Trump: ‘The United States Will Withdraw From the Iran Nuclear Deal’
“Today we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie.”
President Donald Trump announced that America will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.
Trump has consistently threatened to withdraw from the deal, but extended it a few times in his first year. However, in January, Trump said this would be his last waiver “unless the deal is strengthened by Congress and European allies.”
Official WH Statement: "President Trump is terminating US participation in the JCPOA [the #IranDeal] as it failed to protect American national security. The JCPOA enriched Iran's regime & enabled its malign behavior while at best delaying its ability to pursue nuclear weapons…" pic.twitter.com/5ZLFCjaKfI
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) May 8, 2018
“I am announcing today that the United State will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal,” proclaimed Trump in front of the media.
“Today we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie,” Trump said. He brought up Israel’s findings of Iran working on its nuclear weapons program. Trump’s admin concluded that we cannot prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb under this “defective” agreement.
Trump’s biggest problem with the Iranian deal? The sunset clause “that allows key limitations on Iran’s use and development of new technologies for uranium enrichment to be phased out beginning in 2025.”
He reminded everyone that Iran is a leader of state-sponsored terrorism, especially with Hezbollah. He also believes that if the deal stays in place there would be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
He also warned everyone that America “no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them.”
After his conference, he signed a presidential memorandum that will begin to reinstate “US nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime.” Trump described them as “the highest level of economic sanction” and that “[A]ny nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.”
“American will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail,” Trump declared.
The sanctions will come with “grace periods for businesses to wind down activity so they don’t violate the sanctions.” The Treasury Department noted “certain 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods,” but did not offer details on which sanctions qualify for which timeline. But once those periods end, the sanctions will go into “full effect,” including punishment for “non-Americans if they do business with Iran.”
Since January, American officials have been working with European allies like France and the United Kingdom to make changes to the deal. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo informed all the allies that the changes did not satisfy Trump.
However, Pompeo supposedly told France, Germany, and the UK “that the Trump administration would be open to resuming negotiations if its European partners agree to be more aggressive in eliminating the deal’s so-called sunset clauses.”
Israel stands by us:
Israel stands with the US and supports President Trump's brave and important decision. Curbing Iran's nuclear program will be much more effective once American sanctions are reinstated. The State of Israel thanks President Trump for his leadership in this critical battle.
— Tzipi Hotovely (@TzipiHotovely) May 8, 2018
Thank you President Trump for your bold decision and your commitment to prevent Iran from ever getting nuclear weapons. @POTUS pic.twitter.com/TeUNWarjnu
— PM of Israel (@IsraeliPM) May 8, 2018
From the AP:
Benjamin Netanyahu called Trump’s decision Tuesday an “historic move.” He says leaving the Iran deal unchanged would be “a recipe for disaster, a disaster for our region, a disaster for the peace of the world.”
Netanyahu is a leading critic of the deal, saying it did not contain sufficient safeguards to prevent Iran from reaching nuclear-weapons capability or address Iran’s other activities across the region.
He says Iran’s aggression has grown since the deal, especially in Syria, where he says it is “trying to establish military bases to attack Israel.”
The AP reported that the French president responded that the three countries “regret” his decision:
The French president’s office says France, Britain and Germany “regret” U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to leave the Iranian nuclear accord, calling it a threat to global efforts to contain nuclear weapons.
French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted that the “nuclear non-proliferation regime is at stake” because of Trump’s announcement Tuesday.
Macron’s office says the French president spoke Tuesday evening with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May about the Iran accord and next steps after Trump’s decision.
British PM May, German Chancellor Merkel and French Pres. Macron issue joint statement expressing "regret and concern" following Pres. Trump's Iran nuclear deal announcement:
"Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld." https://t.co/jlDH91crEG pic.twitter.com/UkDXuznJ8e
— NBC News (@NBCNews) May 8, 2018
The EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini described the agreement “a pillar of international security” and called “on its signatories to continue to respect it.”
Iran has insisted it will do just fine no matter what Trump decides, but its currency, the rial, continues on a downward spiral.
