Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

Iran irony: Trump brought all this on himself

President Donald Trump
REUTERS/Leah Millis
If Iran does go back to pursuing development of a usable nuke any time soon, it will be because President Donald Trump dissed Iran and all those key U.S. allies by pulling out of the deal under which Iran agreed not to seek such a weapon.

The “breaking news” alert from the New York Times Monday afternoon read:

President Trump ordered another 1,000 troops to the Middle East and vowed again that Iran would not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon

I could’ve sworn that President Trump inherited a deal, signed by Iran and the U.S. and a gaggle of the most important U.S. allies and all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (including Russia and China), which the vast majority of the smart, sane world agreed would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But Trump knew better.

The deal had invasive, unscheduled inspections by international inspectors to ensure that Iran was living up to its provisions. And our country’s most important allies agreed that Iran was living up to it, and urged him not to withdraw from it for fear that, if the U.S. pulled out, the deal might fall apart and Iran might be tempted to resume its work toward developing nukes.


(Here, if you care to read it, is the Washington Post Fact-Checker’s assessment of the various misstatements by Trump when he gave his “reasons” for pulling out of the deal. Spoiler alert: The facticity of his reasons did not hold up well.)

I’m not saying this is a fact (as if certain presidents even care about those things anyway), but it’s pretty likely that if Iran does go back to pursuing development of a usable nuke any time soon, it will be because Trump dissed Iran and all those key U.S. allies by pulling out of the deal under which Iran agreed not to seek such a weapon.

And this definitely isn’t fact — it’s a fear — but I fear that the current POTUS is getting so worried about his chances of winning a second term in 2020 that he thinks maybe a nice war against a nation of subhuman Muslims might improve his chances.

It’s been known to work.

Comments (71)

  1. Submitted by richard owens on 06/18/2019 - 09:34 am.

    Possible reasons for this behavior:

    Trump Tower Tel Aviv?
    Stick it to Obama and Kerry?
    Wag the doggie over Mueller’s list of crimes?
    or
    No reason at all, just an accident of a person who has no sense of history, no sense of the future and doesn’t know himself well enough to think clearly.

    One thing is sure: Pompeo and Bolton have learned nothing from Cheney and Dubya’s (ongoing) adventures.

    They even think they have a valid AUMF to play god in the Middle East.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/18/2019 - 10:14 am.

      I will vote for answers two and four. He will do anything possible to be the anti-Obama, but beyond that, he has no plan.

    • Submitted by Paul John Martin on 06/18/2019 - 01:57 pm.

      Richard Owens thinks that “One thing is sure: Pompeo and Bolton have learned nothing from Cheney and Dubya’s (ongoing) adventures.”
      Au contraire, IMHO, they have learned that a nice little war is great for ratings, and a very nice little earner for some very rich people who will no doubt $how their gratitude toward$ you in the time-honored way of $wamp creature$.
      Unfortunately, a war against Iran would be much bloodier than the Iraq War, especially since we would have far fewer allies.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/18/2019 - 02:00 pm.

      I’m waiting for him to take credit for the sun rising.
      After all, it works for the rooster.

    • Submitted by John Evans on 06/18/2019 - 08:41 pm.

      I must disagree with that bit about Pompeo and Bolton not having learned from Cheney’s and W’s experiences. The invasion of Iraq might look like a disaster to you and me, but the result may have been within their range of acceptable outcomes. Their faction may feel that it was a success.

      Our short-memory media never seem to mention that Bolton’s faction has been actively agitating for this war for exactly 40 years now.

  2. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 06/18/2019 - 09:44 am.

    I share the same fear, noting as well that narcissistic, spoiled children rarely think in terms of consequences, especially consequences for others. My 7-year-old grandson is more thoughtful and considerate.

    The most relevant point, however, is not a behavior comparison between an infantile President and a 7-year-old, it’s the one broadcast by the headline: this is a crisis manufactured by Mr. Trump himself – apparently in large part because the agreement which would have prevented it was signed by his predecessor, whose every consequential action Mr. Trump has apparently vowed to reverse. Whether that’s a purely racist course of action on Mr. Trump’s part is something others can weigh in on, but it does fit the sort of megalomania that characterizes his language and policies, at least so far. A military confrontation, unnecessary as it might be, would nonetheless serve as a handy distraction in the run-up to an election Mr. Trump might not win, and he would not be the first national leader to use such an imagined threat to hold onto power.

  3. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 06/18/2019 - 10:05 am.

    Does not Iran still have a nuclear agreement with other nations?

