventually, for the "ones that got away").

The reason I mention this is because we cannot discuss Iran, North Korea, Iraq or anyone else by operating under the fiction that possessing nuclear arms makes a country untouchable. It doesn't. It just means the US would have to use a different approach.

Hell the USAF, in its report to congress, just gave them the number of bombers they would need for a 180 day conventional air war over Russia if needed. If that's true for Russia, it's true for anybody else.

These countries don't need their nuclear stockpile to be a military deterrent, they just need a political deterrent which is a much lower bar to clear. Nobody is really afraid that North Korea will destroy the US, but they just have to be enough of a threat to give the politicians pause, which they have successfully done for some time now and will continue to do for the foreseeable future. Maybe that thinking will change eventually, but what is clear is that for any country branded an enemy of the US, NOT having nuclear weapons is practically a death sentence, and there is no incentive for Iran or anyone else to comply with our demands.

[ati87]

Iran working to achieve break-out nuclear capability was security risk enough for the US. It's as simple as that.

Yes it's deeply unfair to Iran. But this isn't a situation about fairness at all. The US and Iran do not share some kind of strategic parity. The US can threaten Iran in countless ways Iran cannot threaten the US.

That's at the foundation of my ENTIRE statements about the deal. I sincerely hope I one day have the opportunity to negotiate against anybody here who, if they have leverage, decides not to utilize it out of the goodness of the heart. I will take you to the cleaners and not blink twice. That same principle is how international negotions aren't supposed to go - and EXACTLY how the Iran deal is supposed to go.

Look, it's okay to be in favor of the Iran deal. As stated, I am. But it's pure fantasy to pretend, especially in comparison to Obama's genuine achievement with NewSTART, it is anything short of a sham. The same Administration, within the span of four years, had the exemplars of what to do and what not to do.

My take away from reading these responses is that some individuals have some kind of problem with maximizing usage of every bit of leverage available as a matter of principle. Cut, but stupid, because Iran, Russia, China and hell, our closest allies with interests of their own don't.

We should step carefully, but when it comes time to twist an arm so hard that it nearly breaks, we should do it. Obama's failure with the Iran deal is that (1) he didn't do it and (2) he broadcasted from the get go he didn't want to do that. Everything that ensued came from that original sin. By contrast with NewSTART with Russia, we got them by the balls early, and sure enough, he signed a Treaty that Republicans were happy enough with, and is leading to our own nuclear modernization.

The contrast couldn't be more profound. Want to praise Obama's foreign dealmaking? Applaud NewSTART. It's a genuine achievement. The Iran Deal? A sham. But for now a necessary one.

A statement like this needs to be clarified because I fail to see how a nuclear power plant is a security risk for the United States and it's allies unless they have plans on bombing that nuclear facility in the future or they worried about the safety quality of that nuclear facility.

First one is on them because who is telling the United States and israel to threaten Iran every other Tuesday for the last 30 to 50 years and second one can be easily solved if you are really worried (you know help them)

The argument has always been that if Iran is able to build a nuclear power plant then they can use that knowledge if they ever wanted to speed up the development of a nuclear weapon.

So what's the danger to the US? That if they ever want to invade Iran or if Israel wants to invade Iran that their is a danger that a nuclear power plant blows up during that invasion?

And why should Obama twist Iran arm's? Sounds god dam pointless tbh unless you goal is just more conflict and imperialisme since the US ''intrest'' in the ME (and Uk and Russia intrest) is what histrionically the source of every single conflict since WW1.

If Trump throws the deal out then I kind of hope Iran goes to the EU and says ''lets build a bomb together or let me buy one just in case Trump has a bad day'' because these people have been trying to start a war with them since the 80s (they did succeed once)

[Breccia]

I am sure Trump voters are salivating at thought of Trump putting a stop to I-RAN because he knows more than even generals!

The hilarious irony of that line, compared to the thread title, must never be forgotten.

Trump bragging that he knew more than the generals about ISIS because he went to a military school for a year -- and despite them begging Trump for help, the school went bankrupt without Trump giving them a dime -- and because he saw thousands of people on a rooftop cheering as the Twin Towers fell -- which, again, blatant lie -- was a stupid, stupid move. So when he outsources his Commander in Chief duties to the generals, he's either intentionally giving the command decision to worse people at the job, or he lied about being better. Neither is a redeeming trait. Neither is claiming he's the best dealmaker and the Iran deal is garbage...then handing it to Congress.

There is no defense of this position without admitting Trump is either an IMPOTUS leader, or a blatant liar. There is no third option.

[paralleluniverse]

Stupid and pointless.