The regime has promised retaliation. From The Washington Free Beacon:
Iranian leaders quickly lashed out at Trump, threatening harsh reprisals against the United States and vowing to never renegotiate a new deal to constrain the country’s nuclear enrichment program, which Iran has bragged can be put online in just a matter of days in a much greater fashion than it was capable of when the deal was originally negotiated by the former Obama administration.
The deal is “by no means negotiable,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in recent remarks to European leaders. Rouhani emphasized that Tehran would not accept any new restrictions on its nuclear program and its ballistic missile development, which has emerged as a key concern in the region and beyond.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran will stand against this strategy firmly and will not accept any excessive demands to make new concessions,” Ali Shamkhan, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said on Tuesday ahead of Trump’s announcement.
“If the nuclear deal is destroyed with the U.S. move, certainly, it will not benefit the U.S.,” Shamkhan said. “If the U.S. starts confrontation against Iran, we will not remain passive.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reacts to US President Donald Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran deal, saying Trump is not loyal to international commitments https://t.co/deYkgcWcDc pic.twitter.com/xXQ5nYqKYq
— CNN (@CNN) May 8, 2018
Reactions
Rare new statement from @BarackObama assailing @realDonaldTrump's "misguided" decision to withdraw from the Iran deal. pic.twitter.com/f4hyjhEiyo
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) May 8, 2018
The Obama Administration negotiated a landmark agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. @realDonaldTrump’s decision to withdraw from the deal breaks our word, hurts our credibility with our allies, empowers Iranian hardliners, and doesn’t make us any safer.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) May 8, 2018
Pelosi on Trump pulling out of Iran deal: The President's decision to follow his misguided and uninformed campaign promise to destroy the successful Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action endangers global security and defies comprehension.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) May 8, 2018
You know the era of American leadership in the world is ending when IRAN can say we stood by our international commitments (which they did) and the U.S. did not.
— Negar (@NegarMortazavi) May 8, 2018
Beyond the potentially catastrophic consequences with Iran, Trump's decision is devastating to U.S. credibility globally. After this, why would anyone trust an international agreement that the U.S. negotiates?
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) May 8, 2018
By walking away from the JCPOA, Trump makes it easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. He is creating this crisis. Now, we all have to face the consequences. #IranDeal
— André Carson (@RepAndreCarson) May 8, 2018
Trump and his fellow neanderthal neocons don't want a "deal" with Iran. They want unconditional surrender. They want to beat them into the ground. And since they didn't get that, they are tearing up one of the best foreign policy achievements of the past few decades. #IranDeal
— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) May 8, 2018
My thoughts on President Trump’s Iran statement: pic.twitter.com/E5A12PKnnx
— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) May 8, 2018
The President’s “accomplishment” today is making it easier for Iran to re-start its nuclear weapons program.
For this, he’ll get a big cheer from the same crowd who got us into Iraq.
Vote them out. Vote them all out.
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) May 8, 2018
Tweets from https://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/lists/israel
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m thinking of a word. It rhymes with Treaty and gets voted on/ approved by the Senate.
And how is it relevant? Treaties are no more permanent than informal private agreements such as the one 0bama made. The president can abrogate a treaty any time he likes.
And there is no difference whatsoever between a proposed treaty that didn’t get the senate’s consent because only 66 senators voted for it and one that didn’t get the senate’s consent because the president didn’t even ask for it. Either way the senate didn’t consent so it isn’t a treaty, and either way the president is free to implement it or not, as he chooses, so long as he has the authority to do all the things it calls for.
In terms of enforcement there’s no practical difference, but I think you know very well that if any President were to unilaterally overturn a formal Treaty which had been approved by the Senate, there would be political hell to pay, if only because the Senate would have a vested interest in protecting it’s part in the process.
On the other hand, when it’s just an agreement signed by a former President, the Senate has no reason (outside of political party affiliations) to defend it and would generally be happy to see such a thing abrogated. So a President is likely to have tough headwinds when trying to overturn a formal treaty, but can expect pretty clear sailing when it’s just an executive level agreement, like this one.
