Trump has officially abdicated his role as "leader of the free world"

[Teo Torriatte]

I know there are those in other countries besides the USA who would argue that the US president was never the de facto leader of the free world to begin with, but like it or not, this has been the case at least since the end of WW2. The US president has long been looked to in order to provide leadership in whatever worldwide crisis was going on, for good or ill.

And given that, some would also argue that Trump was never a very good world leader, that he has been working on abdicating this solemn responsibility since his inauguration. In fact I would agree with that last point, but I still think it's worth noting that with his withdrawal from the JCPOA, Trump has completed his abdication of his role as a world leader, and once again put the US in the role of a rogue nation instead of the beacon of success and freedom it was once hailed as by most of the world.

I wasn't even this ashamed to have been born in this country during the Iraq war debacle, and as much as I disagreed with many of Bush's policies, I never even once thought to proclaim that he wasn't my president. But Trump is so far out of the mainstream that its still mystery to me how so many people were duped into voting for him.

History will likely judge this moment as a very dark day, and anyone who still supports him, if they will be honest with themselves, will all come to realize the horrible mistake they have been making in letting this farce of a presidency go on for as long as it has. This isn't, by any stretch, the only mistake that Trump has made, but it should be a wake up call that he cares nothing for historical norms or the rule of law, and makes decisions solely based on hatred and ego.

[gaggedLouise]

Trump made it clear from the start of his campagn that he didn't care for any idea of the US as the moral and political leader of the free world beyond the kind of power projection known as "gunboat diplomacy". He simply isn't invested in any idea of "soft power" and leadership founded on reason, long-term aims and free cooperation - the only kind of leadership he understands is that of raw force or being able to shut the mouth up nof another country. Yes, his withdrawal from the Iran agreement is one of the clearest expressions of this yet.

He's also not interested in trying to be logically or intellectually consistent, or even basically truthful. I think one of the main reasons for him to break with this deal was its being negotiated under Obama. Trump clearly wants to be the Un-Obama, to erase signature reforms, policy deals and statements of the Obama years, so for that personal reason he had to discard this deal - and mock it in public.

[elone]

In fact I would agree with that last point, but I still think it's worth noting that with his withdrawal from the JCPOA, Trump has completed his abdication of his role as a world leader, and once again put the US in the role of a rogue nation instead of the beacon of success and freedom it was once hailed as by most of the world.

One can only hope that the rest of the world will stand up to him and the power of the US. More and more Trump is destroying everything that Obama created. He campaigned on getting rid of the Iran "deal" and now has done so. He has surrounded himself with neocons who would be happy to go to war with Iran or in the least create regime change. Now the US, as you say, has become another rogue nation and joined Israel as having no respect for law or international affairs. This is much like the start of the Iraq war. Next it will be weapons of mass destruction accusations.

[Oniya]

Other than the 'Obama did it, so I'm going to un-do it' reason - which I doubt he's floating publicly, what is his beef with it?  I did a basic review of the terms, and you'd think the 'we can inspect your facilities and determine if you're really compliant' thing would be a pretty powerful tool.

[Deamonbane]

I may be paranoid, but I'm smelling Russian involvement.

[gaggedLouise]

Other than the 'Obama did it, so I'm going to un-do it' reason - which I doubt he's floating publicly, what is his beef with it?  I did a basic review of the terms, and you'd think the 'we can inspect your facilities and determine if you're really compliant' thing would be a pretty powerful tool.

He thinks they're always going to cheat the US and run an extensive atomic bomb programme underground anyway. I bet he thinks Saddam did the same in the years before the Iraq war.  It's like those US general staff people (General LeMay, for instance) who opposed the Test Ban treaty with the argument that "if we sign this, the Russians are going to test their nukes in secret. - Where? - They'll test them on the dark side of the moon!" (recalled by Robert McNamara in the film The Fog of War)  ;)

Also, he doesn't want the US to be restricted by treaties signed together with allies. I think he's basically against multilateral treaties, he prefers to do it one-on-one, or the US alone writing the entire rulebook and imposing it on everybody else.

[Formless]

I'm rather intrigued by this topic. As an individual who lives in a neighbouring country to Iran, how is this a terrible step?

[Lustful Bride]

I'm rather intrigued by this topic. As an individual who lives in a neighbouring country to Iran, how is this a terrible step?

Well the deal trump backed out of allowed International inspectors to go in and inspect facilities. While Iran could be building weapons in secret, having people walking around and look does make it harder. Now this will be made more of a problem if Iran really does try enriching uranium to weapons grade.

[Formless]

Well the deal trump backed out of allowed International inspectors to go in and inspect facilities. While Iran could be building weapons in secret, having people walking around and look does make it harder. Now this will be made more of a problem if Iran really does try enriching uranium to weapons grade.

I see.

Though the EU is still involved with the deal, no?

[Lustful Bride]

I see.

Though the EU is still involved with the deal, no?

Yes but without a major player itl be a decreased position. Plus there is also Russia sticking its fingers in everything and they might see Iran as an ally in the region and support it in turn for their interests.

[Formless]

Yes but without a major player itl be a decreased position. Plus there is also Russia sticking its fingers in everything and they might see Iran as an ally in the region and support it in turn for their interests.

That makes it much clearer.

Thank you, Lustful Bride.

[Lustful Bride]

That makes it much clearer.

Thank you, Lustful Bride.

You are welcome.

[Oniya]

Yes but without a major player itl be a decreased position. Plus there is also Russia sticking its fingers in everything and they might see Iran as an ally in the region and support it in turn for their interests.

I was surprised that T. would give up that 'major player' status.  Diva that he is and all.

[Lustful Bride]

I was surprised that T. would give up that 'major player' status.  Diva that he is and all.

Yeah, probably because his puppet master told him to pull out and continue to weaken US internally as well as its positon in the world while he rebuilds the soviet Union. I'm sure he would give T a nice pat on the head if he manages to get the US out of NATO.