The Iran deal was another "Obama special", that's for fucking sure. It never should have been negotiated the way it was. It never should have been acceded to the way it was. It never should have positioned the US vis-a-vis Iran the way it did. It created a ridiculous relationship condition with the US and Russia (go back and see in 2014 and 2015 how many times the Obama administration was quoted as "needing Russia's help with Iran"). The deal is only a "good deal" if it exists in some kind of ridiculous binary world where the options were "peace" or "war", which is the argument Obama and his lackeys made. It's the incarnation of everything wrong with Obama's second term foreign policy.


But it also staggered a growing security problem for the US by years. The US also agreed to it in good faith.

Obama's second term foreign policy is roundly seen as a disaster in foreign policy circles (three words: the Red Line), but even those largely dis-favorable to the deal think pulling out is deeply reckless and unwise. It'll frustrate our European Allies, who we do need. It'll precipitate an immediate crisis when the US is occupied with Russia, China and North Korea.

The US State Department is deeply understaffed and overstretched, thanks to Trump and Tillerson's malfeasance.

To put it simply, if the US leaves this deal, it'll be Trump doing Russia a solid yet again. They would like nothing more than for the US to be ever more perceived as an unreliable dealmaker, who can't be trusted to keep policy between administrations (for this though, Obama deserves a huge share of the blame, I can elaborate if requested). They would like nothing more than for the US to be warded off by another nuclear-armed, missile toting state, covering their southern flank.

Nope.

The Iran nuclear deal has stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

It's that simple. It's a smashing success.

Trump is a one-note lying moron: his only position is that every deal is a bad deal for the US.

[infinitemeridian]

Nope.

The Iran nuclear deal has stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

It's that simple. It's a smashing success.

Trump is a one-note lying moron: his only position is that every deal is a bad deal for the US.

As Skroe is saying, it only pushed that back a decade or two at most - decades where it seems the US might have more important matters to be dealing with than a Nuclear Iran.

That being said, I find it personally troubling that since the 90s, the US has been extremely hypocritical when it comes to nuclear armament. If the US were committed to actually reducing the presence of Nuclear Weapons (as the entire international community should be), then we should have gotten rid of our own. Why should any country take the US at its word that it wants to get rid of nukes, when the US continues to build and develop their own?

I get that we shouldn't be naive and think that countries will do this. In some sense, we as humans have opened Pandora's box when it comes to nuclear weapons. I just find it hilarious that we're not even worried about China having thousands of nukes like Russia/The US, even though they must have 80 or so (or whatever the number is, Skroe can confirm I'm sure). The point is, just one or a few of these things successfully detonating in a populated area would cause widespread death and destruction on a scale much larger than what happened in Japan.

I know I know, we have ways to "intercept" them. But when you think about it, "Missile Defense" doesn't really exist. We've spent trillions of dollars over the years on something that is unreliable and hasn't t really been tested in real-world situations.

Let's say that conventional ballistic missile defense is even 50% reliable (it's not). That means, for every 2 nuclear warheads that are launched, the chances of just one detonating successfully is quite probable. They've only been tested in very controlled environments and even then, they're not reliable.

Lawrence Krauss has a good bit about why missile defense doesn't exist from a physics standpoint and a real-world standpoint:

https://youtu.be/Q5BlpxyD7rY?t=1236

[paralleluniverse]

As Skroe is saying, it only pushed that back a decade or two at most - decades where it seems the US might have more important matters to be dealing with than a Nuclear Iran.

That being said, I find it personally troubling that since the 90s, the US has been extremely hypocritical when it comes to nuclear armament. If the US were committed to actually reducing the presence of Nuclear Weapons (as the entire international community should be), then we should have gotten rid of our own. Why should any country take the US at its word that it wants to get rid of nukes, when the US continues to build and develop their own?

I get that we shouldn't be naive and think that countries will do this. In some sense, we as humans have opened Pandora's box when it comes to nuclear weapons. I just find it hilarious that we're not even worried about China having thousands of nukes like Russia/The US, even though they must have 80 or so (or whatever the number is, Skroe can confirm I'm sure). The point is, just one or a few of these things successfully detonating in a populated area would cause widespread death and destruction on a scale much larger than what happened in Japan.

I know I know, we have ways to "intercept" them. But when you think about it, "Missile Defense" doesn't really exist. We've spent trillions of dollars over the years on something that is unreliable and hasn't t really been tested in real-world situations.

Let's say that conventional ballistic missile defense is even 50% reliable (it's not). That means, for every 2 nuclear warheads that are launched, the chances of just one detonating successfully is quite probable. They've only been tested in very controlled environments and even then, they're not reliable.

Lawrence Krauss has a good bit about why missile defense doesn't exist from a physics standpoint and a real-world standpoint:

https://youtu.be/Q5BlpxyD7rY?t=1236

Iran was on a path to a nuclear weapon before the Iran deal.