I know no such thing. When’s the last time a president has had to pay even a tiny amount of purgatory for unilaterally abrogating a treaty? Even if the senate didn’t like it (and history doesn’t show any particular inclination for it not to) what could it do about it?
Actually, in practice, I’d expect the exact same wailing and gnashing of teeth if the President abrogated a non-treaty (such as this one) or a real, legally-binding treaty (which this one ain’t) … simply because the “outrage” dials are permanently stuck on “11”.
The only thing anyone can do about a President who blows off laws (which of course includes treaties) is impeachment. And they’ve been fantasizing about that one for so long now that nobody will notice more noise. Such is the peril of running permanently at “11”.
Treaties are only laws until the president abrogates them. He has the authority to do so, at which point they stop being laws.
As a foreigner I’m a bit confused.
As the Senate did not consent it is not a treaty. So it is just a deal. But is this deal binding without Congress’ vote?
It seems that if the President can make deals, a la Obama, then the Constitution is meaningless as he just becomes, at best, a petty dictator.
The Iran deal wasn’t a treaty, nor was it ratified by Congress, so really, it was never a binding deal it all. There’s no federal statute in place to prevent him from withdrawing from the agreement either. The UN Security Council will likely argue differently, but then they always do.
On the contrary, the UNSC doesn’t claim it’s a treaty either, and its corresponding resolution contains the snap-back clause which lets any of the parties bring back the sanctions automatically, with no possibility of preventing it, and no need for any evidence that Iran is breaking it.
Now what about the UN sanctions? Invoking the snap-back clause would bring back all the old UN sanctions 30 days later, which would be binding under international law, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it. The only exception would be for already-signed contracts. So is Trump going to invoke it or not? And if not why not?
Apparently there’s going to be a 90 day delay, but I have no idea why that number was decided on.
On ABC, they were talking about a 180 day period before sanctions would affect European companies.
To allow Boeing to find other buyers for those planes they promised Iran?
While it does not appear that invoking the snap-back clause on the UN Security Council suspension of Iran sanctions, members states do NOT have to honor it. The UN has no real power to do anything to any nation, which is binding. If the member states ignore the UN and the UN Security Council, then nothing will happen.
The US should get out of the Iran deal simply because it is a horrible deal for the US and effectively ties our hands, in dealing with Iran. I’m happy with this outcome.
POTUS announced we were giving notice to companies doing biz with Iran that they have 90 days to end their biz with Iran and 180 days to fully stop working with iran or not be able to do biz with USA.
in regards to UN – who do they think pays for and supplies troops to UN —-> U S A!
we need to leave UN
The UN has no real power to do anything to any nation
Well, the UN can do things … like the Korean War. But it almost certainly won’t.
Members states DO have to honor sanctions imposed by the Security Council. Of course the Russians and Chinese don’t care, and never did care. But the European courts would force them to care, if Trump invoked the snap-back.
No they don’t.
The member states of the UN only conform to Security Council mandates if they are forced to. What do you think would happen if the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China decided NOT to snap-back to preexisting UNSC sanctions? Nothing. Do you think that the rest of the members are going to band together and take action against them? Not very likely. And, that is exactly why the US is not going to advocate for the sanctions to be reinstated. It would lose and the UN would be shown to be exactly what it is; a useless social club into which US taxpayers dump loads of money.
Russia and China do whatever they like anyway, and always have. But the Europeans obey the law, and their courts would force them to accept the snap-back.
“…and their courts would force them to accept the snap-back.”
No they wouldn’t. Their courts are even more corrupt than ours.
“The only exception would be for already-signed contracts.”
Is that “Contracts signed and dated at the point in time the announcement is made of snap-back” or “Now”?
If it’s the first one, I predict a massive contracting flow over the next few weeks where Iran will sign anything, and then just break any of the contracts that turn out to be bad for them later. Well, they do that anyway, but this time with more vigor.
“In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions.”
So “now”. Invoking the clause would start a 30-day claims rush.
The New Deal. Better than the Fake Deal.
RTUMP! Repealing Obama’s Horrors. One day at a time.
Now that Trump has begun the process of emasucatling the America-hating and Jew-hating fascists of Iran, how about getting back on track to repeal obamacare?