    Is this the same Iran that attacked oil tankers in the Straits?

    Is this Iran the same murderous regime that has destabilized the entire Middle East?

    Is this the same Iran that support and funds terrorism around the world?

    Is this the same Iran that was helping overthrown the nation of Yemen?

    Is this the same Iran the supplies roadside bombs to kill our soldiers in Afghanistan?

    Is this the same Iran that supported the Syrian dictator as he gassed his fellow countryman?

    Yep – – it is fault of the USA and in particular Trump for being unwilling to trust a noble regime like Iran.

    • Submitted by Charles Holtman on 06/18/2019 - 05:39 pm.

      Does not Iran still have a nuclear agreement with other nations?
      – Is it still an agreement when the principal protagonist has withdrawn?

      Is this the same Iran that attacked oil tankers in the Straits?
      – Yes!!! according to John Bolton.

      Is this Iran the same murderous regime that has destabilized the entire Middle East?
      -No, that would be our ally, Saudi Arabia.

      Is this the same Iran that support and funds terrorism around the world?
      -No, that would be our ally, Saudi Arabia.

      Is this the same Iran that was helping overthrow the nation of Yemen?
      -No, that would be our ally, Saudi Arabia.

      Is this the same Iran the supplies roadside bombs to kill our soldiers in Afghanistan?
      -No, that would be ISIS (funded by our ally, Saudi Arabia).

      Is this the same Iran that supported the Syrian dictator as he gassed his fellow countryman?
      -No, that would be Donald Rumsfeld … oh, sorry, I thought you said “Iraqi dictator.”

      Yep – – it is fault of the USA and in particular Trump for being unwilling to trust a noble regime like Iran.
      -It is the fault of the USA to have spent 65 years turning Iran from a potential democratic ally into a destabilizing theocracy. Competent statecraft is building stabilizing relationships with adversaries. Trump, like any two-year-old, only destroys.

    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 06/18/2019 - 09:38 pm.

      RG got something to support your accusations? From here, looks like a replay of the Iraq WMD show with a few words changed around!

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/19/2019 - 10:58 am.

      Was Iran not in compliance with the agreement? I’m afraid they were, and that is the only relevant question when it comes to the nuclear agreement.

      Should the United States really be throwing stones about destabilizing the Middle East and supporting dictators?

  4. Submitted by Mike Riess on 06/18/2019 - 10:15 am.

    Your quote, “The deal had invasive, unscheduled inspections by international inspectors to ensure that Iran was living up to its provisions.” is both misleading and incorrect. Misleading because you say “international inspectors” for the only reason that Iran would not agree to inspections by the United States. Incorrect because any site inspection request has to go before a panel to be approved, and Iran is on the panel! It would take 24 days if Iran denies the request. Seems to me some cleanup could be done in 24 days. Also, Revolutionary Guard bases, where nuclear research had been conducted, are now off limits to inspection.
    Also 7 terrorists were freed and 14 other arrest warrants the Justice Dept had were dropped.
    Another point, after 7 years all sanctions stopping arms and missile sales to Iran would be stopped, allowing those purchases to be made. This to the #1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world (Hezbollah).
    And you feel this would stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons?

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 06/19/2019 - 11:31 am.

      Mike, unless you show us Iran’s nuclear arsenal, the agreement DID stop them developing nuclear weapons. Now that Trump is tearing up the agreement nukes are back on the table. And I remind everyone, the Persian Gulf is a very dangerous place for our Navy, attacking Iran, specially allies, is very risky idea.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/19/2019 - 11:32 am.

      Just a few follow-up questions:

      1. Does Iran now have a nuclear weapon?

      2. If not, how long would it take for it to develop one?

      3. Under international law, is a nation-state justified in withdrawing from a multilateral agreement just because the chief executive decides he doesn’t like it?

      4. Does the Trump administration have any plan at all to address this issue?

      5. What is Iran’s motive for acceding to any demands from the Trump administration, when it has no reason to believe it will honor any agreements?

  5. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 06/18/2019 - 10:21 am.

    “…would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for 10 years (6 now), and allow them to proceed unfettered afterwards”

    FTFY, sir.

    We’d be remiss not to observe, also, that in the intervening years, Iran has concentrated on perfecting the delivery vehicles (ICBM’s) to carry the nuclear warheads they are not building.

  6. Submitted by Carrie Preston on 06/18/2019 - 11:05 am.

    Trump is exhausting. His sloppy game of chess with world affairs continues.

