Trump deserves credit for bringing Iran to the table

[miamited]

Hi again yekcidmij,

You don't find it a bit presumptuous to 'know' what I know? I wasn't really interested in hearing the age old complaint that partisan politics is the only thing that prevented the agreement from being ratified. Yes, President Obama agreed to an agreement that was also agreed to by a half dozen other involved nations. I don't find that to be some terrible issue.

In researching this issue of ratification, I don't find any hard evidence that such an agreement had to be ratified by congress in order to be agreed to by the United States administration. I also find such a complaint to be particularly rich coming from people who support a current leadership that thinks nothing of going against the present congress and trying to subvert their place in the processes of our laws by merely issuing EOs to have things done.

Congress, as a group, has clearly told President Trump that he can't have the money for his wall. Yet, President Trump issued an EO declaring that we were suffering some emergency condition which enabled him to take the money already earmarked for other issues and subvert such monies to the building of his wall. These people are decrying a reasonably questionable complaint that congress had to ratify the JCPA?

Sounds particularly 'iffy' to me.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Arcangl86]

Why would it have needed to be ratified? It required no change to American law. All was it was was an agreement that if the government of Iran was to act a certain way. then the President would utilize the sanction powers giving by Congress a certain way.

They do NOT consider it vital to their national security. Of course they will say things like that, such as promising not to have any interest in having nuclear weapons in the first place, but only as camouflage for their intentions.

With those kinds of mind-reading powers, you should request becoming the Secretary of State.

 

[miamited]

They do NOT consider it vital to their national security. Of course they will say things like that, such as promising not to have any interest in having nuclear weapons in the first place, but only as camouflage for their intentions.

Hi albion,

I respectfully disagree with you. When the leader of one nation tells the leader of another nation that he's considering blowing them off the face of the earth if they don't kowtow to his demands, I think having defensive weapons that at least measure up to the offensive weapons of the other country would be a serious matter of national security.

Imagine if you will that instead of the U.S. being the big bad wolf, the U.S. was, say...Cuba. The president of whatever country is now the big bad wolf tells you(Cuba) that they are considering blowing you off the face of the map if you don't do as you're told. You mean to tell me that you really wouldn't consider it to be a matter of national security that you didn't have any weapons to counteract such a threat? Really?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

Hi albion,

I respectfully disagree with you. When the leader of one nation tells the leader of another nation that he's considering blowing them off the face of the earth if they don't kowtow to his demands, I think having defensive weapons that at least measure up to the offensive weapons of the other country would be a serious matter of national security.

If you wish. My own impression of Iran's current government is considerably more realistic than that and based on more than just what the rulers say for popular consumption.

It is interesting, with situations like this one, to remember also that Hitler often spoke of wanting peace, needing national security, and about other nations supposedly being the ones who were responsible for international tensions.

 

[Albion]

With those kinds of mind-reading powers, you should request becoming the Secretary of State.

Mind reading has nothing to do with it. All that is necessary is to remember the track-record of those people.

 

[miamited]

If you wish. My own impression of Iran's current government is considerably more realistic than that and based on more than just what the rulers say for popular consumption.

Hi albion,

Thanks for your reply, however, you offer nothing of substance to support your understanding.

'My own impression of Iran's current government is considerably more realistic...' How so? What is it that you apparently know, but aren't able or won't write out to support your claim, to be the truth concerning Iran's government than just what the rulers say for popular consumption? Are you perhaps a part of the team that went into Iraq and discovered the WMDs? Now you are going into Iran and have some first hand knowledge that things aren't as other nations are telling us that they are? Or, is it just that you know Iran's government to be muslim based and, ipso facto, just a bad government that shouldn't be trusted just because it's a muslim based government?

What is it that you know to be true concerning Iran's government that the rest of us are apparently in the dark about? If you're going to make such a claim, shouldn't you be willing and able to support that claim?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

Hi albion,

Thanks for your reply, however, you offer nothing of substance to support your understanding.

Try reading the posts again.

 

[miamited]

Mind reading has nothing to do with it. All that is necessary is to remember the track-record of those people.

Hi again albion,

'Those people'. You mean like the ones who dropped nuclear weapons on two cities to obliterate and destroy thousands upon thousands of non-combatants? Or, do you mean 'those people' who flew planes into some buildings and destroyed less than 5 thousand non-combatants? For our perusal, would you mind posting what you have as the 'track record of those people'.

