Trump to Decertify Iran Deal

[Jeezy911]

Well, considering we were bleeding hundreds of thousands of jobs a year, and our economy was in a tailspin... yeah, that was a boom.

Does that mean you don't support the legalization of gay marriage or the ending of DADT? It's pretty sad when the Democrats support more freedom than so-called conservatives in this country.

I could care less if 2 adults want to marry, but groundbreaking policy? Um no.

- - - Updated - - -

You did.

Phew, that was easy.

Also, we share a bathroom at work. All sexes/genders. This isn't a new fucking concept and the fact you need to harp on about it just says a fuck ton about you dumpster folk.

Kennedy put a man on the moon, Obama put a man in the women's restroom. What a revolutionary.

- - - Updated - - -

But that doesn't answer the question: Has is already failed/imploded, or is it in the process of failing/imploding?

Conservatives and Trumpservatives are constantly mixing up whether it's already happened or in the process of happening, which leads to confusion as to what state it's currently in.

Unless you all live in multiple realities at once, which is even more confusing.

It's the failure that keeps on giving.

[Edge-]

I could care less if 2 adults want to marry, but groundbreaking policy? Um no.

Actually for civil rights, those are kinda huge milestones. I get that they don't directly impact you and all that (they don't directly impact me, either), but for millions and millions of Americans, those were pretty big issues.

It's the failure that keeps on giving.

That's still not an answer. So has it already failed, or is it in the process of failing and will fail soon? I can't be both at once.

[Jeezy911]

Actually for civil rights, those are kinda huge milestones. I get that they don't directly impact you and all that (they don't directly impact me, either), but for millions and millions of Americans, those were pretty big issues.

Legislation affecting 3.5% of the population is not a huge milestone.

[Machismo]

I could care less if 2 adults want to marry, but groundbreaking policy? Um no.

- - - Updated - - -



Kennedy put a man on the moon, Obama put a man in the women's restroom. What a revolutionary.

- - - Updated - - -



It's the failure that keeps on giving.

It was groundbreaking policy, it was one of the biggest SCOTUS decisions in decades, and solidified the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The same goes doe ending DADT, both meant more freedoms for millions of Americans. Tens of millions of Americans certainly cared if two people got married, and they passed dozens of laws against it in order to stop it. It's a shame when conservatives start to hate freedom and limited government so much.

[Edge-]

Legislation affecting 3.5% of the population is not a huge milestone.

Especially given the opposition it faced, yeah actually, it kinda is.

Again, I get it, it doesn't impact you personally. That doesn't make it any less significant.

[Machismo]

Legislation affecting 3.5% of the population is not a huge milestone.

Of course it is. It solidified the 14th Amendment. What if the federal government banned all "assault" rifles, would that be big legislation? We're talking similar numbers here.

[ati87]

Legislation affecting 3.5% of the population is not a huge milestone.

And still Republicans/right-wing would go and fuck a donkey if gay people would be allowed to marry and had the same rights and benefits as straight, seems huge deal if they would be willing to doing bestiality

[Sunseeker]

The deal's not great, but a deal's a deal. Republicans would be better served to let the deal stand and wait for Iran to do something shifty, than to cut their nose off to spite Obama.

Of course, Republicans want a war with Iran, and once the deal is ended they know Iran will start making nuclear weapons (they'd frankly be stupid if they didn't) and Israel is going to have a shitfit and claim the sky is falling and Republicans are going to claim Iran plans to nuke everybody until they pull a target out of the hat someone cares about and boom: war with Iran.

So yeah, fuck Trump and fuck the Republicans collectively.

[ati87]

While we are at it...

The only ones that are saying that Iran isn't upholding it's deal are at best morons and the guys licking that morons ass and murders who just want to kill muslims.

Is their any evidence, which btw is easy to get and hard to hide, that Iran is or ever tried to build nukes? No

So at one hand we have some warmongers claiming that Iran is building nukes with as much evidence as any random PC troll from 4Chan that cries every other day because he (always a he) has some serious daddy issues and on the other hand we have Iran who's hasn't invaded a country in centuries and the biggest sin they have that they haven't aren't helping the US to fuck themselves over.