  7. Submitted by John Evans on 06/18/2019 - 11:13 am.

    Ironic?

    The only irony that comes to mind is that decades of reading the Washington Post can make one naive enough the think that war with Iran was not one of the administration’s foreign policy goals.

  8. Submitted by Alice Gibson on 06/18/2019 - 11:29 am.

    The clinical analogy for this (and for Trump foreign policy, generally) is Munschausen syndrome by proxy – https://bit.ly/2MVSVCs – the symptom list is revelatory

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/19/2019 - 06:54 pm.

      I’m not sure how authoritative this source is.
      It has no connection to the DSM.

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 06/20/2019 - 09:54 am.

      No, this is just warmongering, and that’s not in any DSM. I suppose you could say that warmongers are antisocial personalities… that IS in the DSM.

  9. Submitted by Charles Holtman on 06/18/2019 - 11:58 am.

    “Trump brought all this on himself”: The preposition implies that Trump is burdened by the damage to global stability he advances daily. We know quite well that the only burden Trump registers is if he is denied his cheeseburger, his golf game or praise for his bowel movement.

  10. Submitted by Misty Martin on 06/18/2019 - 12:04 pm.

    Mr. Owens:

    I appreciate your comment and agree wholeheartedly with it, especially the part about “. . . accident of a person who has no sense of history . . . ”

    I’m a little dense about acronyms sometimes – what is AUMF if you don’t mind stating so to those like me, who are slow to catch on in this day of texting and acronyms?

    • Submitted by Tom Crain on 06/19/2019 - 07:32 am.

      The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed essentially unanimously by both parties and both halves of congress in 2001. The lone dissenter Barbara Lee in 2017 submitted an ammendment to end the 2001 authorization within 240 days, but this sensible change was (of course) defeated by Republican leadership via a procedural rule requiring none of the members of the committee to cast an actual vote.

      Soon after, congress debated and approve legislation to authorize and appropriate over $1 trillion in national security spending including a $6.8 billion boost in procurement funding above the Obama administration’s final fiscal 2017 budget request for more fighters, helicopters and ships. Follow the money $$, Ike was right!

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 06/19/2019 - 11:33 am.

        I think Obama and Sanders voted against the 2001 authorization in the Senate, and it was not a unanimous vote in the house either.

  11. Submitted by Brian Simon on 06/18/2019 - 12:20 pm.

    “Stick it to Obama and Kerry?”

    Obama, really. There’s a pretty compelling case that the primary motivator for Trump is to get Obama back for ridiculing him at the white house correspondents dinner. Trump has been attempting to dismantle every accomplishment of Obama’s, regardless of merit. To look at the Iran deal & ACA as two notable examples, Trump describes them both as the “worst deal ever.” In neither case has he proposed adapting or improving the existing framework, instead proposing to tear them down and replace with something better that he’s utterly incapable of describing, because he hasn’t planned that far ahead. But it’ll be better, believe him.

  12. Submitted by Frank Phelan on 06/18/2019 - 12:27 pm.

    Don Trump loves to create problems, then triumphantly announce a Great Deal to save the day. Then he says the media isn’t giving him enough credit.

    His base loves it.

  13. Submitted by Richard Hodges on 06/18/2019 - 03:12 pm.

    Does anyone else have the sense that Pompeo is sounding more like the Secretary of War than the Secretary of State?

  14. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 06/19/2019 - 07:54 am.

    “Yep – – it is fault of the USA and in particular Trump for being unwilling to trust a noble regime like Iran.”

    …As seen in the comments at Minnpost.

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 06/19/2019 - 08:58 am.

      Not to worry, I assume Iran will soon join North Korea as a noble regime we can also implicitly trust according to Der Leader: Never-mind those missile tests, I have a close personal relationship with their dictator…

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 06/19/2019 - 11:38 am.

      Good catch!!

      The words of your compatriot Ron Gotzman.

      How dare he? Oh wait…..

      Those libs twisting the words of true Americans.

      Oh wait. Never mind…

    • Submitted by David Lundeen on 06/19/2019 - 02:36 pm.

      Let’s be clear, the theocratic refine in Iran is awful, and a pariah for so many reasons. The nuclear deal was a good deal, but any plans of attacks or war by the current administration are folly. We would fail quickly and dramatically, worse than what occurred in Iraq.

  15. Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 06/19/2019 - 08:02 am.

    What do Venezuela, Russia and Iran have in common?