They are a nation. A sovereign nation upon the face of the earth. They don't live like we do, but they don't have to. They are their own sovereign nation with the authority to govern themselves as they see fit. Babylon wasn't governed in the same way that Egypt was, either.

I would really like to read your 'track record' list.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Try reading the posts again.

Hi albion,

No, I'm not up to playing games. If you have a specific post to point me to where I may have missed this issue, then I'll be happy to go back and reread it. I'm not going to start from the beginning of this discussion to reread every thread and, personally, I think your attempt here is just to deflect the question. Why don't you just answer the question? It's only the typing of some words. You do that pretty regularly around here and so I honestly can't imagine that it's some trying effort for you to just type an answer to my question.

In fact there have been a lot of claims made throughout this thread of malfeasance. However, all of those claims seem to have as their starting point...President Trump and his administration. Now, I fully understand that you're willing to accept the words of a man, who it has been repeatedly pointed out and even agreed to by his own party and many of his supporters, that he is loose with the truth. I'm afraid that I don't hold that same amount of trust in the man's testimony of world issues. To me, he seems to be fairly illiterate in real world politics. That's just a difference in opinion that we're going to have to accept of one another.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yekcidmij]

You don't find it a bit presumptuous to 'know' what I know?

I thought I was being charitable in assuming you knew why he didn't put it in front of the Senate. Maybe you have less insight than I assumed? Sorry for assuming credibility I suppose....

I wasn't really interested in hearing the age old complaint that partisan politics is the only thing that prevented the agreement from being ratified.

I think that's absolutely why it didn't go in front of the Senate. Republicans were going to oppose it.

Yes, President Obama agreed to an agreement that was also agreed to by a half dozen other involved nations. I don't find that to be some terrible issue.

That's not a terrible issue - never said it was. The issue was that it should have been ratified by the Senate as required by the Constitution which would have given it force of law for the US.

In researching this issue of ratification, I don't find any hard evidence that such an agreement had to be ratified by congress in order to be agreed to by the United States administration.

It looks to me like it should have been ratified since it looks to me like a treaty. That's what the Constitution requires. I don't see how it's better if he's going around with the intent of making non-binding agreements, as you seem to be suggesting. That seems rather reckless on the President's part if that's the case. I was assuming Obama intended this to be a binding agreement with the parties involved rather than some arbitrary, non-binding whim. How irresponsible would it have been if he made a 15 year agreement with no intent of it being binding or carrying any force beyond his terms in office? I don't assume that much irresponsibility on Obama's part.

BTW, I would also say any agreement Trump may make should also be ratified by the Senate.

I also find such a complaint to be particularly rich coming from people who support a current leadership that thinks nothing of going against the present congress and trying to subvert their place in the processes of our laws by merely issuing EOs to have things done.

Is this directed to me? Are you being presumptuous in assuming what I do and don't support?

Congress, as a group, has clearly told President Trump that he can't have the money for his wall.

What on earth does this have to do with the treaty powers of the President and Senate?

Yet, President Trump issued an EO declaring that we were suffering some emergency condition which enabled him to take the money already earmarked for other issues and subvert such monies to the building of his wall.

Not sure what this has to do with treaties like the JCPA, but I don't agree with his emergency declaration in order to build a wall. Did you presume I did?

These people are decrying a reasonably questionable complaint that congress had to ratify the JCPA?

Yes, the Senate has to ratify treaties. The Executive doesn't get to make treaties alone.

"II.2.2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; "
​

Also, a wall in the southern US isn't a treaty (even though I disagree with his reasons and actions regarding this).

 

[Yarddog]

Ambassador to Germany: Trump deserves credit for bringing Iran to the table, is open to cutting new deal with regime

I bet two of our best mountain goats that it will be a better deal than Obama made.

Of course that should be easy.

M-Bob

Iran was already at the table and complying with the agreement before Trump pulled out of it.

 

[miamited]

Hi yedcidmij,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:

I thought I was being charitable in assuming you knew why he didn't put it in front of the Senate. Maybe you have less insight than I assumed? Sorry for assuming credibility I suppose....

Well, as I replied, I'm not aware that it even needed to be put before the senate. So, why you would assume that I knew why he didn't put it before the senate, is presuming that I somehow knew that he had to put it before the senate.