- - - Updated - - -

The deal's not great, but a deal's a deal. Republicans would be better served to let the deal stand and wait for Iran to do something shifty, than to cut their nose off to spite Obama.

Of course, Republicans want a war with Iran, and once the deal is ended they know Iran will start making nuclear weapons (they'd frankly be stupid if they didn't) and Israel is going to have a shitfit and claim the sky is falling and Republicans are going to claim Iran plans to nuke everybody until they pull a target out of the hat someone cares about and boom: war with Iran.

So yeah, fuck Trump and fuck the Republicans collectively.

You're willingness to believe propaganda is mind-blowing....

You seriously think that after 2 decades of claiming that Iran is trying to build nukes, which they haven't, that if you wait a few years that then they will finally cave and start building nuclear weapons....?

You may be against Trump but you believe the same bullshit propaganda (at least some) as he has that the right-wing war mongers have been spouting for years now.

[Sunseeker]

While we are at it...

The only ones that are saying that Iran isn't upholding it's deal are at best morons and the guys licking that morons ass and murders who just want to kill muslims.

Is their any evidence, which btw is easy to get and hard to hide, that Iran is or ever tried to build nukes? No

So at one hand we have some warmongers claiming that Iran is building nukes with as much evidence as any random PC troll from 4Chan that cries every other day because he (always a he) has some serious daddy issues and on the other hand we have Iran who's hasn't invaded a country in centuries and the biggest sin they have that they haven't aren't helping the US to fuck themselves over.

- - - Updated - - -



You're willingness to believe propaganda is mind-blowing....

You seriously think that after 2 decades of claiming that Iran is trying to build nukes, which they haven't, that if you wait a few years that then they will finally cave and start building nuclear weapons....?

You may be against Trump but you believe the same bullshit propaganda (at least some) as he has that the right-wing war mongers have been spouting for years now.

Wait...what?

I didn't say I bought the propaganda, only that if the Republicans actually believed their own propaganda, it'd be smarter to play the waiting game. Then they could play up that they're the honorable do-gooders who tried to work with those bad bad Iranians and oops look the Iranians are just plain bad and we need to go to war with them.

Perhaps I was unclear in that I was speaking from their perspective, not my own.

I do think Iran wants nukes (who doesn't?) but I think they're gonna hold to the deal. Without a deal I don't see any logical reason for them not to pursue nukes, I know I would.

[Stormspellz]

Sad part is that when Iran goes back to their nuclear enrichment programs after this, the trumpeters will all point and shout "see! we told you Iran wasn't to be trusted! they just broke the deal we nullified!".

sad, disturbing, and true.

[Mormolyce]

Legislation affecting 3.5% of the population is not a huge milestone.

20% accurate as usual, Morty.

[ati87]

Wait...what?

I didn't say I bought the propaganda, only that if the Republicans actually believed their own propaganda, it'd be smarter to play the waiting game. Then they could play up that they're the honorable do-gooders who tried to work with those bad bad Iranians and oops look the Iranians are just plain bad and we need to go to war with them.

Perhaps I was unclear in that I was speaking from their perspective, not my own.

I do think Iran wants nukes (who doesn't?) but I think they're gonna hold to the deal. Without a deal I don't see any logical reason for them not to pursue nukes, I know I would.

If they wanted nukes they would have gotten it by now....or tried to research it which is totally different from nuclear energy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...sus-a-reactor/


Their is no evidence that Iran has ever wanted nuclear weapons, their is no evidence that Iran has even researched nuclear weapons and from the top of my head the best case they have is that they researched possible research about nuclear weapons which I also just did by posting a link.

This topic angers me, people are warning about the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran for 30 years now and it's always within the timeline of a year or two.

What a joke....if anything this guy looks like the bad guy (he is) given his evil look.

[schwarzkopf]

The Iran deal was another "Obama special", that's for fucking sure. It never should have been negotiated the way it was.

Why was it stupid, we got he Iranians to stop making nukes - and it cost the US pretty much nothing.

[Skroe]

Why was it stupid, we got he Iranians to stop making nukes - and it cost the US pretty much nothing.

In no particular order:

(1) It has an expiration date (and one that is far too short term).
(2) It allowed Iran to keep its nuclear scientist. They should have been taken to Europe or the US. Iran shouldnt have gotten to keep them.
(3) Iran Civilian nuclear power would be European, Chinese or Russian designs, and built and operated by Russians. Iran would not be allowed a domestic design.
(4) Nantaz should be dismantled and the site destroyed, rather than just having enrichment not expanded beyond Nantaz.
(5) Sanctions rollback was too quick. Should have been phased over years.
(6) Iran should be subject to spot inspections by the US Department of Energy (not just the IAEA) in perpetuity, not just for 15 years.
(7) Iran's ballistic missile program should be immediately terminated, its facilities dismantled and it's scientists sent out of country.
(8) He did not extract a commitment from Europe to use Military force should Iran violate the deal, nor a commitment from Russia / China to agree to a UN resolution approving force should they violate it.


The changes in the terms I outlined are far tougher. A deal might not even be possible. But that SHOULD be fine. The Obama went into the negotiations wanting, even desperate a deal, despite the US not particularly needing it. Iran, China and Russia where well aware of this. This put the US in a position where it acceeded to Iranian demands it shouldn't have. It created a false equal negotiating position when, in fact, the US has every bit of leverage if it wanted to credibly use it.

I think I've made clear on dozens of occasions how foolish going to war with Iran would be in my opinion. But the threat, and even execution of military force is a perfectly legitimate source of leverage and foreign policy revolves around leverage and interests. Obama, being a global citizen, stars-in-the-eyes fool, broadcasted how much he DIDN'T want to do that, by explaining, before the deal was even agreed upon, that the US had two choices: deal or war (which wasn't true). Iran and Russia alway saw this... all servicing to strengthen Iran's negotiating position. Utter insanity.

Should the US have bombed Iran? No. But Obama should have done everything in his power to convince them that the order to bomb them was 5 minutes away, and if they still weren't convinced, start ramping up a phased deterrence approach that kept strategically undermining Iranian security (basically walking up to the line of war). Twist their arm until it breaks off... even if it slows or worsens negotiations. But instead, he made it clear he wanted a deal, any deal, no matter what, and what we got was a weak pause.

Obama's behavior and approach successfully changed the situation whereby, pre-deal, Iran was desperate and getting more desperate, for a settlement, to one where they had negotiating leverage and it was the US who really, really wanted a deal. That's seriously fucked. In essence, the US "yielded the high ground" for nothing other than Obama not wanting to threaten Iran with losing everything, when he should have been.

This is REALLY peculiar, because as I stated, the US took Russia to the cleaners in NewSTART. The terms of NewSTART are laughably favorable to the US, namely how launchers were counted, the warhead number, and the fact that prompt global strike weapons weren't counted as launchers. To get Russia to agree to this, the US had to agree to rather intrusive, one time inspections, but the negotiating team correctly realized how desperate Russia was for NewSTART, and so enabled the US to ask for everything under the sun. Why was Russia desperate? Because the US is a rich country and Russia is not. In a world without START I, the US could have rapidly increased the size of its modern arsenal at little comparative cost, while Russia, already financially strapped, desperately needed to cut its arsenal size to pay for conventional military modernization (it couldn't afford the START I status quo + modernization, nevermind more nukes + modernization). And the US made very clear: it wanted NewSTART, but was ready to walk away, especially with Congressional Republicans wanting a round of nuclear modernization of our own. This all created conditions for a VERY favorable treaty for the US in retrospect. I'd even call it a masterwork. The US screwed Russia, hard. Russia's only claim was that it got away scott free on the issue of Tactical Nuclear Weapons, yet again (NewSTART only covers strategic weapons).

All this, when contrasted against how the Iran deal was publicly and privately approached, negotiated, and ultimately put into effect, makes the Iran deal compare very, very poorly. And I was further disturbed by the Obama Administration officially and supporters and Democrats unofficially using the word "ratified". They knew exactly what they were doing by using that word. They were creating a perception. So when I say what I say about how international agreements should be passed through a legitimate process, I think of that. The word ratified must be associated with what the Senate does, and nobody else. Obama can agree, sign and otherwise commit the US to the word, but the word "ratify", not a semantic mind you, was the responsibility of the Senate. It was deeply improper and compounding an inspirit violation of the constitution with a purposeful deception about the legal reality of the deal.

Let me be clear: the Iran deal is, in my eyes, "good enough" right now. The US has so many other more important things on its plate that having one thing off of it, right now, is definitely in our interests. But as "legacy items" go, the Iran Deal is, again, the incarnation of Obama Administration second term foreign policy fuckery. Desperate for style, light of substance, and entirely short term. It is a model for any administration, regardless of party, of what NOT to do. And the behaviors towards Iran and towards the American people with respect to the negotiation and public case for the deal must not be normalized.

The Iran deal is worth preserving because of things that have nothing to do with it. But on its own merits, its nothing to be proud of. Not how it was approached, and not what resulted... not when it was the result of the Obama Administration basically forfeiting any and all leverage and negotiating with Iran as an equal, when we most certainly weren't.

[Kasierith]

I'm guessing he already forgot about the upcoming conflict with Korea because it hasn't been in the news much. It's a deal that does nothing but put a bandaid on a larger problem without offering any real solution, but it at least brings enough stability to leave Iran alone for a while.

[Skroe]

Why was it stupid, we got he Iranians to stop making nukes - and it cost the US pretty much nothing.

Oh and one more thing. The expiration dates.

In 2023, the UN ban on Iran's ballistic missile program and ban on advanced centrifuges will end.

In 2025, UN sanctions all expire, period.

In 2026-2031, all restrictions on Iran's program will lift.

Those dates are very fast approaching, and telegraphing out to the 2030s, the global security situation is likely to be far worse in the years straddling 2030, than in 2015. Namely, China's military power will be ascendant, Russia's decline will deeply accelerate and cause continent wide destabilization, and North Korea's nuclear arsenal will, at this point, probably be all solid fueled and have MIRV capability.

The deal kicked the day of judgement to an even more complicated time in other words. That's why a final settlement was so necessary. If, for example, the US is engaged in ongoing face-offs with the larger Chinese Navy in the West Pacific in 2031, as US security experts expect, what leverage will it have to seriously threaten or negotiate Iran into agreement of a new deal, or deal extension, in 2031? If we're consumed with China, Russian disintegration and North Korea mischief, Iran would be insane to accept the same deal because the odds of the US sacrificing its interests in the Western Pacific to attack Iran are very remote.

And now you see why I think we need a substantially larger military by 2030. We need to be able to credibility deter and press our interests against four threats simultaneously, plus Islamic radicalism, plus Climate Change, plus non-state Cyber/Information Warfare. Right now, we're undermanned, under-armed, and under-advantaged for the sheer number and complexity of threats we face. If we were to enter Iran Deal extension negotiations in 2031 with what we have today, Iran would take one look at the US's strategic disposition and walk right out the door if they had a brain about them. Because they will figure that they can do what we want and we will not stop them, because we care more about Japan and Romania, and they would be right.

That is the position the Iran deal put us in. It cost us nothing now, but a hell of a lot later. That is, unless we drop another $150 billion a year as I've been saying, and build that US Military that could counter all four, in full.

[jdbond592]

Well we stopped Pakistan from acquiring nukes. India. Israel(). North Korea.

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

[schwarzkopf]

That is the position the Iran deal put us in. It cost us nothing now, but a hell of a lot later.

The 'cost' later is no more than the cost of not having done it now. A 10 year agreement is better than no agreement.

[Skroe]

The 'cost' later is no more than the cost of not having done it now. A 10 year agreement is better than no agreement.

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.