[Tolvo]

I guess it shouldn't be too surprising given Trump's views and slogans of America First.

[Vekseid]

Yeah, probably because his puppet master told him to pull out and continue to weaken US internally as well as its positon in the world while he rebuilds the soviet Union. I'm sure he would give T a nice pat on the head if he manages to get the US out of NATO.

I don't think this is even a Trump thing. The Republicans opposed this pretty hard, as does the Israel lobby. Putin is not the mastermind behind everything - the world has a lot of players and Trump is getting played by a lot of powerful people.

[Missy]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised of Trump just decided to watch Nyetenahu's presentation and jumped to conclusions based solely on that. It would fit in his character, he falls on the lowest end of human intelligence, I only half joke that he measures IQ's the way he measures his favorite sport.

[gaggedLouise]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised of Trump just decided to watch Nyetenahu's presentation and jumped to conclusions based solely on that. It would fit in his character, he falls on the lowest end of human intelligence, I only half joke that he measures IQ's the way he measures his favorite sport.

Me neither, but of course Netanyahu is a close ally of Trump's and I think Trump had already decided way back that Iran were cheating or trying to cheat on the deal.

Iranian president Rouhani hinted that they will remain within the deal for now, and several top people from various EU countries pledged to try to come up with a package that would make this sustainable over time - one critical point will be how far Trump is determined to sanction European (and other western or Russian) companies and government agencies that continue trading with Iran.

[RedRose]

Methinks Europe will either bail out, or just be around and not too involved. Many people there just support or opposite it because they like or hate Trump, or for personal reasons...

[midnightblack]

Methinks Europe will either bail out, or just be around and not too involved. Many people there just support or opposite it because they like or hate Trump, or for personal reasons...

If you're referring to the nuclear agreement, I think the common interest of both Iran and Europe is to keep it going, due to the simple reason that there's a lot of money involved, which I don't think was the case with the US.

What worries me is that, as much of an unqualified clown as Trump may seem to be, I still don't think that such decisions come on a whim, without the back-up of intelligence services. Probably something fishy and very serious is happening in Iran.

[Sara Nilsson]

If you're referring to the nuclear agreement, I think the common interest of both Iran and Europe is to keep it going, due to the simple reason that there's a lot of money involved, which I don't think was the case with the US.

What worries me is that, as much of an unqualified clown as Trump may seem to be, I still don't think that such decisions come on a whim, without the back-up of intelligence services. Probably something fishy and very serious is happening in Iran.

Then why is he the only one acting on it? Sorry I am not buying that, I think it is as simple as.. Obama did this, so must be torn down. And Israel is for it so I will do it. (See the move of the embassy).

[midnightblack]

Then why is he the only one acting on it? Sorry I am not buying that, I think it is as simple as.. Obama did this, so must be torn down. And Israel is for it so I will do it. (See the move of the embassy).

I'm afraid the grand schemes of the world elude me, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe he is acting out of spite/stupidity or even being played by anything aside of a very palpable interest. He probably knows exactly what he's doing. And yes, Benny's in it as well. It appears that the shift in global order is tending towards a renewed US-Israel cooperation and a dissolution of the transatlantic partnership.

[gaggedLouise]

I'm afraid the grand schemes of the world elude me, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe he is acting out of spite/stupidity or even being played by anything aside of a very palpable interest. He probably knows exactly what he's doing. And yes, Benny's in it as well. It appears that the shift in global order is tending towards a renewed US-Israel cooperation and a dissolution of the transatlantic partnership.

Nah, he's acting guided by a narrative that he has mentally and politically invested in for years. And Netanyahu is his close ally and friend: that's enough for Trump to trust whatever Netty tosses up into view.

[Lustful Bride]

Saudi Arabia seems worried about Iran now.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/saudi-arabia-set-to-pursue-nuclear-weapons-if-iran-restarts-program/ar-AAx24Au?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

Its both funny and sad that the current state of the world is matching the Endwar novels, the UK separating from the EU, Russia becoming the power it once was, Iran and SA both threatening to go nuclear and the US alienating itself from the EU and its former allies. Either life imitating art, or we really are just that predictable as a species.

[Iniquitous]

Saudi Arabia seems worried about Iran now.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/saudi-arabia-set-to-pursue-nuclear-weapons-if-iran-restarts-program/ar-AAx24Au?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

Its both funny and sad that the current state of the world is matching the Endwar novels, the UK separating from the EU, Russia becoming the power it once was, Iran and SA both threatening to go nuclear and the US alienating itself from the EU and its former allies. Either life imitating art, or we really are just that predictable as a species.

We humans are that damn predictable.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Though the EU is still involved with the deal, no?

Yes but without a major player itl be a decreased position. Plus there is also Russia sticking its fingers in everything and they might see Iran as an ally in the region and support it in turn for their interests.

One thing to add here is that - at least to me - it seems unclear how it would play out if the Americans impose new sanctions, but the other signatories of the JCPOA don't want to play along. If the U.S. imposes new sanctions and European companies still do business with Iran, the U.S. might take steps to prevent those companies from doing business with/in the U.S. on those grounds. It's been quite a few years now since I had any (very peripheral) involvement with such matters, but I think it would not be completely unheard of.

[gaggedLouise]

One thing to add here is that - at least to me - it seems unclear how it would play out if the Americans impose new sanctions, but the other signatories of the JCPOA don't want to play along. If the U.S. imposes new sanctions and European companies still do business with Iran, the U.S. might take steps to prevent those companies from doing business with/in the U.S. on those grounds. It's been quite a few years now since I had any (very peripheral) involvement with such matters, but I think it would not be completely unheard of.

Yes, right. Trump and the US could go really far and sanction all European companies doing business with Iran _ in so far as they're also doing business with American corporations, or the US state. Or even further - most of these Europan-side corporations manage much of their loans and international assets in dollars, and often through U.S. banks and financial operators. So if Trump decides to punish anyone and everyone who is trading with Iran, and who also manage anything through U.S. banks and the like, then it could block most of Iran's trade with Europe all over again. Question is, is he really going to challenge his NATO allies in that head-on way, and would he risk a two-front trade war with Europe and China?

[Cassandra LeMay]

Question is, is he really going to challenge his NATO allies in that head-on way, and would he risk a two-front trade war with Europe and China?

Before we can even try to answer this question we would have to define what his objectives are, and that might be difficult. But Trump did call NATO obsolete, so I would not count too much on him giving a flying [fill in the blank] about NATO allies.

But what I think we can say about Trump with some confidence is that he likes to look good in public. Backpedalling under pressure does not make him look good, therefore he wont.

My best guess is that - should pressure mount - he will kick this over to Congress and wait for them to do nothing, just like he did with DACA. That way he can paint himself as having taken decisive action while "the swamp" did nothing.

[gaggedLouise]

Trump says the Iran nuclear deal was no good and gave Tehran a fat chance to continue the march towards nuclear weapons and missiles, so he's scrapping it - yet officials around him at the White House are clearly saying inspections should continue and that Iran is obliged to open its doors for them, at all its sites - including to teams with American inspectors, I presume. Even Trump himself said this in a speech on Thursday. So Trump is openly rejecting Iran's offer of cooperation, yet he still wants inspections to go on.

I figure the Iranians are likely to see this as a further insult.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_says_Iran_nuclear_inspections_must_continue_999.html

Days after the US president walked away from a three-year-old deal that mandated rigorous scrutiny of Iranian facilities, senior administration officials said monitoring should continue regardless.

Known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the deal between Tehran and major world powers forces Iran to open any site to inspectors within 24 days at most and introduced 24-hour remote surveillance at some sites. Supporters of the Obama-era accord argue it provided "the world's most robust" monitoring regime, allowing access to the Islamic republic's most sensitive nuclear sites.

Speaking at a rally in Indiana on Thursday Trump said tough inspections were still needed.

"We must be able to go to a site and check that site. We have to be able to go into their military bases to see whether or not they're cheating," he said.

The White House is demanding the existing inspection regime, however imperfect, continue under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog.

"We expect Iran will continue to implement the Additional Protocol and cooperate with the IAEA whether or not the JCPOA remains in place," one senior administration official said.

isn't this a plain case of "wanting to eat the cake but still keeping it in the fridge"?

[Lustful Bride]

Iran's reactions to this really aren't winning them any points. Their sudden rush to build Nuclear Fuel on a high scale ironically makes turmp's actions look somewhat justified.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-preps-industrial-scale-nuke-production-after-us-leaves-nuclear-deal/ar-AAx8ieq?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

[gaggedLouise]

Iran's reactions to this really aren't winning them any points. Their sudden rush to build Nuclear Fuel on a high scale ironically makes turmp's actions look somewhat justified.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-preps-industrial-scale-nuke-production-after-us-leaves-nuclear-deal/ar-AAx8ieq?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

Nuclear fuel could well mean civilian reactor fuel, rather than bomb fuel (high-enriched plutonium, etc).  If the deal is in danger of breaking down there's nothing strange or irrational about Iran wanting to secure a good supply of their own of ordinary reactor fuel. The kind of fuel used in civilian energy reactors and atomic bombs has some overlap, but they're not the same.

I think it's partly a war of words at this point. The Iranian leadership would feel that Trump is trying to kick them out of what was at least a decently fair deal, reached after years of economic warfare and suspicions by the US, and that he's also threatening to bully everyone else to join his side. Of course they don't want to be seen as just standing by a deal if Trump poisons the well and makes sure the deal would give them nothing but more poverty.

[Lustful Bride]

Nuclear fuel could well mean civilian reactor fuel, rather than bomb fuel (high-enriched plutonium, etc).  If the deal is in danger of breaking down there's nothing strange or irrational about Iran wanting to secure a good supply of their own of ordinary reactor fuel. The kind of fuel used in civilian energy reactors and atomic bombs has some overlap, but they're not the same.

I think it's partly a war of words at this point. The Iranian leadership would feel that Trump is trying to kick them out of what was at least a decently fair deal, reached after years of economic warfare and suspicions by the US, and that he's also threatening to bully everyone else to join his side. Of course they don't want to be seen as just standing by a deal if Trump poisons the well and makes sure the deal would give them nothing but more poverty.

The way I look at it, is a person who is suspected of doing narcotics suddenly buying a large amount of medication and a chemistry set. It could be used for innocent purposes, but it could not. By buying all of that though they are giving police probable cause to suspect they are up to something nefarious.

If I'm suspected of murder I'm not gonna buy a gun. :/

[gaggedLouise]

The way I look at it, is a person who is suspected of doing narcotics suddenly buying a large amount of medication and a chemistry set. It could be used for innocent purposes, but it could not. By buying all of that though they are giving police probable cause to suspect they are up to something nefarious.

If I'm suspected of murder I'm not gonna buy a gun. :/

Yes, but IIRC the idea with the Iran deal was that Iran would get much of its supply of *enriched* fuel (uranium) for ordinary, civilian reactors from Europe and Russia and place a hard limit on their own enrichment of uranium - in exchange for steady inspections of its own nuclear facilities, reactors and research labs. We're talking about civilian fuel here: nuclear fuel has to be enriched to be used in an energy reactor too, it's just that weapons-grade nuke fuel is often further enriched (and some other elements, like plutonium and so on). If the deal would break down and this "loop of enrichment" is cut after a while (or severely diminished) there's nothing strange in them deciding to up their own enrichment instead. That in itself doesn't mean they'd have to be planning for a bomb.

Iran has lots of oil, but it makes sense for them from an economic point of view to want to cut down on using oil for energy and switch to nuclear energy instead. It would improve both their economy and their technology, so in that sense I don't see anything strange in Iran wanting civilian atomic energy.

