Trump and the Iran deal

35
Found 13th Oct 2017
When Trump later today announces he will not recertify the Iran deal he is again showing he is unfit for office.

It is a good deal which stops Iran from developing nuclear weapons and by all accounts they have followed the agreement and should be applauded for doing so. Literally, all of the international community think it's a good deal.

The consequences of his refusal and subsequent refusals to do so mean the world is a less safe place. He has kicked the can down the road and congress now has the power to get rid of the deal. They won't initially but when mid term elections come around then they might change their tune.

In parallel we have a Trump administration trying to come to a diplomatic solution with North Korea over their nuclear ambitions.

Why would North Korea make a deal when they have no confidence that it will be adhered to by the American side?
Community Updates
Misc
Top comments
hmmm fanatical regime with high risk of being overthrown by crazies wanting a bunker full of nukes...what could possibly go wrong
35 Comments
There's more to it than perhaps you realise.

Prior to the agreement there was UN resolution 1929 in place.

“9. Decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;

After the agreement there was UN resolution 2231

3. Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.


As always the UN has messed up, and allowed Iran to pursue a path that is not constructive.
Edited by: "OllieSt" 13th Oct 2017
Any chance of action against other countries that have developed nukes?
Destard2 m ago

Any chance of action against other countries that have developed nukes?


Can you name a country that is considered to be trying to develop nukes in today's world that is being treated any differently?
Original Poster
OllieSt27 m ago

There's more to it than perhaps you realise.Prior to the agreement there …There's more to it than perhaps you realise.Prior to the agreement there was UN resolution 1929 in place.“9. Decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;After the agreement there was UN resolution 2231 3. Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier. As always the UN has messed up, and allowed Iran to pursue a path that is not constructive.


Why are the rest of the world unhappy with Trump?

I'm guessing an agreement has been reached that the Iranians are happy with and are following which curtails their activity in this area.

UN resolutions are fine and dandy but unless they are acted upon they are meaningless.
Edited by: "RedLozzer" 13th Oct 2017
Original Poster
Destard21 m ago

Any chance of action against other countries that have developed nukes?

No.
hmmm fanatical regime with high risk of being overthrown by crazies wanting a bunker full of nukes...what could possibly go wrong
OllieSt32 m ago

Can you name a country that is considered to be trying to develop nukes in …Can you name a country that is considered to be trying to develop nukes in today's world that is being treated any differently?


No, can you?
Trumps got to do what he thinks is best for America and it's allies.
Destard9 m ago

No, can you?



No, and the point is that Iran is not being singled out. If Iran were to ever get nuclear weapons it would be extremely bad. Most immediately look to Israel, but it's a mistake.


Saudi backed Pakistan nuclear program and would never want to see Iran have nuclear cababiltiy in the Middle East. In fact many nations in the Middle East consider the Iran deal as being problematic.



Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

The Middle East Nuclear Race Is Already Under Way




Pakistan and India - Stalemate, yet India would never agree to get rid of nuclear weapons if Pakistan did unless China agreed to get rid of theirs too.

China, India and Israel have a "no-first-use" policy on nuclear weapons, Pakistan refuses to adopt a "no-first-use" doctrine.



The status quo works.
Original Poster
.MUFC.6 m ago

Trumps got to do what he thinks is best for America and it's allies.


When will that start? In what way will junking this agreement be better for America and it's Allies?
RedLozzer9 m ago

When will that start? In what way will junking this agreement be better …When will that start? In what way will junking this agreement be better for America and it's Allies?



Maybe it won't make things better, Trump knows what he's doing though.
RedLozzer11 m ago

When will that start? In what way will junking this agreement be better …When will that start? In what way will junking this agreement be better for America and it's Allies?


I think Trump's point is 'In what way is this agreement better for America and it's allies' than what was in already in place.


Look at the UN resolutions, Iran has more freedom to develop ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

The Arab states opposing Iran are not happy
Edited by: "OllieSt" 13th Oct 2017
Original Poster
OllieSt15 m ago

I think Trump's point is 'In what way is this agreement better for America …I think Trump's point is 'In what way is this agreement better for America and it's allies' than what was in already in place.Look at the UN resolutions, Iran has more freedom to develop ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The Arab states opposing Iran are not happy


I'm no expert on UN resolutions. Were the Iranians monitored before this deal?
Original Poster
.MUFC.17 m ago

Maybe it won't make things better, Trump knows what he's doing though.