Passing 0bamacare in the first place required 60 senators. Repealing it would require the same.
Actually they can wave that in favor of a simple majority.
Not without those same 60 votes they can’t. Unless they get rid of the filibuster altogether, which nobody is willing to do because they want it for when they’re in the minority. Note that despite all the difficulty the GOP gave the Dems once they lost their 60th senator, Reid did not get rid of the filibuster. He certainly didn’t do it to pass the 0bamacare amendments. That’s very good evidence that they won’t do it the next time they have a majority either.
The “popping corn” sound you hear from all those tweets above is the sound of liberal heads exploding.
My phone pushes headlines into my alerts, courtesy of the all knowing people at Apple. The headline chosen Regarding the Iran deal, was from CNN. You can guess the balance between of news and temper tantrum in the following text.
My phone pushes headlines into my alerts, courtesy of the all knowing people at Apple. The headline chosen Regarding the Iran deal, was from CNN. You can guess the balance between of news and temper tantrum in the following text.
The Iran deal has all the earmarks and reasons to remain as a “bad marriage”.
But really, who starts out to make a “bad marriage” ?
And then “front loads” the alimony ?
This good. Snap-back in 30 days would be even better!
Do the U.S. Taxpayers get those pallets of cash back?
Those pallets of cash never belonged to the US taxpayer, and didn’t come at the US taxpayer’s expense. It was Iran’s money, which for 40 years US presidents had refused to return to its owners because they knew what the owners would do with it. So it had been lying in escrow accumulating interest. And that’s where 0bama should have left it.
Sorry, wrong. It was Treasury Department funds.
https://nypost.com/2016/08/24/covering-up-the-1-3-billion-payoff-to-iran/
Wrong. Of course the money came from the Treasury; that’s where Iran’s money was being kept, and that’s where the accumulated interest (calculated at a very low rate) had to come from. It was not our money. We had no right to use it for ourselves. Our only right to withhold it for all those years was that Iran was going to use it for terrorism, and that reason is still valid. But eventually, once the mullahs were gone and the new government was no longer supporting terrorism, we’d have had to pay up, plus interest, probably at a far higher rate.
Right. Obama should have left it there. But he wouldn’t and among his reasons was that victims of Iranian and Iranian-sponsored terrorism can sue in US courts. And judges can compensate the victims WHEN THEY WIN THEIR SUITS for damages from those Iranian funds.
And the Iranians couldn’t do a damned thing about it. Except stop committing and funding terrorism, and the the damage awards would stop.
Since Obama didn’t want the Iranians to halt their support for terrorism (which is why he never considered a truly “comprehensive” Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action) just as he didn’t want the Iranians to halt ICBM development, giving the money back was the only way to keep that Iranian out of the wrong hands.
As I’ve been saying since it became clear in early 2008, Obama only ever wanted to become President of his enemies so he could help his real friends.
No, they couldn’t. The policy of successive administrations was to tell the judges nothing doing, you’re not touching this money; you can award whatever judgments you like, but this money is not available to pay them, because it is going to be refunded in full with interest whenever it becomes convenient to the USA to do so. (I know this because a friend of mine represented one of the plaintiffs who won a judgment but couldn’t collect.)
Milhouse, you couldn’t be more wrong. Your information is a decade out of date.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/474962528/supreme-court-rules-frozen-iranian-money-be-turned-over-to-u-s-terror-victims
“Supreme Court Rules Frozen Iranian Money Be Turned Over To U.S. Terrorism Victims
The Supreme Court handed Iran’s central bank a loss on Wednesday, saying Congress acted constitutionally when it passed a law saying nearly $2 billion in frozen Iranian funds should be turned over to Americans who U.S. courts had found were victims of Iranian terrorist attacks.
The issue here was not whether Iran should pay; instead it was whether Congress had infringed upon the territory of the judiciary by essentially awarding damages…”
In 2012 Obama froze nearly $2B that Iran’s central bank had illegally concealed in a New York bank account.
In 1996 Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow victims of terror attacks committed or funded by designated state sponsors of terrorism to sue for damages. And yes, then administrations would intervene. A court ruled that Congress never created a federal cause of action against terrorist States themselves, but only against their officials, employees, and agents, plaintiffs have based claims on state law. So Congress attached a rider to the NDA for FY2008 that created a federal cause of action and to facilitate enforcement of these judgements. They did authorize the President to waive these provisions with respect to Iraq, and Iraq alone, because by then we had changed Iraq’s status with our 2002 invasion.
But Congress provided no carve out for Iran, also a designated state sponsor of terrorism. And one of the few state sponsors of which we hold considerable foreign assets. No administration could lawfully interfere with a judicial decision against Iran.
And in 2012, when Obama froze those $2B, Congress again amended the law, specifically adding that money to available to compensate those victims.
So had Obama not returned that money, it would most definitely be available to victims of Iranian terrorism. Iran couldn’t do anything about it, and if the victims win their lawsuit and are awarded damages neither could a President.
Unless you’re now arguing that it’s legal for an administration to have a policy of law breaking. Obviously after eight years of Obama it’s clear that administrations do have policies of breaking the law. But it’s not legal, certainly not in the case of the frozen Iranian assets we once held, and I doubt the plaintiffs would go supine and simply let a President get away with it. Unlike our worthless Congress.
“…you can award whatever judgments you like, but this money is not available to pay them, because it is going to be refunded in full with interest whenever it becomes convenient to the USA to do so. (I know this because a friend of mine represented one of the plaintiffs who won a judgment but couldn’t collect.)”
When was this, and what country? The reason Congress authorized the President the authority to waive these provisions r.e. Iraq is that in that particular case the money had been blocked out for reconstruction.
So even in that case we didn’t simply refund the money to the new Iraqi government with interest. We used it to pay for their nation’s own reconstruction.
But in this 2016 instance, a lawsuit against Iran, the plaintiffs did collect the money. And clearly since we still don’t have diplomatic relations with Iran, and Iran is still a designated state sponsor of terrorism, that money should have remained here to pay for any future damages the Mullahs proudly brag about intending to cause.
The government of Iran committed an act of war against the United States when it took our embassy staff hostage and held them for over 400 days. Now, the US should have declared war on Iran, at that time. We did not, which was a mistake. However, a state of war did exist, even without an declaration of war on the part of the US Congress and, under international law, this made it perfectly legal for the US to seize, hold and even convert any property belonging to the Iranian state. As Iran continued to commit hostile acts against US personnel and interests around the world, the US could have continued to hold those seized assets until an binding agreement was reached to end such hostile acts. And, at that time, the forfeiture of those assets could have been demanded as compensation for those acts. The US did not have to give anything back to Iran.
not in Kansas anymore, Toto!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7GJcKuVGm8
given the topic, I think this is called for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZwDL3-Ze4w
“[A]ny nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.”
The US has a bit of recovery to do after Barry’s meaningless “red lines”. Something a bit more definite here would perhaps have been nice.
Reasoning solely by inductive logic from past history, I’d guess that many firms in Britain, France, and Germany are already selling all the nuke tech they have to Iran … and being paid from that treasure trove Barry handed over. So of course we can expect plenty of squawking from our nominal allies about any threat to the cash flow.
And I suppose millions more will die because of this.
Uk, Germany and France can continue to demonstate they are really not necessary to US foriegn poilicy or they can go along with us and pretend they were part of the win. They got away with going along with us and we pretended they were part of the win but they blew that in Iraq. I am not supporting the Iraq war but who can doubt that the result of anything is the same with or without the support of especially France and Germany? France and Germany carry no weight since they decided they don’t have to have a military.
BRAVO FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.
(Plus U.S. cyber-sleuths know how to make all the illegal cash given by Obama to dis-appear out of bank accounts. How sweet would that be!)
There was nothing illegal about paying Iran the money it was owed. Very unwise and dangerous, but not even slightly illegal.
