President Donald Trump

[Bernie Brewer]

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.

So your saying that if the President of the United States of American makes a commitment or enters into an agreement with other countries, no matter its popularity back home, and despite not gaining congressional concensus, and irregardless of that President being a lame duck President, the Country should stand by that because it’s “our” word. Because you know who’s President now right?

[Sour Masher]

So your saying that if the President of the United States of American makes a commitment or enters into an agreement with other countries, no matter its popularity back home, and despite not gaining congressional concensus, and irregardless of that President being a lame duck President, the Country should stand by that because it’s “our” word. Because you know who’s President now right?

I was waiting for this to come up . Well put. My response is going to seem like I cop out, I suspect. It's that it depends. Yes, if Trump makes a deal with other nations in good faith (this is entirely different to me than overturning his domestic agenda), unless the deal represents something truly egregiousness or nefarious (I don't consider this deal to be either of those things), or significant new information comes to light rendering the deal untenable (I don't consider to minor violations found and corrected to count), I believe we should honor the deal, for the good of our reputation. I know that is a lot of caveats, but those are my thoughts.

[OaklandA's]

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.

You don't need the scare quotes, the issues have been fixed. But look at the big picture - even if Iran exceeded their limit of heavy water by 0.7%, they are not presently close to developing a nuclear weapon. Heavy water may be useful to get to plutonium, but it is clear they are not using it for that purpose. If they were, the IAEA would know. More likely is that while the plant was still operational, they were making heavy water that they could sell on the open market, and a couple of times they went slightly over the limit. And when that happened, the situation was quickly resolved - there was no deception involved.

Do you honestly think that those two heavy-water situations (back in early 2017) show that Iran is secretly trying to develop a nuclear weapon?

[B-Fly]

So your saying that if the President of the United States of American makes a commitment or enters into an agreement with other countries, no matter its popularity back home, and despite not gaining congressional concensus, and irregardless of that President being a lame duck President, the Country should stand by that because it’s “our” word. Because you know who’s President now right?

I think we're missing something here regarding the original deal, and that is that despite the Obama Administration's initial position that this type of agreement required neither a formal constitutional treaty nor Congressional review because he had the authority to lift or renew sanctions, Congress passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, with a unanimous vote in the House and a 98-1 vote in the Senate, and the Obama Administration ultimately agreed that it would accept this bi-partisan compromise regarding how the agreement subsequently reached with Iran and the other nations party to the agreement would be submitted for Congressional review, and Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 into law. Tom Cotton was the only member of Congress to vote no on the grounds that this type of agreement had to occur through the constitutional process for treaties. The Obama Administration then abided fully by the terms of that Act in submitting the Iran proposal to Congress for review, and Congress failed to reject the deal reached by the Obama Administration in accordance with the terms of that bi-partisan agreement setting forth how Congressional review would go down (60 days to reject, or it's a deal). So yes, Congress having agreed in a bi-partisan fashion to the terms for review, and that having been signed into law, I do think that the other parties to the agreement had just cause, once the 60 day Congressional review period under the Review Act expired without the deal being rejected by Congress, to believe and assume that the US would abide by the agreement at that it would not be subject to unilateral reconsideration and withdrawal by a subsequent US President.

https://ballotpedia.org/Iran_nuclear_agreement:_Congressional_review

[Bernie Brewer]

I think we're missing something here regarding the original deal, and that is that despite the Obama Administration's initial position that this type of agreement required neither a formal constitutional treaty nor Congressional review because he had the authority to lift or renew sanctions, Congress passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, with a unanimous vote in the House and a 98-1 vote in the Senate, and the Obama Administration ultimately agreed that it would accept this bi-partisan compromise regarding how the agreement subsequently reached with Iran and the other nations party to the agreement would be submitted for Congressional review, and Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 into law. Tom Cotton was the only member of Congress to vote no on the grounds that this type of agreement had to occur through the constitutional process for treaties. The Obama Administration then abided fully by the terms of that Act in submitting the Iran proposal to Congress for review, and Congress failed to reject the deal reached by the Obama Administration in accordance with the terms of that bi-partisan agreement setting forth how Congressional review would go down (60 days to reject, or it's a deal). So yes, Congress having agreed in a bi-partisan fashion to the terms for review, and that having been signed into law, I do think that the other parties to the agreement had just cause, once the 60 day Congressional review period under the Review Act expired without the deal being rejected by Congress, to believe and assume that the US would abide by the agreement at that it would not be subject to unilateral reconsideration and withdrawal by a subsequent US President.

https://ballotpedia.org/Iran_nuclear...ssional_review

While the above may be correct, it still wasn’t affirmatively ratified by congress. It was an absence or anti-ratification, if anything. Should it have been ratified, I can’t say as I’m not a constitutional law expert. Seems to me you’d want affirmative concensus but Obama knew he wouldn’t get it with the GOP control both House and Senate. But, elections have consequences. And, this didn’t come out of the completely out of the blue. Trump ran on this. He’s been in office 18 months and so foreign countries have known for as long as 36 months that if Trump were elected, this outcome was a very real possibility.

[B-Fly]

While the above may be correct, it still wasn’t affirmatively ratified by congress. It was an absence or anti-ratification, if anything. Should it have been ratified, I can’t say as I’m not a constitutional law expert. Seems to me you’d want affirmative concensus but Obama knew he wouldn’t get it with the GOP control both House and Senate. But, elections have consequences. And, this didn’t come out of the completely out of the blue. Trump ran on this. He’s been in office 18 months and so foreign countries have known for as long as 36 months that if Trump were elected, this outcome was a very real possibility.

He had a 98-1 vote in the Senate and a unanimous vote in the House agreeing to the terms for Congressional review. That's the most consensus there was on anything in the eight years of his presidency.

[Bernie Brewer]

He had a 98-1 vote in the Senate and a unanimous vote in the House agreeing to the terms for Congressional review. That's the most consensus there was on anything in the eight years of his presidency.

I’m not reading the link the way you have as I’m not concluding anything close to an approval of the final agreement. I’m getting that a Congress allowed the President and SoS to negotiate but required that they come back to Congress for approval. The Ballotpedia link goes on the say that Congress didn’t approve of the final plan, and, in fact, the Democrats filibustered each attempted vote, so the 60 days would pass. Running out the clock, prevent defense, the four corners offense, call it what you want but it was not an approval and they had to know this wasn’t a lasting decision, unless... Unless they thought they’d win back majority control and retain the Presidency in the 2016 election cycle. Oops. There were several votes in the Senste and House that indicated strong disagreement, though almost exclusively by party lines.

[Mithrandir]

Is Trump doing this just because he's an asshole? Seems to me that's why he does most things.

[cardboardbox]

I was waiting for this to come up . Well put. My response is going to seem like I cop out, I suspect. It's that it depends. Yes, if Trump makes a deal with other nations in good faith (this is entirely different to me than overturning his domestic agenda), unless the deal represents something truly egregiousness or nefarious (I don't consider this deal to be either of those things), or significant new information comes to light rendering the deal untenable (I don't consider to minor violations found and corrected to count), I believe we should honor the deal, for the good of our reputation. I know that is a lot of caveats, but those are my thoughts.

Isnt the senate supposed to ratify treaties? If you cant get senate approval, then there is no treaty, right? The agreement was based on finding loopholes in our own laws which had the side affect of making it super easy for Trump to walk away from.

[cardboardbox]

Is Trump doing this just because he's an asshole? Seems to me that's why he does most things.

I saw this:

Why Trump decided to pull the U.S. out of the deal

Trump campaigned against the Iran nuclear agreement, which he called the worst ever negotiated. He cited weaknesses in the deal that the leaders of France, Germany and Britain have acknowledged and pledged to improve. Those include:

• Eliminating expiration dates on the most important restrictions on Iran's nuclear activity, which would allow Iran to resume large-scale processing of nuclear fuel starting in 2025.

• Allowing inspections of military sites, which Iran currently disputes.

• Limiting Iran's ballistic missile program.

• Addressing Iran's support for terrorist groups across the Middle East.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...eal/590332002/

[B-Fly]

Isnt the senate supposed to ratify treaties? If you cant get senate approval, then there is no treaty, right? The agreement was based on finding loopholes in our own laws which had the side affect of making it super easy for Trump to walk away from.

Everyone in the Senate except for Tom Cotton (and everyone in the House) essentially agreed that the multilateral agreement being sought would not be subject to ratification as a "treaty" under the Constitution, when they passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Presumably this was because enforcement of the treaty's terms and mutual conditions would be through international inspections and the lifting or reinstatement of sanctions, not the commitment of US troops.

[Bernie Brewer]

Hey, did anyone else notice that Trump's shitty diplomacy was able to gain the release of three US National prisoners from DPRK? Just wondering. Yes, I know two of whom were imprisoned during his term, but another was there longer, so...

[revo]

Hey, did anyone else notice that Trump's shitty diplomacy was able to gain the release of three US National prisoners from DPRK? Just wondering. Yes, I know two of whom were imprisoned during his term, but another was there longer, so...

Yep. And when he announced it the other day, he made damn sure to accuse Obama of not doing enough to get the three of them out (and like you said, two of them were not even imprisoned yet). Every positive with this dotard ends with a major negative.

[Bernie Brewer]

Yep. And when he announced it the other day, he made damn sure to accuse Obama of not doing enough to get the three of them out (and like you said, two of them were not even imprisoned yet). Every positive with this dotard ends with a major negative.

I’m not sure. Ask the one guy and his family if it’s a negative. But, I do understand what you’re saying. So the real question is would you (or anyone) give him any credit for this Had he not said something stupid about all three being from the previous administration?

[revo]

I’m not sure. Ask the one guy and his family if it’s a negative. But, I do understand what you’re saying. So the real question is would you (or anyone) give him any credit for this Had he not said something stupid about all three being from the previous administration?

You do realize that 10 Americans were freed from North Korean prisons under the Obama Administration, right? So no need to ask that one guy. I'm sure they tried. See, another negative here.

Sure, they deserved credit, but that got lost (to me) when he blatantly lied about Obama to brainwash his base. Sorry.