So if Iran continues in the deal with Great Britain, France and Germany, and continues as a trade partner, does trump fulfill his threat and sanction our three closest allies?
trump seems to be obsessed with damaging the national interests of the United States, our allies, and our friends, while going to incredible lengths to promote the national interests of Russia, Vladimir Putin and his fellow corrupt oligarchs. Increasingly, a word keeps coming to mind when I think of trump. That word? Treason.
Yes, Russia so wants to see Iran bombed by Israel and Salafi Arabia to the influence Iran to withdraw ground troops from Syria. Would make their role so much easier in Syria.
Beside knowing that the political environment made that impossible and that it wasn’t necessary for a nuke deal, your claim is not so simple. If an admin want out of an armed treaty, they likely have a path out as bush did in 2001 because arm treaty typically has a simple withdrawal clause. IOW, if it was a senate ratified treaty, there would very likely be a withdrawal clause and trump would exercise it. As he said on this one, he keeps his promises.
Yeah, funny how you forget to mention that it was Obama's plan that Trump used to kill ISIS. But maybe not so funny we all know what a POS spintroll you are
If it had been a deal that was good enough to have enough support to be ratified by the Senate, there's very little chance that it would have been overturned. The deal was only a good one for Iran, they got tons of cash and sanctions relief and they got to keep building their nuclear program at military sites beyond the reach of inspectors. The only reason for the US being in that deal is so that they could say there was a deal.
Goldsmith at Lawfare comments: https://lawfareblog.com/trump-administration-reaps-what-obama-administration-sowed-iran-deal The Trump Administration Reaps What the Obama Administration Sowed in the Iran Deal By Jack Goldsmith Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 9:29 AM The particular manner in which President Obama crafted the Iran deal paved the way for President Trump to withdraw from it. Obama made the deal on his own presidential authority, in the face of significant domestic opposition, without seeking or receiving approval from the Senate or the Congress. He was able to do this, and to skirt constitutional requirements for senatorial or congressional consent, because he made the deal as a political commitment rather than a binding legal obligation. As Curt Bradley and I recently explained, a political commitment “imposes no obligation under international law,” a nation “incurs no state responsibility for its violation,” and thus “a successor President is not bound by a previous President’s political commitment under either domestic or international law and can thus legally disregard it at will.” Presidents have the clear authority to make non-binding political commitments. That is why I defended the legality of the Iran deal (as opposed to its wisdom) at the time. But whenever a president makes an agreement as a political commitment rather than as a binding agreement under international law, he is making a tradeoff. On the one hand, the president can avoid the need for approval from the Senate or Congress and make the international deal despite domestic opposition. On the other hand, a political commitment has no binding force under international or domestic law—and there is thus a danger that it will not be honored by a subsequent president. As I wrote three years ago, Obama’s approach to the Iran deal made it “easier to make (because the President can clearly do it on his own) and easier to break (because there is no domestic or international legal obstacle to breaking it).” The Obama team was aware of this tradeoff, but it knew it had no chance to secure approval for the Iran Deal from Congress. Because the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act forced a vote, we know that majorities in the Senate and the House opposed the deal. The House of Representatives voted 247-186 against allowing the president to lift U.S. sanctions contemplated by the deal. And 58 Senators (two short of necessary) voted to break a filibuster that would have allowed a vote on a resolution to disapprove the deal. For Obama to join the agreement that he thought so crucial to the fate of the world, he needed a constitutional mechanism that avoided the need for approval by Congress. The only available option was to make the agreement a fragile political commitment not binding on his successor. Easier to make, easier to break. In the wake of Trump’s announcement yesterday, former Obama administration officials are complaining about the harm done to U.S. reputation for compliance with international agreements. “When the United States unilaterally abrogates an international agreement in the absence of any breach, we undermine international perceptions of our reliability and responsibility,” Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice tells us. “Trump’s action … severely undermines the credibility of the United States to uphold international agreements that we sign which will endure after he is gone,” echoes Obama foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes. Sorry, but you don’t get to make an enormously consequential international deal in the face of opposition from Congress, and skirt the need for congressional consent by making the agreement non-binding under domestic and international law, and then complain about a withdrawal from the fragile non-binding agreement you made when a new president who ran on the issue and won does what a majority of Congress wanted at the time. In Federalist 75, Alexander