Now it is not.

End of story.

[ati87]

Iran was on a path to a nuclear weapon before the Iran deal.

Now it is not.

End of story.

Iran was not on the path to nuclear weapon

End of story.

Their is a misguided truth to trump's argument about how the deal is so one sided, it's true only because Iran didn't really give up anything since the never had tried to get a nuclear weapon.

[infinitemeridian]

Iran was on a path to a nuclear weapon before the Iran deal.

Now it is not.

End of story.

They weren't. You take a very simplistic view of the world don't you?

[paralleluniverse]

Iran was not on the path to nuclear weapon

End of story.

Their is a misguided truth to trump's argument about how the deal is so one sided, it's true only because Iran didn't really give up anything since the never had tried to get a nuclear weapon.

Nope, Iran was in fact on a path to nuclear weapons. If they weren't, what was all the fuss about? Stop trying to rewrite history.

[ati87]

Nope, Iran was in fact on a path to nuclear weapons. If they weren't, what was all the fuss about? Stop trying to rewrite history.

I hope you're being sarcastic now...because that photo was a joke at that time and still is.

If Iran ever tried to develop nuclear weapons that would be easy to discover because of major differences between building nuclear weapons and developing nuclear power. The ''parts'' aren't interchangeable you know and it's easy to track them in case something goes ''missing''

Hell the moment that asshole did his little speech his own intelligence agency contradicted him because it's all bullshit.

The burden of proof is on you lot...so a single piece of evidence that shows that Iran has ever tried to develop nuclear weapons. I can guarantee you that you won't find it

The argument in essence was always ''if they know how to build nuclear power plants they can use that tech to develop nuclear weapons faster''

[paralleluniverse]

I hope you're being sarcastic now...because that photo was a joke at that time and still is.

If Iran ever tried to develop nuclear weapons that would be easy to discover because of major differences between building nuclear weapons and developing nuclear power. The ''parts'' aren't interchangeable you know and it's easy to track them in case something goes ''missing''

Hell the moment that asshole did his little speech his own intelligence agency contradicted him because it's all bullshit.

The burden of proof is on you lot...so a single piece of evidence that shows that Iran has ever tried to develop nuclear weapons. I can guarantee you that you won't find it

The argument in essence was always ''if they know how to build nuclear power plants they can use that tech to develop nuclear weapons faster''

There's plenty of evidence.

But, hey, Iran was never on the path to developing a nuclear weapon, so I guess all those sanctions the US, and others put on them was totally pointless. A non-issue.

[Breccia]

You know, I'm honestly surprised this hasn't happened yet.

I was so sure that Trump would distance himself from this issue like so many others, by making it someone else's problem, to avoid the appearance of blame for failing to do his job. Health care. Military strikes. DACA. Taxes. The Wall. For someone who made a lot of campaign promises, Trump really doesn't seem eager to make them happen.

And I was so sure he was going to dump this issue on Congress now, in September, when they have plenty of other things to do. Too many, in fact. It would have just fit the theme of his tenure so far. "Hey, I know you guys are busy, very busy, with Yemen and Afghanistan. Such war. So horrible. So I thought I'd provoke Iran and North Korea into launching missiles. Maybe next time I'll let you know beforehand, but I like to keep people guessing, so I probably won't. Bigly."

[ati87]

There's plenty of evidence.

But, hey, Iran was never on the path to developing a nuclear weapon, so I guess all those sanctions the US, and others put on them was totally pointless. A non-issue.

If their are plenty of evidence of them developing nuclear weapons then I guess you can provide a single piece then. I kind of find it weird that something so easy needs to be asked multiply twice.

How about I give you one that you are making shit up? This article came out after that stupid ridiculous roadrunner speech Netanyahu gave in 2012 contradicting his pubic warmongering.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...an-bomb-mossad

The report highlights the gulf between the public claims and rhetoric of top Israeli politicians and the assessments of Israel’s military and intelligence establishment.

But the report also states that Iran “does not appear to be ready” to enrich uranium to the higher levels necessary for nuclear weapons. To build a bomb requires enrichment to 90%. Mossad estimated that Iran then had “about 100kg of material enriched to 20%” (which was later diluted or converted under the terms of the 2013 Geneva agreement). Iran has always said it is developing a nuclear programme for civilian energy purposes.

And the reason for those sanctions? Well you tell me then if the sanctions weren't really in response to development of weapons why would the US and it's direct allies where putting sanctions on Iran? Maybe because Iran got rid of the Sha and has been a enemy of the US ever since?

I'm done however unless you provide more than There's plenty of evidence while not even bothering on providing evidence for a statement like that. It's kind of annoying to keep on repeating myself so