On Tuesday, President Trump announced his plans to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement and reinstate sanctions that the U.S. had lifted from Tehran in exchange for dismantling of the nationâs nuclear weapons program.
President Trump, who has called the agreement the âworst deal ever,â also plans to impose more economic penalties on Iran. The president has argued that the deal doesnât address concerns involving Tehranâs ballistic missile program, its nuclear program after the year 2025 or the nationâs role in ongoing struggles in Yemen and Syria.
âThe so-called Iran deal was supposed to protect the United States and our allies from the lunacy of an Iranian nuclear bomb, a weapon that will only endanger the survival of the Iranian regime,â President Trump said. âIn fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and over time reach the brink of a nuclear blackout.â...
Eric Sumner wrote: US President Donald Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement to undo his predecessor Barack Obama's legacy, former Obama administration official Wendy Sherman said Thursday.
"[Trump] pulled out of deal because it was a signature achievement of President Obama's," Sherman said in an interview with Israel's Army Radio, adding that Trump has made a point of walking back many other Obama-era policies...
...During his presidency, Obama commissioned a new weapon, a penetrative bomb, that could destroy Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment facility, Sherman added. The former Obama administration official was seemingly referring to a 30,000-pound, bunker-buster bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) that the US planned to use as a last resort against Iran.
But Obama made clear throughout his presidency that he believed military action would only set Iran back temporarily in its quest for a nuclear weapon. Sherman echoed that sentiment....
Tony, why shouldn't the unofficial 51st state of the United States, unofficially have nuclear arms?
Douglas Birch and R. Jeffrey Smith wrote: ...When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee published a 2008 report titled âChain Reaction: Avoiding a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East,â it included chapters on Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkeyâbut not Israel. The 61-page report relegated Israelâs nuclear arms to a footnote that suggested that Israelâs arsenal was a âperception.â
âThis report does not take a position on the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons,â the report said. âAlthough Israel has not officially acknowledged it possesses nuclear weapons, a widespread consensus exists in the region and among experts in the United States that Israel possesses a number of nuclear weapons. For Israelâs neighbors, this perception is more important than reality.â...
What do you know? David Brooks had some kind words for Donald Trump on handling thugs, including the Iranian onesâ
David Brooks wrote: One of the things you notice with the president is that he comes from a background where basically, in the real estate business, he worked with a lot of thugs and he cultivated a lot of thugs, and he was a little thuggish himself.
But, in my view, that helps him, for all his drawbacks, understand thugs. And so North Korea, he understood that being tough with a thug produces some results. And weâre in a better situation with North Korea than we were otherwise.
But President Obama, the argument he made for it [the Iran treaty], which is that Iran would moderate and become a more familiar member of the company of nations. That has turned out to be clearly false.
They are the most genocidal nation on the face of the earth. They export violence, terror around the earth. And so Trump standing up to them at least has some legitimacy. Itâs possible that he understands people like that better than people who have higher SAT scores. [ ]
Robert Reich wrote: ....Kudlow isnât a Fox News pundit but heâs been the next best thingâa right-wing CNBC contributor known for his sharp wit, simplistic âtrickle-downâ economic views, and salesmanship.
Several other cable news anchors and pundits are already in the Trump administration or will soon be, providing additional heft for Trumpâs marketing strategy.
âHeâs looking for people who are ready to be part of that television White House,â says Kendall Phillips, a communication studies professor at Syracuse University. âThis is the Fox television presidency all the way up and down.â
How can a television presidency be dangerous? Because it is solely about marketing. Its only goal is to win. It is unconstrained by truth, reason, or the Constitution. It doesnât give a fig about the public.
When the occupant of the White House and the sycophants surrounding him are prepared to use anything, including real-world battlesâtrade wars and hot warsâas means to win a political battle at home, nothing and no one is safe.
...and the most serious economic sanctions against them, as well as any other country that aids them. Diplomacy is a joke for countrys that simply want the West dessimated, and Americans obliterated; murdered...every single one of us. There is no hope for peace with these countrys regimes. Even the children are taught to hate westerners from the time they can understand. Finally, a President who, along with his administration, realize that sending cookie baskets, emails begging and pleading with them not to blow us to smithereens, and sending billions of our hard earned, taxpayer cash, has never, and will never make any difference, whatsoever.
Thank you very much. Mullahs were on the ropes before the deal. The Iranian economy was greatly bolstered by the deal, but, Iran never gave up anything but a time table to make the bomb, they were going to make one, since, most likely, North Korea was detonating bombs for Iran anyway.
Was subjected to the liberal press this morning while waiting for an appointment. They are all over this trying to state that it's about the Obama legacy and standing by our allies. One lone voice was trying to be heard that the US gave a bunch of unmarked $$$ to Iran. The big question is one of effectiveness of the agreement. An Iran with nuclear weapons does not seem like a good thing, no matter where you stand on Israel.
Dear Penned, perhaps you misunderstand me. By no means should we be sending billions of tax payer dollars to Iran. But neither is it moral to sell arms to the Saudis and allow them to starve the innocent people of Yeman. I'm also against imposing new sanctions on Iran. Why? because in the end, sanctions only hurt the common people. And contrary to what Bibi and the neo cons think, the last thing on the mind of the average Iranian is not how he can invade America and take away all our rights and freedoms. He's actually much more worried about providing for his family and creating a better future for them. And one last thing, want to know what Italy got in return for following the U.S. like a faithful puppydog during the war in Iraq? Higher gas prices and an immigration crisis that has crippled the nation
Phillip Mezzapelle wrote: Just one more example of how what the U.S. says today, has absolutely no credibility tomorrow. Today's decision will also have repercussions regarding North and South Korea. As I have already stated, if both of those countries are smart, they will try to work out their differences on their own. Without asking Big Brother to get involved.
its monumental that he's got them at the table. just goes to prove previous administrations did not want this.
and it makes sense to reverse obama's policies of bringing nukes to Iran and giving them billions and billions...
why would we do this?
all of you in italy are free to give Iran billions if you think it is the moral thing to do...
Title: 'We've been invaded': Italian mayor slams govt's policy on migrants
but it looks to me from this article that you all are supporting turkey and saudis agenda.
Just one more example of how what the U.S. says today, has absolutely no credibility tomorrow. Today's decision will also have repercussions regarding North and South Korea. As I have already stated, if both of those countries are smart, they will try to work out their differences on their own. Without asking Big Brother to get involved.
Dave Johnson wrote: One thing that should be totally obvious, however, is that itâs off-point and insulting to offer an off-the-shelf lecture on how trade is good because of comparative advantage, and protectionists are dumb. For this is not a trade agreement. Itâs about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharmaceutical companies and firms that want to sue governments.---Paul Krugman
Now, it's obvious that http://tinyurl.com/y8dlyync (The First White President) trying to remove all of Obama's Legacy was not a great idea. Now the Trans-Pacific Pact had serious flaws in it, the Paris Accord really had no teeth in it, but perhaps ignoring the Iranian agreement is not in the United States best interests?
Borzou Daragahi wrote: ... the possibility Tehran could use any U.S. withdrawal from the deal to slowly ramp up its nuclear program if the deal fully falls apart and Europe fails to meet Iranian demands for economic assurances. While Trump said the JCPOA would lead to an nuclear arms race, Iranâs ramping up of enrichment is a more likely spark to such a crisis. In a speech shortly after Trumpâs announcement, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani vowed to stay in the deal, but also said he had ordered officials to prepare for a possible âindustrial-scale enrichmentâ in case Europe and others fail to take steps to ameliorate the U.S. withdrawal....