Poll of the Day > Trump threatens to kill the Iran nuclear deal, but the deal wins - for now.

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/10/13/557616444/trump-threatened-to-kill-the-iran-nuclear-deal-but-the-deal-wins-for-now

President Trump's Iran address creates uncertainty about the long-term survival of the two-year-old nuclear deal. It opens the door to Congress to find ways out of it, even as he threatened yet again to use his power as president to break the deal himself.

But for now, the deal stands with the administration itself acknowledging it's better to have it than to break it.

Instead, the administration says it wants to redefine the U.S. relationship with Iran beyond the nuclear agreement. Trump reviewed Iran's missile tests and support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Iraqi militias that have targeted U.S. troops.

For all his denunciations of the deal, Trump's move Friday is another instance in which he has passed up a chance to break it.

True, he didn't certify the deal again, as he has twice before under a recurring 90-day review stipulation. But that does not take the U.S. out of it.

The certification isn't part of the deal. It's just a requirement Congress put on President Barack Obama to make him own a deal Congress didn't like. Trump's refusal to certify just puts the onus on Congress now to do something about it.

And Trump isn't even asking Congress to take the U.S. out of the deal as it could by imposing the sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran allowing limits on its nuclear program.

It's useful to look at the reason Trump used for not recertifying the deal. Congress gives the president a menu of reasons.

The president could have asserted that Iran is not in compliance. But "We don't dispute that they're under technical compliance," Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters Thursday, before the president made his announcement. (Tillerson did say the requirements for complying aren't strong enough.)

Trump also could have said that the lifting of sanctions part of the deal was no longer vital to U.S. national security. But then how could he reasonably lift the sanctions again when they come up for regular renewal? Trump just waived some again last month, keeping the U.S. in the deal.

In his speech Friday, Trump carefully stated that he refuses to certify the deal because he can't ensure that using phrasing from Congress the sanctions relief in the deal is "appropriate and proportionate" to what Iran gives on its end of the bargain.

Even there, Trump could ask Congress to impose sanctions that would break the deal but he is not. Instead, he is asking for new laws that would snap sanctions in place if Iran tries to ramp up its nuclear program.

The administration has also called for the deal to be renegotiated. But on Thursday, Tillerson acknowledged that's unlikely just as European allies who spent years working on the deal have stressed.

Trump's threats to eventually bring down the deal mean Iran can now blame the U.S. for shaking up an agreement that it is widely seen as complying with and is backed by Europe, Russia, China and the U.N. Security Council. As some backers of the deal worry, it's hardliners in Iran who will benefit most because they will say the moderates were mistaken to make a deal that is about to fall apart because of a fickle and hostile United States.

Meanwhile, Iran will continue to get its sanctions relief and do business with other signatories.

The administration did impose new sanctions (not covered by the deal) Friday on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a wing of Iran's military that trains and backs militias around the region. But the Revolutionary Guard is already heavily sanctioned by the U.S.

European diplomats have been lining up to urge the Trump administration to stay in the deal. They're nervous that an anti-Iran current in Congress could eventually spoil the agreement. And they worry that if the U.S. exits the deal, it could try to punish the companies from Europe that are doing business with Iran.

For now, they can go on developing things like aircraft, auto and oil deals with the Islamic Republic. And Trump's threats have drawn attention to the possibility that Europe and Iran could just continue with the deal and without the U.S.

European countries have shown some more willingness to consider other actions to pressure Iran to rein in its hardliners. That could be because of Trump's threats to scrap the deal.

Threats for future steps may have more impact than anything else Trump did on Iran this week. By staying in the deal, he keeps those threats alive.

And that means Trump can continue to raise Iran as an issue, as he did throughout his campaign and since taking office. That goes over well with his supporters, especially those who recall that the Iran agreement was a hallmark of the Obama administration.

"In the event we are not able to reach a solution working with Congress and our allies, then the agreement will be terminated," Trump said Friday. Considering his efforts to dismantle other Obama legacies like Obamacare or leniency for undocumented child immigrants this could be a step toward eventually pulling the U.S. out of the Iran deal.

Or it could remain a threat, while Trump carefully pairs his denunciations with careful measures to keep the deal in place.

Lol he seems so wise now to act with caution!

Given that it was an awful deal where they gave up a lot and got very little in return, his inability to renegotiate is a little vexing.
---

I don't understand Trump's endgame here. I really don't. Then again, maybe that's my fault for assuming he even has one.

The entire point of this deal was to ensure that, whatever other bullshit Iran was up to, they wouldn't have nukes. And the deal does a good job of ensuring that's the case. Given that Trump is (justifiably) flipping his lid about a nuclear-armed North Korea which is rapidly approaching the capability of hitting the US mainland, why is Trump so eager to nix a deal that is preventing Iran from developing the exact same technology?

I mean, let's look at this from another angle. What does Trump want from Iran? Presumably, he wants them to stop funding/supporting terrorists, maybe recognize Israel's right to exist, and ideally even tune up their own human rights record. Fine, all grand goals. How exactly does withdrawing from this deal accomplish that?

Zeus posted...

Given that it was an awful deal where they gave up a lot and got very little in return, his inability to renegotiate is a little vexing.

a) Trump can renegotiate all he likes - the US can drop the deal at any time. It would be a really dumb idea to do so, given all the work that went into it, the fact that Iran is complying with it, and the fact that it will dramatically decrease the odds that any other hostile state (like, say, North Korea) will ever sign a treaty with the US (because the next President could just rip up the whole thing in a fit of pique). Hell, even Trump himself seemed to recognize that fully ditching the deal is a terrible idea and if even he's figured that out, you know it's pretty bad.
b) Exactly what did the US "give up" in this deal? Because I don't see anything that could even charitably be considered "a lot" and getting Iran to halt its weapons-grade nuclear development is definitely not "very little".
---

darkknight109 posted...

I don't understand Trump's endgame here. I really don't. Then again, maybe that's my fault for assuming he even has one.

The entire point of this deal was to ensure that, whatever other bullshit Iran was up to, they wouldn't have nukes. And the deal does a good job of ensuring that's the case. Given that Trump is (justifiably) flipping his lid about a nuclear-armed North Korea which is rapidly approaching the capability of hitting the US mainland, why is Trump so eager to nix a deal that is preventing Iran from developing the exact same technology?

Given that the deal doesn't adequately prevent that, it doesn't really do much of anything.

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, let's look at this from another angle. What does Trump want from Iran? Presumably, he wants them to stop funding/supporting terrorists, maybe recognize Israel's right to exist, and ideally even tune up their own human rights record. Fine, all grand goals. How exactly does withdrawing from this deal accomplish that?

...because you can negotiate a new deal, one that includes some of those and better oversights.

darkknight109 posted...

b) Exactly what did the US "give up" in this deal? Because I don't see anything that could even charitably be considered "a lot" and getting Iran to halt its weapons-grade nuclear development is definitely not "very little".

For starters, the deal doesn't give us enough oversight into making sure that they have halted their nuclear ambitions and, in all likelihood, they haven't. Second, what we gave them was ending some massive sanctions (including weapons sanctions) and returning a metric assload of money to them, much of which was then funneled to terrorists. What we got in return? Little more than their word that they wouldn't develop nukes because the oversight is shaky. We didn't get our prisoners back, we didn't even get token assurances in regards to them ceasing funding terror, etc. There's a pretty huge wish list and none of the boxes were checked.
---

Zeus posted...

Given that the deal doesn't adequately prevent that, it doesn't really do much of anything.

It does, though. Literally every signatory to the agreement has verified this and has certified Iran's compliance.

Even if you want to assume that Obama was feckless in signing this, are you going to assume that the leaders of the UK, China, France, Russia, Germany, and the EU, along with all their advisors, all somehow missed this oversight which you, in your wisdom, have spotted?

Pardon my skepticism, but I trust their word over yours.

Zeus posted...

...because you can negotiate a new deal, one that includes some of those and better oversights.

a) You could just as easily negotiate a new deal on those things without torching this one. The US is not bound by an "Only one deal with Iran at a time!" clause.
b) What are you prepared to give up to make that happen? Do you think Iran is even interested in playing ball?
c) Are you seriously suggesting that Donald Trump - the man who hasn't been able to pull his own party together for a successful vote on any of his major campaign priorities, nevermind negotiating with a hostile power - is going to succeed where the aforementioned parties failed? Yeah... good luck with that.

