President Donald Trump

[Sour Masher]

Claims that Iran violated the deal in a serious enough way to justify abandoning it seem to largely come from sources with an interest in under mining the deal, like Netanyahu, and contradict the many reports by the IAEA, the credible source you site, of overall compliance. I'm seeing a long list of compliances in the documents you link to Chance. I'm seeing evidence of how the oversight and monitoring is working.

But even if we accept at face value the notion that some minor violations are enough to withdraw, why is that not given as the major reason for withdrawal? Trump's main message is that the US is violating the agreement, because it was a bad deal for us to begin with, not that Iran hasn't lived up to its end. The main message seems to be hawkishness toward Iran and posturing toward N. Korea (I wonder if Bolton helped finally tip this decision). The admin is not selling this as a response to violations from Iran. They are selling this as a reversal of bad policy by the previous president. I think that is bad strategy and undermines us in future negotiations. Do you agree with Trump highlighting withdrawing as something he always intended to do, based on his assessment it was a bad deal, rather than focus on justifying the US breaking its word being justified by Iran violations? Do you see no downside to the widespread backlash us doing this will have?

[Bernie Brewer]

I think most of our allies and adversaries are smart enough to realize when a president lacks Senate support from his own party and subsequently does not submit the agreement to the Senate for treaty approval, the odds of an agreement surviving the president who agreed to it is slim at best.

This.

[OaklandA's]

Huh? They have at least two heavy water violations - see the IAEA documents https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...restricted.pdf and https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...gov2016-55.pdf.

You see these as reasons to back out of the deal? These actually show that the deal is working.

From the first linked report - Iran allows the IAEA to monitor Iran's stock of heavy water. On February 17, 2016, Iran had 130.9 tonnes of heavy water, slightly above the limit of 130. On February 24, the IAEA confirmed that "20 metric tonnes of heavy water had been shipped out of Iran, bringing the stock of heavy water in Iran to below 130 metric tonnes." This is exactly how we can ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. Using this incident as a reason to end the deal is absurd.

[Bernie Brewer]

Claims that Iran violated the deal in a serious enough way to justify abandoning it seem to largely come from sources with an interest in under mining the deal, like Netanyahu, and contradict the many reports by the IAEA, the credible source you site, of overall compliance. I'm seeing a long list of compliances in the documents you link to Chance. I'm seeing evidence of how the oversight and monitoring is working.

But even if we accept at face value the notion that some minor violations are enough to withdraw, why is that not given as the major reason for withdrawal? Trump's main message is that the US is violating the agreement, because it was a bad deal for us to begin with, not that Iran hasn't lived up to its end. The main message seems to be hawkishness toward Iran and posturing toward N. Korea (I wonder if Bolton helped finally tip this decision). The admin is not selling this as a response to violations from Iran. They are selling this as a reversal of bad policy by the previous president. I think that is bad strategy and undermines us in future negotiations. Do you agree with Trump highlighting withdrawing as something he always intended to do, based on his assessment it was a bad deal, rather than focus on justifying the US breaking its word being justified by Iran violations? Do you see no downside to the widespread backlash us doing this will have?

I would suggest that even Obama knew that it wasn’t the right agreement but his legacy was at stake and he knew previously enforced sanctions would likely no longer work if the Europeans were going to go ahead on an agreement regardless of US involvement. European Governments were getting lots of pressure from major corporations that wanted to resume very lucrative business ventures in Iran and I think most GOPers felt like Obama buckled toeuropean pressure. Here’s an interesting article from Fortune days before the agreement was final regarding how Obama has to sell the deal.

Nevertheless, the President will likely fight till the very end to get this deal through. If Congress does somehow torpedo his efforts by either voting the agreement down or by imposing more sanctions, it would be devastating, not only for his legacy, but also for the international sanctions regime he painstakingly put together in order to isolate Iran.

