Trump Violates the Iran Nuclear Deal — Ignoring U.S. and Israeli Generals Who Support It

Discussion in 'Politics and the Topics of the day' started by MCP, May 8, 2018.

  1. MCP

    MCP International Member ****


    So he’s finally done it. Having spent the past three years denouncing the Iran nuclear deal as “horrible,” “disastrous,” and “insane,” Donald Trump arrived in the Diplomatic Room of the White House on Tuesday afternoon to formally announce that “the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal” and would “begin reinstituting U.S. nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime.”

    “This will make America much safer,” the president declaimed, jabbing his fingers at the assembled reporters.

    Guess who’s celebrating the president’s decision to violate a nuclear nonproliferation agreement signed by the United States less than three years ago? His new national security adviser, John Bolton, a former paid speaker for an Iranian ex-terror group who has long been obsessed with “regime change” in Tehran; the crown prince — and de facto ruler — of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, who claims Iran’s supreme leader “makes Hitler look good”; and the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who constantly compares the Islamic Republic to the so-called Islamic State.

    Don’t be fooled: This disastrous and unilateral decision by Trump won’t improve U.S. security. Or Israeli security, for that matter. Even card-carrying hawks who hate the Islamic Republic think Trump is mad to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the nuclear deal is officially known.

    Because guess who won’t be celebrating? The entire U.S. military establishment: Defense Secretary James Mattis, who says he has read the text of the nuclear agreement three times and considers it to be “pretty robust”; Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, who says, “Iran is adhering to its JCPOA obligations” and a U.S. decision to quit the deal “would have an impact on others’ willingness to sign agreements”; the head of U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. John Hyten, who says, “Iran is in compliance with JCPOA” and argues “it’s our job to live up to the terms of that agreement”; and the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, who says the nuclear deal is “in our interest” because it “addresses one of the principle threats that we deal with from Iran.”

    Those are just the generals who are still in uniform. In March, a statement signed by 100 U.S. national security veterans from across the political spectrum said the nuclear agreement “enhances U.S. and regional security” and “ditching it would serve no national security purpose.” Fifty of the 100 signatories were retired U.S. military officers, including leading Republicans such as retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to George H.W. Bush, and retired Gen. Michael Hayden, who served as director of both the NSA and the CIA under George W. Bush.

    Then there’s retired Gen. Colin Powell, national security adviser to Ronald Reagan and secretary of state under George W. Bush, who has called the JCPOA “a pretty good deal.” And Trump’s own former national security adviser, soon-to-be-retired Gen. H.R. McMaster, who was “working closely with two key senators to prevent Trump from destroying the Iran deal” prior to being fired and replaced with Bolton in March.

    Guess who else isn’t celebrating? The Israeli security establishment. Netanyahu may claim to possess thousands of “secret nuclear files” that show the JCPOA was “built on lies,” but Israel’s generals and spymasters disagree, including: the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, who says the deal “with all its faults is working”; the chair of the Israeli Space Agency and award-winning military scientist, Isaac Ben-Israel, who says “the agreement is not bad at all, it’s even good for Israel” because “it averts an atom bomb for 15 years”; the former director of the spy agency Mossad, Efraim Halevy, who says the JCPOA provides a “credible answer to the Iranian military threat, at least for a decade, if not longer”; the former chief of domestic security agency Shin Bet, Carmi Gillon, who says the nuclear agreement has helped “make the region, and the world, a safer place”; the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, who says “tearing up the deal would create a dangerous void”; and former Israeli prime minister — and the country’s most decorated soldier — Ehud Barak, who says withdrawing from the deal would be a “mistake.”

    So let’s be clear: On the one side, we have a dizzying array of serving and retired generals and spy chiefs from both the United States and Israel, none of whom are friends or fans of Iran, yet all of whom agree that the Islamic Republic is complying with the stringent terms of the JCPOA, and that the United States should stay in the deal because it bolsters U.S., regional, and global security.

    And on the other side? A former property developer and reality TV star; a chicken hawk who wants to bomb everyone; a 32-year-old Gulf prince who can’t win a war against rebels from the poorest Arab country; and an allegedly corrupt politician who has been claiming Iran is “three to five years” away from a nuclear weapons capability since … 1992.

    This isn’t about security or protecting American — or Israeli — cities from Iranian missiles. Trump & Co. aren’t trying to avoid war with Iran. They want war with Iran

  2. QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    I agree. It’s about that Black Guy, Barack Obama.
  3. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Gary Varvel Copyright 2018 Creator
  4. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    EU reiterates support for Iran deal

    European Commissioner for Energy and Climate Miguel Arias Canete announced in Tehran Friday the European Union will protect from U.S. sanctions European companies that continue to do business with Iran despite President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal.