You then wrote:

I think that's absolutely why it didn't go in front of the Senate. Republicans were going to oppose it.

Again, one would have to know that it had to go before the senate to think that's the reason that it didn't go before the senate. Do you have some evidence I could look at that instructs that such an agreement drafted between a number of nations regarding how another nation handles nuclear materials has to be ratified by our congress before the agreement can be effective or enforceable?

Something you may find interesting regarding the subject of presidents being able to sign on to international agreements without any formal ratification process of the American congress: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org...o_paris_and_beyond/pdfs/YesHeCanFactsheet.pdf

So, I've shown you mine. Would you show me yours?

You then commented:

That's not a terrible issue - never said it was. The issue was that it should have been ratified by the Senate as required by the Constitution which would have given it force of law for the US.

Oh, I realize that you didn't use that verbiage and some of my response was not specifically directed to you and your understanding of things. I'm addressing the issue in its entirety. The one who took us out of the agreement, including NAFTA, JCPA, Paris climate accord, etc., generally wants us to believe and tells us that such agreements were 'terrible' agreements.

You then responded:

It looks to me like it should have been ratified since it looks to me like a treaty.

Well, I guess what it looks to you like, may not actually be what the laws, rules and regulations of the U.S. government say that it is actually like. Read the above link concerning presidential ability to sign on to international agreements.

According to the definition of a treaty: a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.

An agreement only becomes a treaty because it is ratified. So, it would appear that by definition, an agreement can become a treaty if it is ratified. However, it can just always remain an agreement.

You then asked:

Is this directed to me? Are you being presumptuous in assuming what I do and don't support?

Again, my response to you was not to specifically and only touch on the points that you have been discussing. It is a post covering the entirety of the issue, as I see it, opposed to the entirety of the issue as you are presenting it.

You then responded:

What on earth does this have to do with the treaty powers of the President and Senate?

Because it shows that our current president is even more inclined to work against the wishes of congress than our past president. It has nothing to do with treaties per se, but it goes to intent and action of similar issues.

You then responded:

Not sure what this has to do with treaties like the JCPA, but I don't agree with his emergency declaration in order to build a wall. Did you presume I did?

No. I just made the statement showing how the current president is much worse at doing such things than the previous one.

Finally you responded:

Yes, the Senate has to ratify treaties. The Executive doesn't get to make treaties alone.

No. Again, according to the definition, if an agreement is ratified by congress it becomes a treaty. Prior to that, and continuing, it can just be an agreement that a group of nations agrees to follow or practice. That's exactly how the JCPA is introduced. It is an agreement, just like the Paris climate agreement, and neither need to be ratified by congress in order for a nation to follow what is outlined in the agreement.

Now, certainly under such an agreement, the next president can withdraw the U.S. from participation in such an agreement without incurring the wrath of congress, but the question then becomes whether it is wise to do so. In this particular case, Iran, according to the nations involved in the agreement, was being fairly obedient in following the terms of the agreement and the agreement included the right of inspection. Now, we have created a hornet's nest to do what? What's the end game here? Why did we pull out of an agreement that for all intents and purposes was accomplishing for us exactly what it was that we sought the agreement for? It was limiting Iran's nuclear capabilities, which they seemed to be honoring, and allowing us the right of inspecting their nuclear processes. Both being the ultimate goal of the agreement in the beginning.

disclaimer: Now, please let me say here so that I don't have to answer a lot of your responses that claim my point isn't addressing your specific points. I'm writing this to you to both explain my understanding of the issue and expounding on that understanding, even though some of the points that I expound on may not specifically address some words that you wrote in any post that you may have written.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yekcidmij]

Something you may find interesting regarding the subject of presidents being able to sign on to international agreements without any formal ratification process of the American congress: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org...o_paris_and_beyond/pdfs/YesHeCanFactsheet.pdf

So, I've shown you mine. Would you show me yours?

Adding to my last post. The State Dept (part of the Executive) considers 3 cases where the President can pursue international agreements other than treaties:

11 FAM 720 NEGOTIATION AND CONCLUSION

11 FAM 723.2-2 International Agreements Other Than Treaties

International agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are “international agreements other than treaties.” (The term “sole executive agreement” is appropriately reserved for agreements made solely on the basis of the constitutional authority of the President.) There are three constitutional bases for international agreements other than treaties as set forth below. An international agreement may be concluded pursuant to one or more of these constitutional bases:​

(1) Treaty;
(2) Legislation;
(3) Constitutional authority of the President.​

11 FAM 723.2-2(A) Agreements Pursuant to Treaty

- The President may conclude an international agreement pursuant to a treaty brought into force with the advice and consent of the Senate, the provisions of which constitute authorization for the agreement by the Executive without subsequent action by the Congress.
​

11 FAM 723.2-2(B) Agreements Pursuant to Legislation

- The President may conclude an international agreement on the basis of existing legislation, or subject to legislation to be adopted by the Congress, or upon the failure of Congress to adopt a disapproving joint or concurrent resolution within designated time periods.​

11 FAM 723.2-2(C) Agreements Pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President

- The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:

(1) The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;
(2) The President's authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and to recognize foreign governments;
(3) The President's authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and
(4) The President's authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”​

​

So we know the President at the time wasn't pursuing an agreement in accordance with existing legislation, since none regarding this particular case existed. It looks like Obama may have pursued the advice of Congress as Joe Biden sought their advice (White House moves lock down Dem votes on Iran deal - CNNPolitics), there were Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings (Iran Nuclear Agreement Review | United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) and Armed Service Committee hearings (Top General Gives ‘Pragmatic’ View of Iran Nuclear Deal). The Senate additionally voted on a resolution of disapproval of the agreement. Though the resolution was filibustered, it did indicate that the 2/3 requirement for ratification could not be met and further that a majority of Senators disapproved.

So we have a case where Obama seems to initially pursue ratification, but the Senate disapproved, much less could they muster a 2/3 majority for ratification. On these grounds it would seem that the Iran deal should be considered a treaty. So not only does it look like a treaty to me, but it looked like at least an Agreement Pursuant to a Treaty to the Obama Admin, if it didn't look like an explicit treaty itself, and looked at least like a treaty or Agreement Pursuant to a Treaty to the Senate.

I also think that due to the Senate's actions it would be difficult to consider the agreement an "Agreement Pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President" since it looks inconsistent with their legislative activity. In any case, I think he would have been hard pressed to justify it in front of the Supreme Court had the Senate sued, especially since it seems like the Senate was weighing in, advising, and disapproving.

The Obama Admin. State Dept also explicitly said it wasn't an Executive Agreement:

Letter from State Department Regarding JCPOA

...which makes it really look like it was an Agreement Pursuant to Treaty that didn't have the Senate's consent and wouldn't obtain a 2/3 majority for ratification.

So it looks like neither the constitutional process nor executive process were followed appropriately and so the Executive Branch overreached in making the deal. That's the biggest problem with the initial agreement. It didn't follow the constitutional process and didn't even follow the Executive process and so wasn't binding and carried no force of law. This allowed a future Republican President to withdraw, however imprudent such actions might have been.
.

 

[miamited]

Hi yekcidmij,

It looks like option three would fit perfectly what President Obama did.

Agreements Pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President
- The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:
(1) The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;
(2) The President's authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and to recognize foreign governments;
(3) The President's authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and
(4) The President's authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Under option 3 subsection 1, the president has the authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs.

Understand that a filibuster means that nothing is decided. So, while an argument could be made that we can 'logically assume' that congress didn't want to ratify or agree to said agreement, the agreement was not 'in fact' going against any enacted legislation. Politics, similar to the law, often turn on these slight nuances of actual wording.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yekcidmij]

Hi yekcidmij,

It looks like option three would fit perfectly what President Obama did.

Agreements Pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President
- The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:
(1) The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;
(2) The President's authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and to recognize foreign governments;
(3) The President's authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and
(4) The President's authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Under option 3 subsection 1, the president has the authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs.

Except that "The term 'sole executive agreement' is appropriately reserved for agreements made solely on the basis of the constitutional authority of the President." Since the Sate Dept under Obama explictly stated this was not a "Executive Agreement", and if it's an action under the "International Agreements Other than Treaties," then it has to be an "Agreement Pursuant to Treaty" which is consistent with the actions of the Executive Office and the Senate at the time. So, I think my points still stand.

Understand that a filibuster means that nothing is decided. So, while an argument could be made that we can 'logically assume' that congress didn't want to ratify or agree to said agreement, the agreement was not 'in fact' going against any enacted legislation.

Fair point.

 

[miamited]

Hi yekcidmij,

I'm sorry, I reread the point of law and the only mention I saw of 'sole executive agreement' was a parenthetical point of explanation. The law is explaining how the president is authorized to make international agreements. That's all. Here's the full text:

International agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are “international agreements other than treaties.” (The term “sole executive agreement” is appropriately reserved for agreements made solely on the basis of the constitutional authority of the President.)

Yes, if this agreement was made solely on the constitutional authority of the President, then it could rightly be called a "sole executive agreement". However that would only be a term used by those on the legal team in describing how the agreement has any force of will for the U.S. government. I don't expect that every time someone refers to the JCPA that they're going to say the, "JCPA that is a sole executive agreement." For all of us, it's just the JCPA. Here's a point of information that I gleaned concerning 'executive agreements':

The president has the ability to enter into sole executive agreements without any approval from the House or Senate. ... Executive agreements appear to have the same effect as treaties. They are binding upon both parties, and the Supreme Court has found them to preempt state law.

Notice that even in this description the word 'sole' is merely a term used to describe the kind of agreement and doesn't really become part of the agreement's name. So, for those in the know, when the JCPA is being discussed in legal circles, they would know that the form of the agreement and authority of the agreement was as a 'sole executive agreement'. There also doesn't seem to be any reason that even if Senate approval wasn't garnered for the agreement that it still couldn't have gone into effect as a 'sole executive agreement'.
and...

Executive agreement. ... However, under United States constitutional law, executive agreements are not considered treaties for the purpose of the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate to qualify as a treaty.

Here's a lawfareblog.com article on the subject: In a post last month, we described the sharp decline in the presidential use of Article II treaties—reaching a new low in the Trump administration, which so far has submitted only one such treaty to the Senate. This decline does not mean that the United States has stopped concluding international agreements. In fact, the United States makes dozens of binding international agreements each year—often more than 100—but it usually does so as “congressional-executive agreements” (i.e., agreements authorized by statute) rather than as Article II treaties. The United States has thus effectively shifted to an administrative regime for making international agreements, but it has yet to craft an adequate system of oversight and accountability to go along with that regime.

Instead, almost all congressional-executive agreements are based on purported “ex ante” statutory authorization. These agreements are usually based on statutes enacted many years or even decades before the agreement, and they do not receive any meaningful after-the-fact review or approval by the legislature.

The Trump administration has continued this practice, as is evident from perusing the State Department’s online database, Texts of International Agreements to Which the U.S. is a Party (TIAS). This database is the only current public database that includes the text of such agreements, but it is far from complete. As the site itself notes, classified agreements are exempted from reporting. And the relevant reporting statutedoes not require publication even of all non-classified agreements. Keeping in mind that the precise numbers of agreements are difficult to discern, in the first year of the Trump administration, there were 104 agreements reported...

Understand that Article II treaties do require the advice and consent of a 2/3 vote of the Senate, but they are becoming more and more rare, and have been for some time. President Trump signed 104 non-article II agreements that didn't need Senate approval. It would seem that non-Senate approved agreements are a fairly regular way for many presidents to do business and that includes the present one. The JCPA is merely another of these types of agreements. Ratification was never needed, but, had the Senate ratified the terms outlined in the agreement, then the agreement would have become a treaty. No one is calling the JCPA a treaty.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi yekcidmij,

I believe that in this effort of trying to claim that the Iran agreement had no legal force because it wasn't ratified isn't a particularly well planned argument based on U.S. law. It is an agreement and has always been called an agreement and has never once, that I'm aware of, been referred to as a treaty. As an agreement the executive office has every right, just as President Trump is continuing to do, to make such agreements.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[grasping the after wind]

Hi GTAW,

Well, by upside for Iran, are you referring to their ability to trade more freely? If so, that's one of the parts of the agreement that made Iran want to sign it. I mean yea, we could have just agreed not to wipe them off the face of the globe if they stopped trying to enrich uranium beyond certain limits, but I imagine that would have been a hard sell to the other nations involved. Generally, in international negotiations, or in any matter of 'negotiating', there is a give and take. You give a little, they take a little. You take a little and they give a little. It is literally the definition of 'negotiate'.

Unions and companies 'negotiate' all the time. There is implied, in the act of negotiating, that offers are made where one party gets something while the other party gives up something. For example: We'll give the employees a better insurance package, but we will have to cut back a bit on your wage demands.

So, I think if one understands the term 'negotiate' that one should fully understand that both parties are trying to come to agreement by a give and take method of working things out. So yes, Iran was 'given' the ability to trade freely if they would stop enriching uranium. Iran agreed and so the U.S. got to walk away winning the battle to stop Iran from enriching its uranium up to weapons grade quality. So, both the U.S., and the other nations sided with us, got something out of the agreement also.

Now, President Trump came in and told you that they were walking all over us and that they weren't abiding by the agreement, but that's not what the other involved nations are saying. Who do we believe?

I believe it to not be an honest assessment of the agreement for anyone to say that the U.S. didn't 'get' something from the agreement. In fact, the U.S. got exactly what it wanted from the agreement. The promise from Iran that they would not enrich uranium to a certain level and that they would not proceed with trying to build a nuclear arsenal. That's what the U.S. got and, according to all parties involved, other than President Trump, is what Iran was living up to.

Oh, and BTW, as far as I am aware, Iran had representation at the table when these negotiations were ongoing and Donald Trump was not the person who brought them to that table.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Iran got access to billions of dollars to use in pursuit of its political goals (including pursuit of nuclear weaponry) that it had been kept from and was given the green light to continue to enrich uranium to a particular level for 10 years after which no restriction would be in place. Iran got to decide when and where any inspections to verify compliance would take place. The US got to say "Peace in our time" and pretend something was accomplished. You are correct that negotiation is about give and take. The Iran deal was about the global community giving and Iran taking. As with the similar type of negotiation tactics tried with N. Korea, there was never any reasonable expectation of successfully fending off the country going nuclear. One should learn from one's mistakes rather than repeat them and expect different results.

 

[miamited]

Mornin' GTAW,

You responded:

Iran got access to billions of dollars to use in pursuit of its political goals

Yes, but according to all accounts, it was their money. See, here's another unfairness, as I see it. You say Iran go access to billions of dollars to use in pursuit of its political goals. Here in the U.S. we get pretty upset just thinking about Russia being involved in our political goals, but we obviously have not a smidge of conscience in doing the exact same things and even worse to involve ourselves in the political goals carried out in the politics of other nations. Why is that understood as some fair approach in America?

As with the similar type of negotiation tactics tried with N. Korea, there was never any reasonable expectation of successfully fending off the country going nuclear.

Unlike President Trump who has now said that maybe it's ok for N. Korea to keep its nuclear program.

Personally, and I know that a lot of people don't agree with me, but the first step in any denuclearization program is for the U.S. to get rid of theirs. I don't think we're ever going to be able to convince other sovereign nations that they can't have nuclear weapons, if we do. At it's core, it just isn't a fair argument. Certainly when you have a leader who apparently thinks nothing of announcing to the whole world via twitter that he'd blow this nation or that nation off the face of the globe for various and sundry reasons, it's going to be a hard sell to get, especially those threatened nations, to stop their work to develop nuclear weaponry. The U.S. is the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons to bomb another nation into submission. What other nation is going to believe that's not ever going to happen again?

But, as far as giving Iran access to its own money, that's another argument that doesn't seem particularly right. Giving Iran a refund of monies spent for goods that were never delivered is another issue that just seems the right thing to do.

Finally you responded.

The Iran deal was about the global community giving and Iran taking.

Somehow it just seems to me that that's likely not a proper view of the deal when you have so many signatories that signed off on it. You have those same signatories telling us that Iran was abiding by the rules of the deal. You have pretty much no one making any claim that Iran was, before the U.S. backed out, enriching uranium beyond the limits. The 10 year mark, by the way, was when Iran could replace its old centrifuges with newer ones. Enriching its uranium stockpiles beyond the established 3.67 grade of enrichment wouldn't be possible for another 5 years.

Could there have been a better deal made? Sure, the Iranians could have fallen to their knees and declared "Oh great nation that rules the world, we will never seek to produce nuclear weapons and be satisfied to live under your threats of powerful military force." Then each Iranian sought out the foot of an American to kiss and lick and pay great homage to.


God bless
In Christ, ted

 

[Gigimo]

First sentence was enough --