“There is, in world affairs, a steady course to be followed between an assertion of strength that is truculent and a confession of helplessness that is cowardly.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
It seems to me that President Trump, in making the decision he did, sought to do us utmost in steering the ship of state away from it previous, questionable direction to a more “steady course.” As he continues to make such decisions as he has, I sense that many persons are, once again, reclaiming a healthy sense of respect for and pride in America.
This is a very good day. Because this was no deal to begin with. It was a capitulation, yes, and definitely a betrayal.
Because the Obama nuclear capitulation wasn’t designed to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It was designed to protect their programs. According to observers at the negotiations, if they can be called that, it was very much the case that it was Iran and the US negotiating against every other member of the P5+1 formula.
The US undercut the IAEA at every turn as well. It’s simply standard procedure for IAEA investigators to insist that they examine all documents and see all evidence about a nation’s pre-treaty nuclear programs, that they know every single site, that they interview all the scientists involved, and that they acquire every single detail about their dual use programs. The latter is particularly important as then they can discover the nation’s clandestine supply lines.
Only then can the IAEA establish a baseline and only after establishing a baseline can they detect cheating. But Obama et al didn’t want the IAEA to detect cheating, so despite presenting this capitulation as if Iran had lived up to this “non-negotiable” prerequisite, Iran hadn’t. And Obama et al helped Iran get away with it.
Then in addition to the fact that since Iran hadn’t come clean so that we’d never know where their secret sites were, the IAEA was not allowed to inspect military sites. Only Iran could inspect itself. Now the IAEA could send in inspectors but only after Iran had weeks to clean up their mess. Of course, those inspectors could not include Americans.
It’s funny; the Obamates such as Ben Rhodes are saying that we didn’t learn anything from the half-ton of records the Mossad stole because they knew Iran was lying all along. So they wrote into the JCPOA that Iran could inspect itself on the “honor system” knowing full well that Iran lied from beginning to end? What does that tell you?
Then there’s one other small detail. Per the JCPOA the US pledged to defend Iran’s nuclear facilities should “anyone” attempt to “sabotage” them. Who do you all imagine that “anyone” might be?
Kerry testified that the US was only obligated to help with physical and cyber security. Even if he’s using those words in a conventional sense, that’s still horrible. But I’ve not seen the secret annex he’s referring to. And since Kerry is a self-serving liar I’m not willing to accept that the only threats we agreed to help Iran were physical and cyber sabotage.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/kerry-admits-u-s-will-help-protect-irans-nuclear-program-from-sabotage/
“Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.
The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.
“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”
Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare.
“The purpose of that is to be able to have longer-term guarantees as we enter a world in which cyber warfare is increasingly a concern for everybody,” Kerry said. “If you are going to have a nuclear capacity, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected.”
Israel has sabotaged Iran’s nuclear program through cyber warfare in the past.
Such stalling tactics will be more difficult to carry out if the United States provides Iran with “training and workshops” to counter nuclear security threats, as the deal requires.”
Like I said, horrible. Because by “training and workshops” Kerry is admitting that the US agreed to enter into an intelligence sharing relationship with the Mullahs. The Dept. of Energy is one of the 17 members of the US Intelligence Community, and for one simple reason. To collect, analyze, retain, and disseminate intelligence on threats to nuclear facilities.
It appears to me that there were no adversarial negotiations between the US and Iran. The Obama administration, with Kerry leading the charge, simply asked the Iranians “How much time and money are you going to need to have the nuclear weapons capability you think you’ll have to have, Mr. Zarif?”
“Ten years and as many billions as you can get us, John.”
“Ok, we’ll get you the time and money. Plus we’ll defend your program against sabotage so nothing will happen to your nukes until its all fully mission capable, and by then it’ll be too late for “anyone” (wink, wink) to do anything about it.”
“Thanks, John, I’ll tell the Supreme leader. You’ve been very helpful.”
But here’s the beautiful thing. Now we’re no longer defending the Iranian nuclear program so time is now back on our side. It isn’t as if Iran will be testing nukes tomorrow, and we are by far the stronger nation. But if we had been stupid enough to stick to Obama’s capitulation and betrayal, then as soon as the arrangement had been “fulfilled” the Iranians very well could have been testing nuclear weapons the very next day. And they’d have the delivery system, too.