“Iran has shown no willingness to eliminate those aspects of their program that they maintain are for peaceful purposes, even in the face of unprecedented sanctions,” President Obama said on Thursday. “Should negotiations collapse because we, the United States, rejected what the majority of the world considers a fair deal, what our scientists and nuclear experts suggest would give us confidence that they are not developing a nuclear weapon, it’s doubtful that we can even keep our current international sanctions in place.”

http://fortune.com/2015/04/03/iran-n...pean-business/

[Sour Masher]

Bernie, my main issue at this point is that the US agreed to the deal, and is now backing out of that agreement. The nature of our governmental system, until Trump overturns it, is that our leaders enter and exit office fairly quickly. Barring a blatant violation, don't you think we should stick to our word? Do you think this deal was so horrible that it is worth us reneging our word, and potentially compromising future deal-making?

[Bernie Brewer]

Bernie, my main issue at this point is that the US agreed to the deal, and is now backing out of that agreement. The nature of our governmental system, until Trump overturns it, is that our leaders enter and exit office fairly quickly. Barring a blatant violation, don't you think we should stick to our word? Do you think this deal was so horrible that it is worth us reneging our word, and potentially compromising future deal-making?

My point was that Chance hit it on the head. The President was lame duck, running out the clock, attempting to get this across the goal line, without bi-partisan support, he and our European partners had to know that this could be a short term deal for the US. Had Hillary won, or another Democrat, it probably stands. But at some point wouldn’t the Congress have to bless it? Obama didn’t have consensus from his “government” and yet he still entered into this deal.

I think you’re implying, correctly, that we have one President at a time, but you can’t tell me that Obama didn’t do the similar things when he took office on Bush era agreements/commitments. They may not have been of this magnitude but it happens at every change in our government. I think we can all agree that the lack of bi-partisanship between our two parties doesn’t bode well for agreements of this nature.

To be clear, I am not certain whether Trump did the right thing today or not. And, I do think there are downsides for an inconsistent foreign policy and in particular, walking away from agreements or commitments but that’s because we have two parties that can’t play nice with each other.

[Hornsby]

U.S. embassy cables warned against expelling 300,000 immigrants from Central America and Haiti. Trump officials did it anyway.
The warnings were transmitted to top State Department officials last year in a series of cables now at the center of an investigation by Senate Democrats whose findings were recently referred to the Government Accountability Office.

The cables’ contents, which have not been previously disclosed, reveal career diplomats’ strong opposition to terminating the immigrants’ provisional residency, known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and the possible deportation of hundreds of thousands of people to some of the poorest and most violent places in the Americas.

Then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson dismissed the advice and joined other Trump administration officials in pressuring leaders at the Department of Homeland Security to strip the immigrants of their protections, according to current and former administration officials whose accounts were consistent with Senate Democrats’ findings.

WaPo Alerts...

Because what could possibly go wrong when you send people to some of the poorest and most violent places in our hemisphere?

[Sour Masher]

My point was that Chance hit it on the head. The President was lame duck, running out the clock, attempting to get this across the goal line, without no-partisan support, he and our European partners had to known that this could be a short term plan. Had Hillary won or another Democrat it probably stands. But at some point wouldn’t the senate have to bless it? Obama didn’t have consensus from his “government” and yet he still entered into this deal. I think you’re implying, correctly, that we have one President at a time, but you can’t tell me that Obama didn’t do the similar things when he took office on Bush era agreements/commitments. They may not have been of this magnitude but it happens at every change in our government. I think we can all agree that the lack of bi-partisanship between our two parties doesn’t bode well for agreements of this nature.

I can't think of deals this significant being reneged on by a new president/regime in recent memory. I'm sure such examples will be pointed out to me if my memory is failing me. I don't think this has many, or any, comparable precedents in recent history. I hear the counter to that about this outcome being the fruits of bad practice to begin with. I just think of that as in house issues that matter little on the international stage. What other nations care about is whether they can trust that a deal made with the US will be honored by the US, even when our internal politics change. If they cannot trust that notion, I don't know why they'd negotiate in good faith with us.

I can see justifications for backing out of previously agreed upon deals, but to me, the reasons given for backing out of this deal are insufficient given the damage to our ability to negotiate in good faith in the future. Chancellor has faith that the intricacies of our internal politics will not only be understood by other countries, but taken in stride. That they will gauge if future deals have the full backing of all branches of our government, and only expect us to continue to abide by the terms of such deals if that is the case. They will still negotiate with us when our legislative and executive branch are out of alignment, but they'll know that all dealings in those cases are on shaky ground long term. I don't know if that will be the case. I think our rep in such cases matter. "Lannisters always pay their debts" and all that--being perceived as sticking to promises and agreements has advantages just as being perceived as being mercurial, subject to the whims of the revolving doors of our political system, has disadvantages.

[OaklandA's]

I think we can all agree that the lack of bi-partisanship between our two parties doesn’t bode well for agreements of this nature.

As I said in the Health Care thread, the goal is not to be bipartisan; the goal is to enact policies that are good for the country. The JCPOA prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons for many years, and allows the IAEA to closely monitor Iran's nuclear capabilities. Without it, Iran could start developing nuclear weapons tomorrow, and have them within a year. How is that good for the USA and the rest of the world?

In some ways, this is like Trump's "Repeal and Replace" of the Affordable Care Act. He promised to get rid of it on Day One, and tried, but fortunately people realized that his solutions to replace the ACA would actually be worse for the country, so he was stopped. Trump also promised to get rid of the JCPOA, but in this case, the people and Congress can't stop him. We now have to hope that Trump's replacement plan is better than what it repealed, but based on Trump's knowledge and track record, that's probably not a great bet.

[Sour Masher]

WaPo Alerts...

Because what could possibly go wrong when you send people to some of the poorest and most violent places in our hemisphere?

Send them all back to their "shithole" countries, right? What could go wrong?

I'm really curious when Trump will start deporting undocumented immigrants from predominantly poor, white countries. There are such people and such countries. There are undocumented immigrants from Eastern European countries, and a country like Kosovo has a GDP per capita lower than a country like Ecuador. While not as poor, there are about 50k undocumented immigrants from Ireland roaming our streets--some of them even commit crimes sometimes! I'm sure Trump will get right on deporting those folks soon.

Interesting demographic biases in play here. Kinda like when Trump defunded efforts to track and respond to white nationalist terrorist groups while upping funding focusing on minority terrorists.

[Bernie Brewer]

As I said in the Health Care thread, the goal is not to be bipartisan; the goal is to enact policies that are good for the country. The JCPOA prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons for many years, and allows the IAEA to closely monitor Iran's nuclear capabilities. Without it, Iran could start developing nuclear weapons tomorrow, and have them within a year. How is that good for the USA and the rest of the world?

In some ways, this is like Trump's "Repeal and Replace" of the Affordable Care Act. He promised to get rid of it on Day One, and tried, but fortunately people realized that his solutions to replace the ACA would actually be worse for the country, so he was stopped. Trump also promised to get rid of the JCPOA, but in this case, the people and Congress can't stop him. We now have to hope that Trump's replacement plan is better than what it repealed, but based on Trump's knowledge and track record, that's probably not a great bet.

I think every sane person agrees in general with concept with your first bolded comment. Unfortunately, this agreement usually ends as soon as we, individually, decide what’s “good for the country” because in specific terms we rarely see the issue the same and, unfortunately, it’s usually based on party or tribal lines. And forcing things through without consensus, which Trump is now doing, invites tribalism and hardening of party stances.

To the second bolded comment, that’s the problem with governing by executive orders, they aren’t laws. ACA stood because it was law. Executive orders are a pen stroke away from being undone.

I am with you, I hope Trump has a replacement plan, but that’s, sadly, unlikely.

[Hornsby]

BTW, somewhat parliamentary point here, but the US didn't pull out of the agreement, they technically violated it. And Iran can bring the violation up to the UN...nothing will happen of course, but I guess violating treaties has a long and sordid history for the US government.

[chancellor]

Claims that Iran violated the deal in a serious enough way to justify abandoning it seem to largely come from sources with an interest in under mining the deal, like Netanyahu, and contradict the many reports by the IAEA, the credible source you site, of overall compliance. I'm seeing a long list of compliances in the documents you link to Chance. I'm seeing evidence of how the oversight and monitoring is working.

Ah, so now you're moving the bar? It now has to be perceived as "violations serious enough to justify abandoning it" versus actual violations? We'll agree to disagree here - the fact that the IAEA, an organization in the past that has less than a stellar record of finding anything that doesn't come up and kick them directly in the knee, actually found heavy water violations to me is a "tip of the iceberg" issue more than some isolated incidents of violations.

And, please, don't quote Chinese and Russian and German support for Iran "not violating the agreement". I mean, seriously? All three have serious vested interests in screwing this up.

But even if we accept at face value the notion that some minor violations are enough to withdraw, why is that not given as the major reason for withdrawal?

OMG! A politician playing politics! The horror!

Do you agree with Trump highlighting withdrawing as something he always intended to do, based on his assessment it was a bad deal, rather than focus on justifying the US breaking its word being justified by Iran violations? Do you see no downside to the widespread backlash us doing this will have?

"Widespread backlash"? C'mon, that's simply pearl clutching language there. As I stated before, any friend or foe remotely familiar with US negotiations realize that if a treaty does not get Senate approval, the life of the agreement is potentially only as long as the administration who brokered it.

And let's clarify a key point here. It's not merely Trump who thinks the Iran agreement was a poor one. The Obama administration had almost no support among the Senate - including Democrats. The Obama administration decided not to bring it forth for a vote to avoid the political humiliation suffered by the Clinton administration when they brought forth the Paris accords, and lost in the Senate 97-0.

[chancellor]

You see these as reasons to back out of the deal? These actually show that the deal is working.

From the first linked report - Iran allows the IAEA to monitor Iran's stock of heavy water. On February 17, 2016, Iran had 130.9 tonnes of heavy water, slightly above the limit of 130. On February 24, the IAEA confirmed that "20 metric tonnes of heavy water had been shipped out of Iran, bringing the stock of heavy water in Iran to below 130 metric tonnes." This is exactly how we can ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. Using this incident as a reason to end the deal is absurd.

Sour Masher's point was that there have been no violations. The IAEA has actually caught them red-handed twice. Supposedly, those issues have been "fixed".

My mileage is that these are simply tip of the iceberg findings; your mileage may vary.

[Sour Masher]

Sour Masher's point was that there have been no violations. The IAEA has actually caught them red-handed twice. Supposedly, those issues have been "fixed".

My mileage is that these are simply tip of the iceberg findings; your mileage may vary.

No, my point was that there was no legitimate pretext for us breaking our word and violating the deal by pulling out. I used as evidence to support that point the admittedly technically inaccurate statement that there have been no violations by Iran. What you cite are two minor compliance violations that were only found and corrected because of the access IAEA was afforded by this deal. Like OaklandA's, I see this as evidence of the merit of the deal, and I think it is misleading to suggest that the IAEA reports suggest a lack of compliance from Iran. Over 10 reports show overwhelming compliance, and give no legitimate pretext for us to pull out.

But, of course, your response to that is already clear--the IAEA are bumbling incompetents who wouldn't find a violation unless it hit them in the face. Their detailed reports indicate pretty thorough oversight, but I don't know enough about their procedures or access to defend them, although to be convinced that they are incompetent, I'd need to see some evidence.

The bottom line is that you, like many, thought the original deal was a bad one (or as your guy Trump frequently called it, the worst deal in all of human history). Furthermore, our country was brought in to it improperly by Obama, because he did not follow proper protocols. I get that. I'm not trying to argue against those points. What I'm trying to argue is that once the US committed to the deal, breaking it because a new president didn't like what the old president agreed to hurts our reputation, and the ability of other nations to trust the long term stability of our commitments. It's clear you disagree. I guess time will tell if Trump just made things harder for us to negotiate with Iran and other countries in the future.

Maybe I'm against this, because I can't help but analogize it to personal ethics. I know I wouldn't back out of such a deal personally given the facts in this case, and I know that if I made a deal with someone and then they pulled out of it, I wouldn't trust that person's word again. I realize Trump didn't make the deal, but the US did. Obama was representing the US when he agreed to it, just like Trump is representing the US when he pulls out of it. So, it's the trust in the US's willingness to honor its commitments that I think is being eroded by this move.