Stay off the drugs mate.
RedLozzer12 m ago

Were the Iranians monitored before this deal?


Yes
OllieSt14 h, 52 m ago

I think Trump's point is 'In what way is this agreement better for America …I think Trump's point is 'In what way is this agreement better for America and it's allies' than what was in already in place.Look at the UN resolutions, Iran has more freedom to develop ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The Arab states opposing Iran are not happy


I wonder why the Arab states are unhappy? If Iran stopped developing in they're defence department do you not think that it may lead to a possible invasion from Saudi Arabia in the near future?

Tell you what, talk about leading by example- would the US and UK be willing to cut down their ballistic missile capabilities?
jayman19864 m ago

I wonder why the Arab states are unhappy? If Iran stopped developing in …I wonder why the Arab states are unhappy? If Iran stopped developing in they're defence department do you not think that it may lead to a possible invasion from Saudi Arabia in the near future?Tell you what, talk about leading by example- would the US and UK be willing to cut down their ballistic missile capabilities?


I think we've already cut back to a minimum.
We've only got one trident sub out on patrol at a time or something.
But take your point about the USA though.
jayman19862 h, 11 m ago

I wonder why the Arab states are unhappy? If Iran stopped developing in …I wonder why the Arab states are unhappy? If Iran stopped developing in they're defence department do you not think that it may lead to a possible invasion from Saudi Arabia in the near future?Tell you what, talk about leading by example- would the US and UK be willing to cut down their ballistic missile capabilities?


Who knows.

I never understand why US and UK or China or Russia or any other nation that has ballistic missiles needs to cut back because another country isn't being allowed to take ownership of them.

I can remember the war on cities between Iraq and Iran, it was horrendous. There is tension in the region between Sunni and Shia Muslims of that there is no doubt.

Saudi Arabia attack on Iran would involve Russia, it's just not going to happen.

There is a status quo which kind of works, if you can call what we see today as 'kind of works'.

Iran can defend itself if needs be. There's just no justification for it to be able to make them nuclear tipped.
32251184-gsgYd.jpg
Dark.Energy13th Oct

hmmm fanatical regime with high risk of being overthrown by crazies …hmmm fanatical regime with high risk of being overthrown by crazies wanting a bunker full of nukes...what could possibly go wrong


As opposed to a fanatical ( and more than slightly dim)crazy who already has sheds loads of nuclear bunkers
No offense but I think his doing what Israel is asking him to do. Look what else trump signed off and left this week!
Misslovely2 h, 38 m ago

No offense but I think his doing what Israel is asking him to do. Look …No offense but I think his doing what Israel is asking him to do. Look what else trump signed off and left this week!


US foreign policy appears to be created in Israel.
I looked at the history of the region for 2000 years, all non-WMD options, solution had been proposed, tried to no avail. This leaves MAD is the option of last resort.
The Arab states and Iran had and is asking now for the entire Middle East to be WMD zone but the USA would not allow for this.
OllieSt13th Oct

No, and the point is that Iran is not being singled out. If Iran were to …No, and the point is that Iran is not being singled out. If Iran were to ever get nuclear weapons it would be extremely bad. Most immediately look to Israel, but it's a mistake.Saudi backed Pakistan nuclear program and would never want to see Iran have nuclear cababiltiy in the Middle East. In fact many nations in the Middle East consider the Iran deal as being problematic. Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from PakistanThe Middle East Nuclear Race Is Already Under WayPakistan and India - Stalemate, yet India would never agree to get rid of nuclear weapons if Pakistan did unless China agreed to get rid of theirs too.China, India and Israel have a "no-first-use" policy on nuclear weapons, Pakistan refuses to adopt a "no-first-use" doctrine. The status quo works.