For starters, the deal doesn't give us enough oversight into making sure that they have halted their nuclear ambitions and, in all likelihood, they haven't.

That's not the US giving up anything. And note that even Trump, who is transparently eager to dump this deal, is unwilling to say that they aren't standing by the deal (the farthest he's willing to go is saying that they're not abiding by "the spirit" of the agreement, whatever he's defining that as).

Zeus posted...

Second, what we gave them was ending some massive sanctions (including weapons sanctions) and returning a metric assload of money to them, much of which was then funneled to terrorists

That's also not the US giving up anything. The US could re-instate those sanctions tomorrow, if it wants, it just has to make them about something other than nuclear non-compliance. And there's no shortage of things to sanction Iran over if the US wants to go down that road.

So yeah, you've basically just tacitly admitted that the US gave up nothing in this deal. That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me.

Zeus posted...

What we got in return? Little more than their word that they wouldn't develop nukes because the oversight is shaky.

You keep saying this, but it seems good enough to satisfy seven of the most powerful governments/organizations in the world. Why do you think it's insufficient?

Zeus posted...

We didn't get our prisoners back, we didn't even get token assurances in regards to them ceasing funding terror, etc. There's a pretty huge wish list and none of the boxes were checked.

That's not what the agreement was for. Again, if the US wants those things, nothing is stopping them from negotiating for them and striking up another agreement. And, most critically, that's never what this particular agreement was supposed to do in the first place.

The goal of this agreement was to stop Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon. That's it. Not "get US prisoners back", not "stop Iranian terrorism," not "turn Iran into a democracy" - those things, while laudable goals, were not the priority for those negotiations. You want those? Go continue dialogue. But axing the previous agreement is not going to endear the Iranians to making any more deals (which could just as easily be reneged on the way this one is).
---

Like, I just don't understand the conservative logic here. OK, you want Iran to stop funding terrorism - I completely agree. But axing this deal does absolutely nothing to further that goal; if anything, it makes it harder to achieve, because it pisses the Iranians off and makes them less likely to deal in the future, it takes away stock from a relatively moderate Iranian president and fuels the nutbars like his predecessor, it annoys American allies for ripping up an agreement that took years of coordinated effort to achieve, and it puts nukes back on the table by removing the only limits on Iran's nuclear enrichment program.

That means you're not only back to square one, you're actually further back than that, because now instead of an Iran that's funding terrorism, we have a potentially nuclear-armed Iran funding terrorism.

Between the two, the first one is plainly the better choice.
---

darkknight109 posted...

It does, though. Literally every signatory to the agreement has verified this and has certified Iran's compliance.

Even if you want to assume that Obama was feckless in signing this, are you going to assume that the leaders of the UK, China, France, Russia, Germany, and the EU, along with all their advisors, all somehow missed this oversight which you, in your wisdom, have spotted?

Pardon my skepticism, but I trust their word over yours.

Eh, the deal is a farce really. It was just a bunch of promises that in the long run won't be maintained. It was just a bunch of empty promises that everyone in the room knew were empty just to appease a bunch of people. If anyone thinks an Iran nuclear deal is going to halt anything they're delusional or uninformed. Terror networks extend beyond country boundaries and it's not like there aren't easy avenues for stealthily acquiring the stuff they're supposed to be prohibited from acquiring

OhhhJa posted...

It was just a bunch of empty promises that everyone in the room knew were empty just to appease a bunch of people.

None of the non-Iranian signatories would have any reason to sign onto the deal unless they believed it was genuine.

OhhhJa posted...

Terror networks extend beyond country boundaries and it's not like there aren't easy avenues for stealthily acquiring the stuff they're supposed to be prohibited from acquiring

They're not prohibited from acquiring anything, as far as I know. They're prohibited from constructing more enrichment sites and prohibited from enriching Uranium to nuclear grade.

Even with that in mind, I think you're grossly underestimating how difficult it is to obtain weapons-grade nuclear material.
---