    This move comes at the behest of Iran deal signatories France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, which have sought to preserve the deal after American exit.

    "We hope [the EU's] efforts materialize," said Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi, because "America's actions ... show that it is not a trustworthy country in international dealings."

    Source: CNN, Reuters
  5. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Tom Toles Copyright 2018 Universal Press Syndicate

    PAYNE and MCP like this.
  6. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Iran warns Trump against the 'mother of all wars'

    "America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace," Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Sunday, "and war with Iran is the mother of all wars." Rouhani issued his warning to the Trump administration at a meeting of Iranian diplomats, arguing that attempts to undermine Tehran among the Iranian public would not be successful. "You are not in a position to incite the Iranian nation against Iran's security and interests," he said. President Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal earlier this year, claiming future negotiations will lead to a better arrangement.

    Source: Reuters, The Hill
  7. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Trump is blasting Iran on Twitter; Here’s why:

    The theories range from a poorly learned lesson of his North Korea diplomacy to a seriously considered, long-term strategy. So, why Trump is threatening Iran right now? There are three broad theories for why Trump hit send on his bellicose tweet:

    The first, as experts Colin Kahl and Vipin Narang hypothesized in the Washington Post, is that the president learned the wrong lesson from his dealings with North Korea. Mainly, Trump thinks talking tough will eventually deescalate tensions and get the opponent to do what America wants.

    But Kahl and Narang, both critics of Trump’s foreign policy, don’t think that will work. “A ‘strategy of increasing tension’ is likely to produce just that: increasing tension, kicking off a spiral of pressure, retaliation and military threats,” they wrote in May. If this is actually why Trump pushed back on Rouhani so hard, Trump probably won’t like the result.

    The second theory
    is Trump wants to distract the public and the media from his poor meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week. During the post-meeting press conference on July 16, Trump sided with Putin when the Russian leader denied that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, even though the US intelligence community assessed that it did.

    That led to arguably the worst foreign policy week of Trump’s presidency, in which the administration failed to convincingly walk back Trump’s comments and curb the tide of widespread criticism, including from Republican leaders. But if he gets people to focus on Iran — especially GOP members of Congress — then maybe he can make everyone forget about his really bad Russia week.

    The third and final explanation, made mostly by Trump’s foreign policy supporters, is that it was actually part of a longer-term plan.

    “The administration’s goal is to increase the pressure on Iran in order to force it to the table to renegotiate a better nuclear deal,” Matthew Kroenig, an Iran expert at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, told me. “Better terms will require more pressure, so Trump’s tweet, tougher sanctions, and calling out Iran’s human rights abuses are all part of this broader strategy.”

    Trump has said many times he wants a better deal with Iran, one in which Tehran agrees to never have a functioning nuclear program. Trump’s tweet may be a shot across the bow, warning Rouhani and others that Trump would consider some kind of military option should they not comply with his wishes.

    Regardless of which theory is correct, the big worry is that
    the president’s threat could potentially lead to war.

  8. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Kevin Siers Copyright 2018 Cagle Cartoons
  9. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Bill Day Copyright 2018 Cagle Cartoons
  10. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Iran sanctions

    The Trump administration is re-imposing sanctions on Iran that were lifted as part of the Obama-era nuclear deal, and it's seriously threatening the country's already wobbly economy.

    In early July, when sanctions were still just a threat, the State Department claimed dozens of international firms had already left the country, anticipating the economic fallout. Trump says the sanctions are designed to punish -- not topple -- the Iranian regime for trying to sow terrorism and regional instability. He also said yesterday he'd be willing to meet with Iran's leadership without preconditionsto discuss the situation.


    Why does unilaterally (none of our allies agreed with it) canceling the agreement that we had with Iran and imposing sanctions that seriously threaten Iran’s economy look, sound and feel so much like Regime Change ???

    Isn’t he really showing us how much he wants to be a “Strong Man” like the ones he has expressed his approval of, i.e., Duterte of the Philippines and Kim of North Korea ???

    Is there any wonder why he can’t bring himself to denounce Putin and the Russian interference in U.S. elections ??? Is that because Putin has dirt on him or he REALLY ADMIRES AND WANTS TO BE LIKE STRONGMAN PUTIN ???

    Isn’t it a fact that Putin and the Russians helped Trump with Regime Change right here in the USA ???


    MASTERBAKER ヽ(͡° ͜ʖ Grown Folks Board/cooking♥️ Super Moderator

  12. MCP

    MCP International Member ****

    'The difference between America and Israel? There isn't one'

    (Moderator’s Note:
    This Op-Ed was published:
    March 1, 2015)

    Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sarah left Israel for a 48-hour trip to the US ( Getty )

    Uri Avnery is without doubt the most intellectual, philosophical, prescient leftist Israeli seer I have ever met. Like TS Eliot, he has a habit of using the fewest words to tell the greatest truth. Every essay he writes, this reader always says the same thing: Exactly! Yet, for the first time in 40 years, I disagree with the great man.