Israel has a no first "no-first-use"policy on nuclear weapons ....BS !! can you provide a link ?
OllieSt is a multi
So Iran and North Korea will co operate in the design and manufacture of nuclear ballistic weapons now. If the US and its poodles want a nuclear war they will get it.
splender20 h, 50 m ago

I looked at the history of the region for 2000 years, all non-WMD options, …I looked at the history of the region for 2000 years, all non-WMD options, solution had been proposed, tried to no avail. This leaves MAD is the option of last resort.The Arab states and Iran had and is asking now for the entire Middle East to be WMD zone but the USA would not allow for this.


I can't see any country that has nuclear weapons being particularly interested in dismantling their arsenal of nuclear weapons. However what I find strange is how that is a green light for some to think that others should then be allowed join the party. With all that has transpired in the Middle East over the last 20 odd years, let's rejoice that Syria and Iraq don't possess a nuclear arsenal otherwise we may have been looking at a very different scenario to people being publicly beheaded, burnt alive or drowned in cages.

Nuclear weapons as a detterent in 'safe hands' has worked.
No one should have nuclear weapons.
OllieSt1 h, 20 m ago

I can't see any country that has nuclear weapons being particularly …I can't see any country that has nuclear weapons being particularly interested in dismantling their arsenal of nuclear weapons. However what I find strange is how that is a green light for some to think that others should then be allowed join the party. With all that has transpired in the Middle East over the last 20 odd years, let's rejoice that Syria and Iraq don't possess a nuclear arsenal otherwise we may have been looking at a very different scenario to people being publicly beheaded, burnt alive or drowned in cages. Nuclear weapons as a detterent in 'safe hands' has worked.


Your word "safe" can also mean or became over time "dangerous", that's the critical factor. It may be safe now but one day , it may not be, say, in 2030, or 2040. It takes the difference of two square meals to turn safe hands into savage hands, metaphorically .
A deterrent is most effective when used in tens and there is a stockpile for further use.
david_wavid1 h, 6 m ago

No one should have nuclear weapons.




I 100% agree, but the genie is out of the bottle and with US and Russia owning 93% of the approx 15,000 of them realistically they are here to stay.

I firmly believe that however ugly they are, the amount of human deaths due to conflict since their introduction has decreased. There was 3 major wars between India and Pakistan from 1947-1971. In 1974 India conducted it's first nuclear test followed by it's 2nd in 1998. A few weeks after this Pakistan conducted 5 nuclear tests.

The result is no more major wars between the 2 nations which has claimed 100,000 lives
OllieSt42 m ago

I 100% agree, but the genie is out of the bottle and with US and Russia …I 100% agree, but the genie is out of the bottle and with US and Russia owning 93% of the approx 15,000 of them realistically they are here to stay. I firmly believe that however ugly they are, the amount of human deaths due to conflict since their introduction has decreased. There was 3 major wars between India and Pakistan from 1947-1971. In 1974 India conducted it's first nuclear test followed by it's 2nd in 1998. A few weeks after this Pakistan conducted 5 nuclear tests. The result is no more major wars between the 2 nations which has claimed 100,000 lives


In that case everyone should have nuclear weapons. Another example is there has been no war between north and south Korea and its even more unlikely since they have them now. Let Iran have them too and there will be no war with its neighbors.
david_wavid52 m ago

In that case everyone should have nuclear weapons. Another example is …In that case everyone should have nuclear weapons. Another example is there has been no war between north and south Korea and its even more unlikely since they have them now. Let Iran have them too and there will be no war with its neighbors.




I personally wouldn't let any one have them, but as I have continually stated I just don't think it's realistic to take the nuclear capability away from those that already have it.

That's an interesting point about North Korea/South Korea considering they are technically at war.

South Koreans want their own nuclear weapons but doing so risks triggering a wider war

So whilst South Korea has more reasoning to want them, Iran is not at war with any nuclear enabled neighbour, why does it need them?
OllieSt12 m ago

I personally wouldn't let any one have them, but as I have continually …I personally wouldn't let any one have them, but as I have continually stated I just don't think it's realistic to take the nuclear capability away from those that already have it. That's an interesting point about North Korea/South Korea considering they are technically at war.South Koreans want their own nuclear weapons but doing so risks triggering a wider warSo whilst South Korea has more reasoning to want them, Iran is not at war with any nuclear enabled neighbour, why does it need them?


As a deterrence from fanatical regimes.
david_wavid53 s ago

As a deterrence from fanatical regimes.


Like who?
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants