Iran Crisis is a Direct Result of Trump's Actions

[PhilFish]

Obama was building trust and he put he put a halt to the nuclear progream. Trump completely reversed that.

Except a multi-lateral agreement depends on every party fulfilling their obligations. The US withdrew so now no one owes anyone else.

Which wouldn't have happened if Hillary got elected.

well, history belies that

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf

not to mention the notion of fulfilling obligations.

and, you have no way of knowing what Hillary would or would not.

 

[ObamacareForever]

well, history belies that

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf

not to mention the notion of fulfilling obligations.

Yes, once the US quit fulfilling their obligation, no one in a multi-lateral agreement has any obligations.

and, you have no way of knowing what Hillary would or would not.

So does Trump have an Iran strategy or no?

 

[ObamacareForever]

When you can't inspect all sites the agreement is useless.

Barry Hussein was clowned on the world stage by the Mullahs.

When Trump tore up the agreement he made the world less safe.
Trump's foreign policy is a complete and abject failure. He's a dummy.

 

[PhilFish]

Yes, once the US quit fulfilling their obligation, no one in a multi-lateral agreement has any obligations.

So does Trump have an Iran strategy or no?

i thought we discussed this. seems escalating sanctions is the strategy.

thought that was obvious..

 

[ObamacareForever]

i thought we discussed this. seems escalating sanctions is the strategy.

thought that was obvious..

Is that working?

 

[Nostra]

Is that working?

Yes.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2019/05/22/trumps-iran-sanctions-working-but-itll-take-more-topple-regime/3768073002/

 

[ObamacareForever]

Yes.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2019/05/22/trumps-iran-sanctions-working-but-itll-take-more-topple-regime/3768073002/

last I checked... They restarted their nuclear program, they or their proxies probably just attacked Saudi Arabia, and They ain't the negotiating table.
The world is less safe because Trump is president.

 

[Nostra]

last I checked... They restarted their nuclear program, they or their proxies probably just attacked Saudi Arabia, and They ain't the negotiating table.
The world is less safe because Trump is president.

You obviously didn't read the link.

 

[EatTheRich]

yet the pact remains. yes or no

What are you saying? For an agreement to have any value, all signatories have to keep up their end of the bargain.

 

[EatTheRich]

what does that have to do with anything.

Iran, an oil producing nation, can, presumably, maintain the JCPOA or negotiate at anytime of its choosing.

as it is a sovereign nation, nothing prevents them, but them.

Iran made the concessions it made in that agreement in exchange for concessions by the other signatories including the U.S. Now you are saying they could, if they wanted, continue to keep up their end of the bargain while the U.S. does not?

 

[Bear Claw]

What are you saying? For an agreement to have any value, all signatories have to keep up their end of the bargain.

Trump walked from it!

 

[PhilFish]

What are you saying? For an agreement to have any value, all signatories have to keep up their end of the bargain.

The agreement is non-binding. So what value is there in an agreement if it's non-binding?

I shared an article in an earlier posting that shows clearly Iran's pattern of not adhering to prior agreements. Further their compliance with the jcpoa is unverified. What more do you want?

The US left the agreement. Iran is escalating. If there was any merit to the position that the jcpoa was somehow enforceable or worth its weight then I would think that Iran would not be escalating, wouldn't you?

 

[PhilFish]

Iran made the concessions it made in that agreement in exchange for concessions by the other signatories including the U.S. Now you are saying they could, if they wanted, continue to keep up their end of the bargain while the U.S. does not?

I said with the other signatories of the agreement

 

[voyager]

A direct result of President Cheney's actions.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Trump already revoked the JCPOA while they were in compliance. They have good reason to not negotiate in good faith. They can't trust their counter-party to carry their end of the bargain.

There's no reason for Iran to trust Trump. Even our allies/friends know Trump's word is no good.

 

[Bear Claw]

There's no reason for Iran to trust Trump. Even our allies/friends know Trump's word is no good.

Never trust trump.

 

[EatTheRich]

When you can't inspect all sites the agreement is useless.

Barry Hussein was clowned on the world stage by the Mullahs.

No site was off limits. Iran agreed to more access to inspectors than any other country in world history.

 

[EatTheRich]

You obviously didn't read the link.

The link says Trump’s goal is to get them to negotiate ... guess what, they already did that and gave the U.S. better terms than what Trump hopes to negotiate now.

 

[EatTheRich]

The agreement is non-binding. So what value is there in an agreement if it's non-binding?

I shared an article in an earlier posting that shows clearly Iran's pattern of not adhering to prior agreements. Further their compliance with the jcpoa is unverified. What more do you want?

The US left the agreement. Iran is escalating. If there was any merit to the position that the jcpoa was somehow enforceable or worth its weight then I would think that Iran would not be escalating, wouldn't you?

Among people of honor, it is worth its weight in gold. With Trump, not so. Iran was not “escalating” until the U.S. left the agreement.

 

[EatTheRich]

I said with the other signatories of the agreement

Iran made its concessions in return for the concessions made by ALL the other signatories.

If Iran had been the country to pull out of the deal, would it have been reasonable to expect the U.S. to continue complying?