    He has just suggested that Benjamin Netanyahu’s agreement to address the US Congress at the invitation of Republicans tomorrow – two weeks before an Israeli general election – and Barack Obama’s decision not to see the old rogue, has destroyed Israel’s bipartisan support in America. For the first time, says Uri, Democratic politicians are allowed to criticise Israel.

    Absolute Tosh.

    Congressmen of both parties have grovelled and fainted and shrieked their support for Bibi and his predecessors with more enthusiasm that the Roman hordes in the Colosseum. Last time Bibi turned up on the Hill, he received literally dozens of standing ovations from the sheep-like representatives of the American people, whose uncritical adoration of the Israeli state – and their abject fear of uttering the most faint-hearted criticism lest they be called anti-Semites – suggest that Bibi would be a far more popular US president than Barack. And Bibi’s impeccable American accent doesn’t hurt.

    And his aim – to earn votes for himself and to destroy the one foreign policy achievement within Obama’s grasp – will have absolutely no effect at all on Israeli-US relations. When Bibi made himself the laughing stock of the UN Security Council – by producing an infantile cartoon of an Iranian bomb with a red line in the middle, indicating that Iran could build nuclear weapons by the end of 2013 – his charade was treated with indulgence by the American media. These mythical deadlines have been expiring regularly for more than a decade, yet still we are supposed to take them seriously. Obama is struggling to reach an agreement with Iran which would protect the world from any nuclear weapon production by the Islamic Republic.

    Bibi wants to destroy this opportunity. He wants more sanctions. He wants to win the Israeli elections on 17 March. He might even bomb Iran – which would bring an immediate military response against the United States. But he’s going to be telling Congress that the entire existence of Israel is at stake. According to Uri, Bibi will be spitting in the face of President Obama. “I don’t think there was ever anything like it,” Uri Avnery wrote this weekend. “The Prime Minister of a small vassal country, dependent on the US for practically everything, comes to the US to openly challenge its President, in effect branding him a cheat and a liar… like Abraham, who was ready to slaughter his son to please God, Netanyahu is ready to sacrifice Israel’s most vital interests for election victory.”

    I don’t wish to exonerate Bibi’s cynicism. Even Uri admits that he cannot imagine any more effective election ploy. “Using the Congress of the United States of America as a propaganda prop is a stroke of genius,” he says. But the Prime Minister of Israel knows he can get away with anything in America – with the same confidence that he can support his army when they slaughter hundreds of children in Gaza in the “self-defence” of Israel. Bibi’s speech to Congress will be as disproportionate as his soldiers’ bombardment of the world’s mightiest slum.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after an adress to a joint session of Congress in the US

    And he’ll do just fine. We’re told the Democrats are upset. We are informed that Obama is very, very – really – very angry. But the Democrat presidentess-in-waiting is no problem for Bibi. It was Hillary, remember, who told us last summer that she wasn’t sure it was “possible to parcel out blame” for the Gaza slaughter “because it’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war”. The media stories may have obscured what was happening. “I do think oftentimes that the anguish you are privy to because of the coverage, and the women and children and all the rest of that [sic], makes it very difficult to sort through to get to the truth.” So the fewer reporters, the closer to the truth about the dead women and children and “all the rest of that”, we’ll all get. No wonder liberal Zionists, according to The New York Times, are worried that Hillary is getting too close to Bibi.

    As for the Republicans, well take a look at ‘ol Jeb Bush, promising that all will be a clean sweep if he becomes the US commander-in-chief. There’ll be no focus, understandably, on “the past” – Daddy George and Big Bro George W. But his probable advisers in a future presidency include Paul Wolfowitz, John Hannah (Cheney’s old “national security adviser”), Michael Hayden (who misled Congress about torture) and Condi Rice, after whom an entire oil tanker was once named and then un-named – in other words, the same mangy crew who produced “weapons of mass destruction”, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, trillions of dollars in debt, torture and that infamous “mushroom cloud” (a real “fog of war”, if ever there was one). Columnist Maureen Dowd says that Jeb Bush should be holding to account those who inflicted “deep scars on America”. But why should he? The only thing unmentioned by Jeb is that in 2003, Israel was also producing the same scams about WMD and Saddam’s links to “world terror”.

    Bibi won’t be reminding Congress of this on Tuesday, of course. It will be Iran’s WMD and the Islamic State’s links to “world terror” which will have Congress on its feet. It’s a pity Bibi wasn’t born in New York. Then we could have US President Netanyahu – and stop pretending there’s any difference between the Israeli and American governments.

Share This Page