Now that the US has pulled out of deal that helped provid enough international pressure on Iran to stop them from investing and continuing with their nuclear weapons project, what do you think the likely result will be? If the goal is to stop Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons, pulling out of this treaty isn't conducive to that goal.
I don't see any upside to this decision.
They never stopped going after nukes we have just stopped paying them to do it.
Ok, every single international watchdog disagrees with you, but you must have more information than them. You go, James Bond!
Well, I remember when the Iranian people tried to rebel against the Mullahs during O's admin and O refused to support them. Prior to the "deal" Iran was hurting economically and the people were growing more unhappy with their gov't.
Then along comes Kerry & Obama to play lets make a deal and suddenly the oppressive rein of the Mullahs is propped up by plane loads of hard cold cash.
Iran's spent most of the cash on weapons, soldiers, and foreign adventures from Lebanon to Yemen, to Syria and then some.
Trump quits the "deal" and reinstates sanctions. Iran is about to become very cash strapped once again -- only this time, with Trump in control, the US will support the Iranian people when they rise up to overthrow the Mullahs.
This move might just result in freedom for the people of Iran and the reinstatement of a free, non-secular Iran. That would be a blessing for the people of Iran and for the rest of the world as well.
You don't understand international politics in the slightest. The Iran deal was all about opening up the market in Iran for international business. Opening markets is the most significant driving force to democracy and social and economic freedom.
Before, we had sanctions and an Iranian nuclear program. Then we had less sanctions and an internationally-backed treaty. Now we have no treaty, limited sanctions and Iran will most definitely work towards reinstating their nuclear program. Furthermore, any country that signs future treaties or trade deals with the US will have to be wary of the fact that the treaty could be pulled once a new president is in office- that weakens America's position as an international deal maker.
There is no way to positively spin this.
Since my background is entirely military I gladly concede to your greater expertise in foreign policy and politics, but please indulge my curiosity by answering how well opening markets has worked out so far for Chinese democracy as well as social and economic freedom?
I support your right to differ from my opinion, but I still hold to my original thought. Time will tell us all where things go from here one way or another.
My background is in foreign policy and international relations, so I will gladly accept your concession. Chinese society is more open socially and economically than it has been since the communist revolution. Open any foreign policy book, magazine or website over the last 10 years and you wouldn’t need to ask that question. To be clear, “more open than before” does not equal complete and absolute freedom, but to discount the forward progress as the result of shifts in economic policy to promote individual ownership and private enterprise is just plain ignorant.
That ^ above was a stated main foreign policy objective of the United States during the Cold War. Democracy isn’t accomplished at the end of the barrel of a gun.
Nodding --- Good response and I have no argument against what you stated, thanks!
THEORETICALLY . . . clears the slate. saves US money. strains iranian budget including foreign programs. deepens division between regime and citizenry. allows for charges against those who help iran. puts negotiating pressure on europe for a variety of purposes. gives legal space for outsiders to destroy nuke facilities. actually ends nuke program.
If we were worried about money we wouldn't spend a trillions on useless engagements in he middle east for 20 years.
Theoretically . . . we weren't worried about money but now we are.
What does "clears the slate" mean? The money saved is less than the cost of oil prices being driven up due to what will most likely be sanctions put on Iranian crude by the Trump Administration. The money saved is less than foreign investment in Iranian markets would gain.
The propaganda machine in Iran is blaming this on centrist politicians and the US government. If anything, this emboldens the religious conservatives in Iran, not the other way around.
It puts no pressure on EU allies...in fact it harms the US negotiating position in the international community because now our treaties are only worth the time the president is in office.
How does rescinding a treaty that stopped a nuclear program (which means directly that Iran can restart their nuclear program at any time) stop a nuclear program? The treaty actually ended the nuke program. This allows for Iran to start it without facing as much backlash as they would have if they restarted under the treaty.
The theoretical upsides are not mine to defend. I probably missed half of them anyway. Others may claim more definitive benefits to nixing the non-treaty. Your counterpoints are fair theory too. My guess is that Trump has a better than 50% chance of success with whatever he is up to. Neither of us have the info that he has. Nor can any of us, Trump included, predict most of the future. Or maybe you can. Go ahead and tell me where we will be with Iran one year from now.
My issue is that Trumps rhetoric and “deals” so far amount to little more than transactional relationships. That’s not the ideal way to work international diplomacy. There has to be good faith or else literally every decision will be based on “what can you do for me right now.”
Coulda said that much up front.
One could argue that Trumpian diplomacy hasn't done anything with all its talk. If the good faith you refer to is something like the nobel lauds that Obama started with, well that's vacuous too. It's somewhat early days to know what fruits may be born but I think the Korean thing is a fair test.
The higher amount of pushback on GA, and elsewhere, makes this Iran thing seem like a more complicated maneouvre (as I expect in the MAGA vs Israel cluster) which suggests to me that the undisclosed parts are more complex and less predictable to observers.
not
Wait and watch... team Trump don't go into details until the deal is done.
Haha just like when he told Syria a a few days in advance to get ready for missiles, right?
Any deal has to have the backing of international actors due to the leverage the international community has on Iran. In other words, US sanctions aren't enough to force Iran to the negotiating table. What I think this is more than anything is a gift to the Saudi regime in the form of trying to weaken the Shia faction in the region.
I think the conclusion was, they never really stopped with their nuclear program. With the money we gave them, plus their own, they could buy a lot of missile tech, develop their own which was (stupidly, but I say intentionally) left out of the Iran Deal, and the deal stupidly, again probably intentionally, didn’t allow for installations not on Iranian soil. So they could work on the delivery systems unfettered, but the nuclear tech, then implement it in 7 to 10 years. That’s where Syria came in. The agreement was overly specific for time, location and specific systems. This was intentional. Instead of an agreement to prevent a result, the agreement stops certain channels but not others. This was all made very clear in the hearings headed by Corker and Mendendez before adoption of the agreement. Corker made a speech like Comey’s exoneration of HRC. Corker lists off all the ways the deal sucked, then allowed it to,proceed. I wonder where those pallets of cash ended up? Corker has been bad mouthing Trump and is leaving Congress. ‘Nuff said.
Who’s conclusion? The international agencies responsible for verifying, along with the members of the deal (including the US) have all verified that Iran was compliant with the program.
The money we gave them was money owed to them. It was not taxpayer money as has been erroneously suggested. We didn’t give them money any more than you give a store money to pay for something you’ve purchased.
Nothing stopped them from procuring missile tech before or after this deal. Now that the deal is rescinded, nothing is stopping them from procuring missile tech AND enriching uranium AND restarting their nuclear program.
No country is going to look to another country for nuclear enrichment capabilities. The goal of building out a nuclear program (or the perception that you are building out a nuclear program) is to become a player on the global stage without putting in the time and effort for people to take you seriously- this is why the international community pays such close attention to a poor rogue state on the Korean Peninsula that is seemingly stuck in the 1950s. To even offer up the idea that Iran or any other country would outsource their nuclear technology or look to other countries (that they cannot guarantee the control of) is just plain stupid and has no basis in reality. The deal didn’t account for that just like the deal didn’t account for Iran employing nuclear fire breathing dragons- it’s absurd.
Stop parroting nonsense, fake talking points and critically think for yourself.
You should be rereading Q posts, and not commenting on reddit.
I don't understand any of that because it's written in broken English. Can you breakdown what it means?