Hamilton explained the wisdom of the original constitutional mechanism of Senate approval for treaties in terms directly applicable to the Iran deal. It would be “utterly unsafe and improper to intrust” the “entire power of making treaties” in the president alone, since the president alone could not be trusted to serve the national interest. “The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States,” Hamilton added. Rather, “the vast importance of the trust … plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” One of the most important purposes of legislative consent for international agreements is to ensure that the agreement actually serves the national interest clearly enough to garner such consent. Agreements that have the approval of the Senate or Congress tend to be longer-lasting and more durable. One reason is that they, unlike the Iran deal, are binding under international law. A more important reason is that a later president is much less likely to back away from an agreement made by a prior president with the support of the nation secured by its consent through elective representatives. The Obama administration did not secure this consent. It made the agreement unilaterally, and thereby pledged the reputation of the nation, even though it knew the Iran deal was non-binding and lacked approval among the nation’s elected representatives. If the United States’ reputation for upholding agreements takes a hit, the responsibility for that outcome lies squarely with the original decision by the Obama administration to make the hugely consequential deal on its own. The Obama administration took a bet that either Hillary Clinton would win the election or that the unwinding of sanctions for three years would make any reimposition of sanctions too painful politically. And it lost the bet.
Like the one that was ratified by the senate and bush withdraw from it in 2001? Your military site statement is based on ignorance or a lie. Your “only” statements are bobby opinions. Quite crappy ones.
I've posted them here before, Iran says that the inspectors have no right to check military sites, the inspectors said that they do.....but that they just don't want to check them so they never did. You don't know what you are talking about....which I can't imagine surprises anyone. When Iran says that inspectors don't have the right to check military sites and the inspectors come back with a "We can, we just don't want to" type response, you can read between the lines. No, seriously, we believe that you can, you just don't want to. Also, I wasn't saying that there was no way to pull out of an agreement with congressional approval, I said that it's unlikely it would have happened in this instance if the deal was good enough to get congressional approval.
SMH, fine, but this is the last time. Learn from it this time. http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20170830-story.html http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/01/15/548957/iran-us-military-site-kamalvandi https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...spect_military_facilities_in_iran_113288.html I don't have a specific quote from that final link, but you should read it in full, it's a good read. It's just well known that Iran has always said that inspections on military sites were off limits, I can easily come up with a dozen more links saying the same thing. The response is usually quotes from inspectors saying that they have the right to inspect anywhere.....they just choose to not inspect military bases, even those that we know for a fact have been part of the nuclear program in the past. If Iran simply moved their nuclear program from the sites that are being inspected to the military sites that helped birth their nuclear program then they could continue the program while appearing to be abiding by the agreement....only they'd have a lot more money to dump into their nuclear program, ballistic missile program, and to help fund terrorist activity in other countries due to the amazing deal our former president struck. There was essentially nothing of true value gained by the Iran deal....well nothing for Americans anyway. Basically all we did was help fund Iranian programs.
It’s typical to have a simple withdrawal clause in arm treaty. How likely would trump use that clause if it was a treaty? Don’t care as it’s irrelevant. You just admitted that the inspectors can check military sites. Spin it however you want, what’s important is that inspector has been satisfied with the result to date. And no, you do not know if inspector has inspected Iran military site. False claim.
You didn't seem to pay attention to what I said. I said if the deal was good enough to have gotten congressional approval, it's unlikely that Trump would have used the clause to withdraw from the treaty. The current deal would have never gotten approval, so it would have had to be better. Also, what I said is that Iran claims that their military bases are off limits while inspectors claim that they aren't.....they just don't want to check there, ever. I mean, the inspectors admit that they've never checked those sites, so I'm not sure why you seem to think that there's no way to know if they checked them.... Again, do your homework and then try again. The "I could do it, I just don't wanna do it" line is a joke. There's plenty of reasons to want to check sites that we know for a fact were used in the Iranian nuclear program in the past yet the inspectors claim that they don't want to after the Iranians say that they aren't allowed to? C'mon man, work with me here.
So one half wants WWIII via Russia, the other half via Iran. Where the hell do the sane seek refuge? Mars?
