Trump Wants to Toss Iran Nuke Agreement: The Senate Must Not Allow That to Happen

What Trump may try to pull off (again) with Worldwide Impact

BTW: I am sick of seeing this finger gesture from Trump

(I wonder how long he practiced refining it)

Second Update (October 14, 2017): This update is a fine editorial from TPM - worth reading, very valid points in the article.

Previous update (Friday, October 13, 2017) from a CNN report here, in part;

My Intro: Wow, talk about a back peddling, double-talking, tap-dancing, or any other cliché you choose, but the fact remains and cannot be disputed: Donald J. Trump is truly a “Con Man” and a poor one at that, but not in his own mind. Trump spotted leaving DC for more golf:

Like his guy on a mission (but Trump can't remember which direction)

Re: Trump promised and threatened to decertify the Iran Nuclear Deal and throw the whole thing into a turmoil and hyped that a few days just his old TV show while keeping news of the “winner” a secret until the next episode.

He will not abandon the deal, or decertify Iranian compliance: He was the only one who thought that, but instead he will tell Congress to write new rules in case Iran reneges on the deal so he can take action in the future … WTF – oops.

FYI Mr. Trump: The current agreement already has that kind of provision and that’s why the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China all say Iran is in compliance. Trump was standing alone.

President Trump has announced a combative new strategy toward Iran today ending the United States' adherence to his predecessor's nuclear deal but stopping short, for now, of scrapping the agreement entirely.

The move doesn't amount to ripping up the Iran nuclear accord as he promised to do as a candidate. Instead, Trump will foist the agreement upon Congress, who now have 60 days to determine a path forward. Republicans and Democrats alike -- who also face upcoming battles over taxes, immigration, and health care -- have shown few signs they're willing to take up another divisive issue.

If lawmakers decide to impose new punitive economic sanctions on Iran, the deal will likely fall apart. Instead, the Trump administration wants members of Congress to adopt new measures that would keep the deal intact, while spelling out parameters by which the US would impose new sanctions should Iran violate its agreements.

In a midday speech, Trump detailed a more combative approach to Iran's ballistic missile program and its support for terrorist networks, including the possibility of new economic sanctions on individuals and entities associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which provides support for a number of militant groups, including Hezbollah.

Original post from here: Thanks for stopping by.

The lead-in: The Iranian nuclear deal is one which Trump has called “terrible and the worst deal ever negotiated.” The facts, however, don’t match Trump’s standard political hype – for example:

1.  Secretary of Defense James Mattis testified last week that it is in America's national security interest to remain in the agreement.

2.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also repeatedly found that Iran is complying with the nuclear deal.

3.  The other signers, the UK, France, German, China, and Russia all say Iran is complying with the agreement and that it should not be discarded in any way.  

So with those comments, it's hard to make the case that the deal isn't working, so why else would you tear up this agreement? Except for political gain and rally cheering for the Trump base.

This is reminiscent the “repeal and replace” the ACA (Obamacare) fiasco that so far has been disastrous for Trump and those cheer leaders, but they had no better plan to proffer and millions now covered would be tossed under the bus.

Of course, Iran operates in other ways outside of the nuclear deal that are inimical to American interests (i.e., interests in other countries like by propping up the al-Assad regime in Syria and supplying weapons to the Houthi rebels in Yemen).

Note: The current nuclear agreement was not meant to fix Iran's regional meddling, irritating as that is.

So, what if Trump were to get his way? Just ponder these 3 possibilities – none of which are very good in reality.

The agreement’s goal is to ensure that Iran doesn't acquire nuclear weapons, which would then set off a regional nuclear arms race in the ME where Saudi Arabia would quickly follow suit since they are an arch-rival of Iran.

Also, Iran armed with nuclear weapons could be worse than a non-nuclear-armed Iran – e.g., cite the behavior of North Korean under dictator Kim Jong-Un, whose antics on the world stage only get attention because he has nukes and without nukes, Kim would simply be irrelevant world-wide (i.e., North Korea’s GDP is a mere $16 billion, which is considerably less than that of the state of Vermont, which at $30 billion annually and Vermont is ranked 50 out of 50 of our states).

So, yes, Trump can try to tear up the agreement and try to get a new “deal” – but it’s uphill like “repeal and replace” Obama-care - probably a terrible deal from Trump.

Trump could try to unilaterally impose new sanctions on Iran – worldwide resistance is apt to follow and even from those who signed the agreement.

However, a “deal” by Trump probably would not be nearly as effective as the previous (Obama-led) US deal with sanctions that involved many other countries and forced Iran to the negotiating table to ink the nuclear deal.

Why not? A Trump deal most likely would not have the support of other major Western powers to sanction Iran now say that Iran is in compliance.

Also, there is the inconvenient fact that Iran will not renegotiate a new nuclear agreement. Similarly, those who helped negotiate the present deal alongside us have made it clear that they want the deal to remain in place – not any “new” one.

Most noteworthy:

1.  In the current all GOP-run Senate, there may not be the 51 votes (and they only have 52 GOP senators) that are needed to overturn the current agreement by imposing new sanctions on Iran (that Trump wants).

2.  GOP Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain (Arizona), Susan Collins (Maine) all example might vote against sanctions that would effectively end the agreement.

3.  Then add in Sen. Bob Corker (Tennessee) who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and right now is in a well-publicized spat with Trump and his name calling via Twitter to denigrate Coker. Therefore, Corker has little incentive to help Trump with any new nuclear deal with Iran and more importantly against the other signers.

This could end up looking a lot like the failed effort to repeal Obamacare.

Historical Background: KUWAIT (Reuters) - Iran's foreign minister called for a united front among Middle Eastern nations to fight militancy, in his first regional trip since Iran reached an agreement with world powers on the country's nuclear program - an agreement that raised fears among its Gulf Arab neighbors, saying in part: “Any threat to one country is a threat to all ... No country can solve regional problems without the help of others.” (He said at a news conference hosted by the Iranian embassy in Kuwait).

Previous and Related Articles on this Subject:

·        “Republican Lawmakers Vow Fight to Derail Nuclear Deal:” The New York Times, July 14, 2015 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=305454&id=124821-3904278-Op7Ecwx&t=3

·        “A Poll: The Public Backs Nuclear Deal with Iran by 2-1 Margin:” NBC News, June 30, 2015 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=305225&id=124821-3904278-Op7Ecwx&t=4

·        “Overwhelming Consensus by Nuclear/Other Experts Favors Agreement with Iran:” Lobe Log Foreign Policy, July 6, 2015 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=305226&id=124821-3904278-Op7Ecwx&t=5

·        “Obama's Remarks on the Agreement (Transcript):” Roll Call, July 14, 2015 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=305456&id=124821-3904278-Op7Ecwx&t=6

·        “$1.4 Million Ad Targets the Agreement:” Politico, June 23, 2015
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=305228&id=124821-3904278-Op7Ecwx&t=7

My conclusions: Now we all must work to convince the Senate to oppose any Trump plan or his style of any deal.  

B/L: Mr. Trump in a word is: Flat out wrong. We should be united worldwide in continuing nuclear non-proliferation NOT expansion. That is simple premise that Trump does not grasp.

Thanks for stopping by.