Also, every country that has atomic research going is careful to treat it with some secrecy. It's a bit of a state secret everywhere, no matter if they're aiming for civilian energy or nuclear arms. You just don't let foreigners, journalists or watchdogs in everywhere. The US would probably never accept unlimited UN inspections at some of its nuclear research sites even if these sites had nothing to do with producing weapons-grade plutonium. It's like, you keep your cards very close to your chest in this game. So if Iran (or Iraq before 2003) refuses access to some sites it can't be taken as proof that those sites have to be about nuclear weapons research or production of weapons-grade plutonium.

[Lustful Bride]

Yes, but IIRC the idea with the Iran deal was that Iran would get much of its supply of *enriched* fuel (uranium) for ordinary, civilian reactors from Europe and Russia and place a hard limit on their own enrichment of uranium - in exchange for steady inspections of its own nuclear facilities, reactors and research labs. We're talking about civilian fuel here: nuclear fuel has to be enriched to be used in an energy reactor too, it's just that weapons-grade nuke fuel is often further enriched (and some other elements, like plutonium and so on). If the deal would break down and this "loop of enrichment" is cut after a while (or severely diminished) there's nothing strange in them deciding to up their own enrichment instead. That in itself doesn't mean they'd have to be planning for a bomb.

Iran has lots of oil, but it makes sense for them from an economic point of view to want to cut down on using oil for energy and switch to nuclear energy instead. It would improve both their economy and their technology, so in that sense I don't see anything strange in Iran wanting civilian atomic energy.

Also, every country that has atomic research going is careful to treat it with some secrecy. It's a bit of a state secret everywhere, no matter if they're aiming for civilian energy or nuclear arms. You just don't let foreigners, journalists or watchdogs in everywhere. The US would probably never accept unlimited UN inspections at some of its nuclear research sites even if these sites had nothing to do with producing weapons-grade plutonium. It's like, you keep your cards very close to your chest in this game. So if Iran (or Iraq before 2003) refuses access to some sites it can't be taken as proof that those sites have to be about nuclear weapons research or production of weapons-grade plutonium.

I suppose, but still, if they have so much oil they could just switch to that until hostilities and tensions pass, to show they are not aggressors.

[Sara Nilsson]

Possible they also want to show the world.. look without the agreement this is what we can do and are prepared to do. Wouldn't it be better to keep the old agreement?

[Lustful Bride]

Possible they also want to show the world.. look without the agreement this is what we can do and are prepared to do. Wouldn't it be better to keep the old agreement?

Again making them look untrustworthy. "Give us what we want or else we will keep building nuclear fuel, and who knows what else we might make?"

[gaggedLouise]

I suppose, but still, if they have so much oil they could just switch to that until hostilities and tensions pass, to show they are not aggressors.

They want to sell it abroad instead, they're no more keen on wrapping their country in an oil smog than any country in Europe, or California. Frankly I think using oil to produce electricity is a waste, it doesn't make sense at all in the long run (and it helps aggravate the climate crisis, too!). Though I agree the Iranian leadership probably don't put climate change at the top of their priorities...  ;)

Their population has been growing massively over the last thirty years, I don't think they feel they can just sit around burning oil indefinitely, being blocked from exporting it in most places and waiting for sanctions to be lifted.

Possible they also want to show the world.. look without the agreement this is what we can do and are prepared to do. Wouldn't it be better to keep the old agreement?

Precisely - they are a proud nation and they don't want to look like they're sinking to their knees in the face of Trump and others.

[Sara Nilsson]

Again making them look untrustworthy. "Give us what we want or else we will keep building nuclear fuel, and who knows what else we might make?"

I disagree. The one that looks untrustworthy in all of this is Trump and USA. Doesn't bode well for any agreement with North Korea with a track record of pissing on any agreements at the drop of a hat.

[gaggedLouise]

I disagree. The one that looks untrustworthy in all of this is Trump and USA. Doesn't bode well for any agreement with North Korea with a track record of pissing on any agreements at the drop of a hat.

Yes, I agree. Trump and Kim are both of them unreliable, but Trump is even feckless - and still determined to negotiate only when it seems to be from a position of strength.

[Lustful Bride]

I disagree. The one that looks untrustworthy in all of this is Trump and USA. Doesn't bode well for any agreement with North Korea with a track record of pissing on any agreements at the drop of a hat.

Meh, I suppose.

[elone]

Again making them look untrustworthy. "Give us what we want or else we will keep building nuclear fuel, and who knows what else we might make?"

Iran has totally dismantled all of their nuclear activities. The entire world with the exception of Israel and the US is fine with the agreement and sees Iran as living up to the treaty. It is interesting to note that Iran has signed onto the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and vowed to never make a nuclear devices. Israel has never done so, refused to do so, built untold nuclear weapons, and on top of that they have never signed up to curtail chemical or biological weapons as well.
Both of which they have produced. So why are we picking on Iran?

Iran has never attacked or invaded their neighbors for hundreds of years. Their only war in recent times was against Iraq, who invaded them. Can the US say the same?

[Hades]

Iran may not have attacked another country directly since the 80s, when Iraq was the aggressor, but they have acted hostile in the region since the revolutions in the 70s to overthrow the US and UK-backed Shah.  Both they and Saudi Arabia have used proxies across the region for decades as old grudges of Sunni vs Shia and Arab vs Persian continue to play out.

I think the driving force behind Trump pulling out of the agreement is ultimately the sense that it was Obama's highest profile foreign policy act, and so it had to be undone.  Just as he did with the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), the Paris climate accord, with almost every environmental policy change or LGBT protection that Obama put in place, Trump and his most ardent supporters are trying to make it seem as if there was no other present between George W. Bush and the Mango Manchild. 

Trump had it in his mind to scrap the deal on the campaign trail, when he lied about how the US gave Iran billions of dollars.  The implication being that the US paid a bribe to Iran to get their cooperation, rather than the truth of the matter which is that the US had seized that money in a prior round of sanctions and was returning money essentially stolen from the Iranian coffers.   Some of the analysts I've read on this suggests that it was only the moderating influence of Defense Secretary Matthis and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMasters that persuaded Trump not to tear it up the first opportunity he had.  Now that McMasters has been replaced by John "Never Met a War I Won't Approve" Bolton....It was a bit troubling to hear how similar the rhetoric leading up to the US invasion of Iraq was to what we're hearing now.   I mean, Herr Cheeto even said that Iran was supporting al-Qaeda.  Keep in mind that al-Qaeda is a sunni terrorist group (like Saudi Arabia), while Iran is shia.  Iran would have as much incentive to work with them as they would Isis.

[elone]

The democratically elected premier of Iran, Mossadegh had sought to audit the documents of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now part of BP) and to limit the company's control over Iranian oil reserves. Upon the refusal of the AIOC to co-operate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and to expel foreign corporate representatives from the country.(Wikipedia)

The CIA backed and probably caused the revolution that put the Shah in power in the 1950's. It was all about oil. After the Shah took power, backed by the US, 40% of Iranian oil reserves were signed over to mostly US and British companies.

Now Trump has backed out of an agreement. Is it any wonder that Iran does not trust the West and seeks to have more control in the region?

[TheHighwayHitman]

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is.

A country that literally seeks the destruction of all of Israel, whose "moderates" burn the American flag and chant for the destruction of America, who other Arabic nations don't even like, wants to build a nuclear arsenal, and uses American dollars to build up a military is not a good thing!

By backing out of the deal, Trump isn't saying "Death to Iran!" He's saying, "We're not doing business with you. It isn't in our best interests."

If a shop owner announces, "I hate liberals! Death to you and all your Jew friends!" You're not going to do business with them. You're going to go to the next place that is friendly.

The best thing Obama's deal did was put Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE, and Egypt together in a defector, quasi-stable alliance against Iran, whose intelligence network is very capable of filtering out Russian (or Chinese) involvement, as well as solidify cooperation with the United States. Putting Iran against the ropes by withdrawing from a deal that isn't (And wasnt) incredibly popular to begin with (in America) for anyone who wasn't sipping the Obama/CNN soda is a good thing!

It's amazingly mind boggling to see the amount of venom people who have no better solution, who wouldn't leave America if they could, have for a president who *gasp* isn't doing that bad of a job.

I mean, Trump is no Obama.

I withdraw from so many of these arguments because bashing my brain into my steering wheel has more sense to it. I had to stop with the gun debate because the writing was literally on the wall. "No. You can't stop all gun violence unless you remove all guns and even that isn't likely to work. No. Don't waste your time trying. No. You can't classify some guns as good or some guns as bad. If You're okay with someone being shot by a shotgun but not an AR-15, your stance on firearms leaves something to be desired anyway. Contrary to what some want to believe, the United States is one of the few (if not only) countries in the whole world that was founded with the right for the civilian population to be armed. That right is what defends all others. If you say that is no longer valid then you're suggesting others may also be invalid."

I glanced at this thread because of the topic. I was wondering what the 45th president did wrong now. I assumed he strangled puppies or something.

Nope. He defended Israel by way of withdrawing from a bad deal where Iran predictably revealed It's true colors and feelings. Somehow this translates to a margin of, "He's not my president! I'm ashamed of being American and a part of the free world!" Or "What a terrible, stupid, Russian backed thing to do!"

Am I really the only one here who can throw up the metaphoric stop sign and say, "Hold on a minute. Explain how funding Iran (and giving it access to uranium/plutonium) so it can build nuclear devices and a conventional military whose primary purpose is the destruction of Israel, followed by the subjugation of other Islamic nations was ever a good idea!"

"But Palestine!"

"But Palestine was a British territory, and before that, part of the Ottoman Empire, and had long been a cultural place where Jews existed!"

"But Israel attacked!"

"Defended itself. And gave back what it took, time and again. And even if it didn't, you know which Palestinians are the most well off and the happiest? The ones living in Israel. The income of Israeli Palestinians vs those not in Israel speak for themselves."

"But Underdog!"

"Nobody in the middle East is a bigger underdog than Israel! If Israel were to lay down all arms, retire all military, and never fight again, what would happen? The extermination of Jewish people, rape, torture, murder, etc. If the Islamic countries were to lay down all arms, retire their military, and never fight again, what would happen? Within weeks there would be peace in the middle east."

I'm challenging the narrative that Trump did something awful here. I want to know. Should the United States really be doing business with Iran? Is supporting an enemy of an ally by assisting their nuclear program really a good idea? Does Israel not have the right to exist? Is unifying Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel into the very least, a temporary alliance not a good thing for the middle east?

I want to know why this is a reason to hate on Trump instead of saying, "You know what? He actually got one right."

[Lustful Bride]

Because this is trump trying to get brownie points at the cost of throwing a tantrum and alienating us from our allies and inflaming an already unstable region with more violence and anti American sentiment.

[Oniya]

I think the issue is that, under the agreement, we had the opportunity to inspect the Iranian facilities to see what they were doing, with the option to impose sanctions if they didn't let us do so.  By backing out of the agreement, that puts that particular bit of oversight in quite a bit of jeopardy.  Since we're no longer part of the agreement, Iran can say 'STFU, Great Satan - we don't have to let you into our facilities!'  (They still call us that, right?  They used to, back in the 80's...)

At which point, they could be setting up weapons-grade enrichment without any oversight whatsoever.

[TheHighwayHitman]

I don't buy trying to earn brownie points by alienating us. Who exactly are we alienated from? I'm not even sure that pushing Iran between a rock and a hard place is destabilizing the area. It's already unstable. The stability comes from Israel, Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia all functioning on the same page for a change. I might be more open to the idea except that the first two things Iran did was burn the American flag calling for the destruction and sic Syrian terrorists on Israel with a very open and blunt threat of war. The ones throwing the temper tantrum are the Iranians because Trump basically said, "This agreement made with Obama? It sucked so bad that he couldn't get the Congress or Senate to actually make it a treaty. That's how terrible of an idea giving you nuclear material is. No."

Oni, while I can respect the desire to deal with Iranian weapons inspections civilly, I don't believe it actually matters. These are a) the same people trying to find WMDs in Iraq and b) not actually going to stop Iran from developing the technology or weapons. Look at it like this. Best case scenario is they don't. So they didn't need the America dollar or nuclear materials anyway. Worst case is that they do develop weapons. Then what? War? War with a hostile Islamic faction that not only wants to destroy the US, but Israel too?

[Oniya]

Oni, while I can respect the desire to deal with Iranian weapons inspections civilly, I don't believe it actually matters. These are a) the same people trying to find WMDs in Iraq and b) not actually going to stop Iran from developing the technology or weapons. Look at it like this. Best case scenario is they don't. So they didn't need the America dollar or nuclear materials anyway. Worst case is that they do develop weapons. Then what? War? War with a hostile Islamic faction that not only wants to destroy the US, but Israel too?

Actually, my point is that while we had the inspections, we had some idea of what was going on.  Yeah, there was the carrot/stick of economic sanctions (or removal of such), but the important part was the 'eyes on the ground', as it were.

[Lustful Bride]

Actually, my point is that while we had the inspections, we had some idea of what was going on.  Yeah, there was the carrot/stick of economic sanctions (or removal of such), but the important part was the 'eyes on the ground', as it were.

And at least a united front with out Euro allies, instead of Trump's current attitude of "Allies? We don't need no allies! Let me alienate them as much as possible and burn down bridges that took literal centuries of work to build!"

[elone]

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is.

A country that literally seeks the destruction of all of Israel, whose "moderates" burn the American flag and chant for the destruction of America, who other Arabic nations don't even like, wants to build a nuclear arsenal, and uses American dollars to build up a military is not a good thing!

By backing out of the deal, Trump isn't saying "Death to Iran!" He's saying, "We're not doing business with you. It isn't in our best interests."

If a shop owner announces, "I hate liberals! Death to you and all your Jew friends!" You're not going to do business with them. You're going to go to the next place that is friendly.

The best thing Obama's deal did was put Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE, and Egypt together in a defector, quasi-stable alliance against Iran, whose intelligence network is very capable of filtering out Russian (or Chinese) involvement, as well as solidify cooperation with the United States. Putting Iran against the ropes by withdrawing from a deal that isn't (And wasnt) incredibly popular to begin with (in America) for anyone who wasn't sipping the Obama/CNN soda is a good thing!

It's amazingly mind boggling to see the amount of venom people who have no better solution, who wouldn't leave America if they could, have for a president who *gasp* isn't doing that bad of a job.

I mean, Trump is no Obama.

I withdraw from so many of these arguments because bashing my brain into my steering wheel has more sense to it. I had to stop with the gun debate because the writing was literally on the wall. "No. You can't stop all gun violence unless you remove all guns and even that isn't likely to work. No. Don't waste your time trying. No. You can't classify some guns as good or some guns as bad. If You're okay with someone being shot by a shotgun but not an AR-15, your stance on firearms leaves something to be desired anyway. Contrary to what some want to believe, the United States is one of the few (if not only) countries in the whole world that was founded with the right for the civilian population to be armed. That right is what defends all others. If you say that is no longer valid then you're suggesting others may also be invalid."

I glanced at this thread because of the topic. I was wondering what the 45th president did wrong now. I assumed he strangled puppies or something.

Nope. He defended Israel by way of withdrawing from a bad deal where Iran predictably revealed It's true colors and feelings. Somehow this translates to a margin of, "He's not my president! I'm ashamed of being American and a part of the free world!" Or "What a terrible, stupid, Russian backed thing to do!"

Am I really the only one here who can throw up the metaphoric stop sign and say, "Hold on a minute. Explain how funding Iran (and giving it access to uranium/plutonium) so it can build nuclear devices and a conventional military whose primary purpose is the destruction of Israel, followed by the subjugation of other Islamic nations was ever a good idea!"

"But Palestine!"

"But Palestine was a British territory, and before that, part of the Ottoman Empire, and had long been a cultural place where Jews existed!"

"But Israel attacked!"

"Defended itself. And gave back what it took, time and again. And even if it didn't, you know which Palestinians are the most well off and the happiest? The ones living in Israel. The income of Israeli Palestinians vs those not in Israel speak for themselves."

"But Underdog!"

"Nobody in the middle East is a bigger underdog than Israel! If Israel were to lay down all arms, retire all military, and never fight again, what would happen? The extermination of Jewish people, rape, torture, murder, etc. If the Islamic countries were to lay down all arms, retire their military, and never fight again, what would happen? Within weeks there would be peace in the middle east."

I'm challenging the narrative that Trump did something awful here. I want to know. Should the United States really be doing business with Iran? Is supporting an enemy of an ally by assisting their nuclear program really a good idea? Does Israel not have the right to exist? Is unifying Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel into the very least, a temporary alliance not a good thing for the middle east?

I want to know why this is a reason to hate on Trump instead of saying, "You know what? He actually got one right."

The problem is that Iran is a country that is just trying to remain in the region without directly attacking its neighbors and remain a country that is relevant the middle east.. Americans have overthrown the elected government of Iran. So why would you think that they would not be against America. Are they supposed to be our friends?  Who but the US and Israel has forcibly attacked nations in the Middle East?

The only countries that see the Iran deal as bad are the US and Israel. Europe and the rest of the world are all for the agreement because it allows inspections of facilities and deters Iran from pursuing nuclear arms.

Israel has pursued nuclear weapons and never signed any agreement to not do so

Trump is a joke. The man has no clue of how to run a nation or anything else. He surrounds himself with those that support his little mind and fires those that don’t.

As for Israel and Palestine. In 1948 Israel was given a territory by the UN. It became such through terrorism against the British who washed their hands of the entire problem. The Israeli’s immediately set forth to expel the Palestinians, some 750,000, to Syria, Jordan, and Gaza. The Jews at the time were a minority of the region. They terrorized the native people to leave and never allowed them to return to their villages. Thus we have today, the people of Gaza demonstrating for the right to return, which was guaranteed by the United Nations shortly after the Nakba.

What exactly has Israel returned? Some of the Sinai to Egypt, but what about  the rest of Palestine,  the West Bank, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights, all of the land given to the Palestinians in the partition plan of the UN? Israel has taken it all.

Israel is no underdog. They have nuclear weapons. Never signed the Non Proliferation Treaty. Never signed any agreement to ban chemical or biological weapons, all of which they have in their arsenal. So why has the US not attacked them as they did Iraq, who had nothing.

Israel has never declared their borders, they have no constitution. So how are they an underdog? They get billions a year for the US for weapons systems, they get submarines from Germany, and have the most advanced armies in the Middle East.

So you believe that the Israelis would be subject to rape, torture, murder, etc? How about the Palestinians, who since 1948 were raped, killed, tortured, been disposed of their land, and even today are murdered, have no rights, have their land stolen and are subject to different laws than Israelis.

Israel is a racist regime that sees Palestinians as some inferior Arab race which they would prefer to exile from all the lands between the sea and Jordan or further. Just listen to Netanyahu, who is beyond even Trump for lies and deception.

If the Islamic countries laid down their arms, Israel would take their countries and declare it all as Ersatz Israel. Just as they have done with Palestine, who by the way, they say never existed. Just as there is no evidence of an Exodus from Egypt or a King David, for that matter.

So, yes, Trump did everything wrong and continues to do so.

[RedPhoenix]

The democratically elected premier of Iran,

Stop.

There's nothing democractic about the elections in Iran.

Women are removed from ballots for being women. Candidates who promote equality for women or homosexuals are removed from the ballots by Iran's all male, all hardline Muslim Council of Elders, who have the power to do so and do so frequently under Iran's laws.

Iran is one of the most hate fueled theocracies on this planet. They execute people for being homosexual. They have curtailed the rights of women to stone age levels. Obama enabled this with his deal (which he signed incidentally without the approval of our legislature - something he as President knew he had to do to make it binding).

The CIA sponsored the overthrow the previous regime in the 70s because we were afraid the Shah would be too socialist. Iran was once a thriving middle eastern country with universities that were nearly the same as American or European campuses, progressive thinking and considerable steps towards equality and freedom.

That's all gone backwards since America decided that the old Iran needed to be sacrificed to the altar of "leading the free world." This extreme fundamentalist government that runs the country now is the result of our interference. The last thing we should be doing is enabling their arms build up by giving them money to fund their conventional weapons program.

Iran is not unique in this. Half the nations in Africa and Central America that experienced turmoil did it because the United States deliberately destabilized them out of fear of socialist influence. That is the price of securing "the free world" (which has only ever meant North America and Europe), one that liberals once thought was too high of a price to pay. We used to say we don't sacrifice the humanity of three quarters of the planet to ensure the prosperity of the white parts. Now apparently doing the complete opposite is the liberal party line and that's disgusting.

Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to brutalize its own people or cause unrest and violence throughout the Middle East - which it has happily done ever since the United States gave it a pat on the head and said do whatever you like just don't go nuclear.

Of course Israel opposes this. Israel has been threatened by Iran's hardliners since the time Israel existed. The Jews have been faced with the most violent and frequently expressed prejudice in the history of this planet. They have a right to want to defend themselves. The excuse constantly used by Iran to hate the USA is that our government is run by Jews (an accusation that you used to see echoed by the extreme right wing Americans, now it pops up more frequently on the other side). They're the target here. They aren't confused about this, the rest of us shouldn't be either.

The country most threatened by a nuclear Iran is Israel. That they think this was a horrible deal should tell you everything you need to know. If South Korea was screaming bloody murder about a deal we made with North Korea we'd listen (they aren't incidentally, they're singing Trump's praises). Obama should have listened to Israel about this.

How a CIA-installed hate fueled theocracy that executes homosexuals, removes women from it's ballots, denies basic rights to anyone who isn't the right religion and gender became a darling of so called liberals is beyond me. The Democratic Party I grew up with would have rioted at the idea of cutting a deal with such a nightmarish partner.

Withdrawing from this agreement is the first thing he's done that I can honestly say I support 100% and it's absolutely nuts to me that people are trying to act like this is some sort of catastrophe.

Obama agreed to this deal with Iran without congressional support. Based on the laws of our country that made the deal vulnerable to withdrawal at any time by the next president because it was never ratified by congress. That's how our rules work and anyone making deals with the USA understands this. We, the United States, didn't lose any credibility here, the person who isn't president anymore who was so egotistical to think the next guy would just keep doing what he started and didn't need the support of elected representatives to get it done did. I know that hurts some people but Obama grew a huge ego and abandoned the people who voted him in and he honestly deserves this, and many other slaps to his legacy.

I'm the last person alive who would give credit to Trump he didn't earn, but acting like everything he does is bad makes you no better than the people who blindly support him.

[RedPhoenix]

Bah sorry, didn't realize you were talking about the 1950s in that quote. I'm sorry that was the wrong line to jump on. My bad. :/

[Eye of Horus]

There is a relatively unbiased essay here on why a US withdrawal from the agreement would be counterproductive.

It doesn’t whitewash the corrupt and opppressive nature of the current Iranian government (I won’t say “more”, “less” or “as” oppressive as any other country, because all oppression is bad), and it doesn’t paint President Rouhani as some kind of liberal hero (although he’s the most internationalist leader Iran is likely to get right now, and this deal failing would encourage the Iranians to kick him out in favour of yet another hardliner). But it does explain why Iran’s genuine reformers and it’s general population will be hurt.

Giving the hard-liners an excuse to dig their heels in and become more paranoid is only going to increase their desire to develop a nuke and / or make some kind of nonsensical attack against Israel.

A recent quote from an ordinary Iranian citizen is telling: “The regime tried for 40 years to make us hate America; now they’ve managed it in a day.”

[elone]

The country most threatened by a nuclear Iran is Israel. That they think this was a horrible deal should tell you everything you need to know. If South Korea was screaming bloody murder about a deal we made with North Korea we'd listen (they aren't incidentally, they're singing Trump's praises). Obama should have listened to Israel about this.

How a CIA-installed hate fueled theocracy that executes homosexuals, removes women from it's ballots, denies basic rights to anyone who isn't the right religion and gender became a darling of so called liberals is beyond me. The Democratic Party I grew up with would have rioted at the idea of cutting a deal with such a nightmarish partner.

What Israel thinks should not be the reason for any actions by the United States or the rest of the world for that matter. Israel swore up and down that overthrowing Iraq would lead to peace throughout the middle east. How did that work out? We did the dirty work to get rid of a government that was absolutely no threat to us. Israel lied about their own nuclear ambitions, they sank the USS LIberty, Israel oppresses and occupies people and land in the West Bank, Golan, and Gaza. Israel assassinates anyone who opposes them all over the world. Israel acts like a right wing theocracy as much as Iran. As a matter of fact, Iran has more Jews living there than in any other middle east country other than Israel. They, Christians and others are free to practice their religion. There are some 60 synagogues in Iran serving about 10.000 jews. Because Jews were repressed and killed throughout history does not give them the right to do that to others.

As a historical note, the CIA did not install the current government of Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary guards overthrew the CIA installed Shah in 1979. The Shah was a ruthless dictator, as are most who we put into power.

I don't sing the praises of Iran or Israel. To me they are both repressive regimes that need to go away. Neither one should have nuclear weapons, but only one does. Only one has signed treaties to not have any. Only one has had sanctions put on them. Only one is cooperating with inspections of their facilities. Only one has not attacked their neighbors. Only one occupies lands of another. Only one has declared borders. Only one allows people to live where ever they please. Only one allows equal rights to those it rules. Only one repeatedly slaughters Gazans. It is not Israel.

[TheGlyphstone]

Only one repeatedly slaughters Gazans. It is not Israel.

Either this is a major typo, or Iran has been doing some really weird shit in Gaza that I haven't heard anything about...

[elone]

Whoa, yes a major typo!!

Should read, Only one does not slaughter Gazans. Better yet, just remove that entire sentence. Sorry.

In addition, I need to correct that Israel did not sink the USS Liberty, they merely attacked it, napalmed it, strafed the lifeboats, and then sent torpedoes into in in hopes it would go down with all hands and no witnesses. The ship survived.

Unfortunately I cannot do a correction here.

[TheHighwayHitman]

@RedPhoenix: Well said.

@EofH: Interesting article. It doesn't actually say that pulling out of the deal was bad. Nor does it put any faith in the EU. I could argue that the context suggests that the nuclear deal was a good idea, but that would be intellectually dishonest because it doesn't really mention it at all. The moral of the article is that Iranians who really want change need to lace up their boots and get to work.

@Oni: I didn't miss your point. I understood it entirely. I was suggesting that it was neither good nor bad, simply a case of why bother? Having American weapons inspectors there is redundant. Either we trust Iran is going to avoid making weapons or we don't. We either trust our allies' inspectors or we don't. Iran isn't going to actually show foreign inspectors what they are really doing. Nobody does. There's nothing stopping them from lying about it. Do you think America let's the rest of the world see what it is truly capable of? Of course not. If we let the world see our drones and tanks and helicopters, etc, what are we hiding up our sleeves? See what I am saying below in response to LustfulBride as it bears relevance.

@LustfulBride: I think there is a big difference between alienating allies and making them handle their business. If a country involved (pick one) can't handle inspecting Iran's weapons or holding up to their own terms of an agreement without the United States holding their proverbial hand, what were they a) involved with the agreement for in the first place and b) really hoping to accomplish?

I find your commentary interesting. Maybe a bit impractical, but interesting. The discussion of America needing allies is a good one, and one I am open too, but I don't look at it on a moral scale. I look at it on a practical scale. As unpopular as it may be to say it, the simple truth Is, what good are scrubby allies? The vast majority of American allies need America more than America needs them. If some... let's just randomly say, France, were to go, "America, we don't need you for anything. At all. Ever again." America can go, "Okay. That's fine." On the other hand, if America were to go, "France. We've got beef. We're done with you." The vast majority of the world sucks in a deep breath and goes, "Oh shit."

The thing I'm trying to explain to you here is that yes, there is something to be said for not burning down every bridge, there is also the reality of give and take. America gives a whole lot more than it takes. The billions and billions in foreign aid that is equal to or greater than entire countries' whole economies says so. Pushing around the U.N. has been a long time coming. I don't see it as problematic so much as simply being tired of rude guests in the house. America pushing around the U.N. is similar to saying, "You want a piece of my cake and the luxury of my roof? Cool. But say thank you, mind your manners, and remember whose roof this really Is, or no cake for you. In fact, now that you want to sit there an pout because you don't like my rules in my own house, go sit over at the kids table while the adults are speaking."

I understand that there are points of contention and entitlement going on with that. I personally believe that there would be some benefit of the US withdrawing from the U.N. for 20 years. I could get into why, but it isn't relevant to this discussion. I'm not suggesting America's behavior with the U.N. is perfect. I'm only pointing out the reality of it because it gives context to my response on your point of alienating allies in the Iran deal. Here goes.

What's wrong with letting American allies handle their own business with Iran? Why does the United States need to hold their hand? For that matter, what is stopping an allied country from going, "We supported America because we're allies, but now that America has a leader that says this deal is nonsense, we're in agreement and are backing out too?" Whats stopping an ally from saying, "It's all good. We can handle this, Iran." I would think, that if Trump was that bad, there would be allies who have the stones to carry on regardless of what he says or does. Or are suggesting other countries can't act without American backing?

@Elone: I'll respond to you in my next post. You bring up some interesting bits, and I'd like to devote all of my attention to responding to you.