    1. Much of what remains of accessible oil.

    2. On the Neo-con, regime-change hit list since the 1980’s at least.

    3. Shut out from global finance, attempted to be starved, hungered over by America’s military profiteers, bankers and corporate executives.

    4. Full of people more or less like you and me, lorded over by power hungry monsters.

    5. Incessantly lied about and embellished in their ugliness by those lording over America and their servants in the media/chattering class.

    • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 06/19/2019 - 08:47 am.

      Full of people more or less like you and me, lorded over by power hungry monsters.

      You do realize, don’t you sir, that the regimes in place in Iran, Russia and Venezuela were put in place by either a popular uprising, an election or a combination of both. Also, those regimes continue to be supported by the majority of the citizens.

      As with the leftist dominated states and cities in the US, I congratulate those people and wish them joy of their victories. I do not find myself, however, to be in a mood to display much empathy when their deals with the Devil wreak havoc and suffering upon them.

      • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 06/19/2019 - 09:22 am.

        Curtis,

        Here in America we are lorded over by neoliberals and neocons, otherwise known as Dems and Repubs, which something less than half of Americans continue to support, more people not voting than voting, because they feel like neither party cares about them or serves them in any way. But the minority of citizens who vote more or less enthusiastically support those lording over all of us, making a mess of America and the earth.

        As for the Left in America doing deals with the devil, I agree, the consequence of their actions are a good deal less healthy than they assumed those consequences would be. As far as I can tell however, the Right in America has made a deal with the demiurge, or Mammon, or some such demon, if the treatment of the land, water and pollinators is any indication.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/19/2019 - 12:10 pm.

        Unlike the United States, whose President is NOT supported by the majority of its citizens.

      • Submitted by Matt Haas on 06/19/2019 - 02:26 pm.

        Ah, condescension AND utter lack of historical acumen, all in one paragraph. WE created modern Iran, lock, stock, and barrel. There would be no Iranian theocracy, no terrorism, no hostages, no “Death to the Great Satan”, but for our inability to butt out of imperialist meddling in the middle of the last century. But hey, blame the victims, I’m sure you’ll get somewhere, someday, I mean, its only been half a century so far.

      • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 06/19/2019 - 02:58 pm.

        “I do not find myself, however, to be in a mood to display much empathy when their deals with the Devil wreak havoc and suffering upon them.”

        Pretty well sums up the attitude of the rest of the “free world” towards the US in the age of Trump.

        • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 06/19/2019 - 07:35 pm.

          Yeah, I suppose that explains the hundreds of thousands of people sneaking in across our borders every year, and the hundreds of thousands more that are patiently trying to get in legally.

          • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/20/2019 - 09:34 am.

            If you include Guatemala, Ecuador, etc. as p[art of the free world.
            Mexicans are not trying to get in in significant numbers now.

          • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 06/20/2019 - 09:58 am.

            It’s always kind of funny when nationalist presume that the US is the ONLY country in the world that refugees flee to illegally, and THAT makes us “special” and proves our superiority.

            • Submitted by Karen Sandness on 06/24/2019 - 04:50 pm.

              Yes, every affluent country in the world has illegal immigrants. That includes Japan, although its illegal immigrants are mostly Chinese and Southeast Asians.

          • Submitted by David Lundeen on 06/21/2019 - 09:24 am.

            They cross illegally because they dream of working at a Trump golf course.

  16. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 06/19/2019 - 08:43 am.

    Am I the only one that suspects that peace would come quickly if a Trump Tower–Tehran was on offer?

    How about the sale of nuclear tech and weapons to “our friends” in Saudi Arabia…

    ….When Mohammed bin Salman became Saudi Arabia’s crown prince this month two years ago, he announced an aggressive crackdown against extremist clerics, pledging to return the kingdom to the “moderate Islam” he said was hijacked by hard-liners in 1979. “We will not waste another 30 years of our lives dealing with extremist ideas,” he told a forum later that year. “We will destroy them today.”

    Over the past two years, however, the majority of the clerics that the crown prince has targeted have been anything but extreme. Many of those whom Mohammed bin Salman has sent to languish in prison have long records of advocating the type of reform and religious moderation he purports to support. Meanwhile, religious hard-liners and known critics of his supposed reform plan continue their work in Saudi Arabia unimpeded….

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/13/mohammed-bin-salmans-fake-anti-extremist-campaign/

    But of course, how else would the rescue of Trump and Kushner interests be had?

  17. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 06/19/2019 - 09:26 am.

    Starting in the late 1980’s, the US engaged in a series of diplomatic efforts to keep Norko from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    In ’85, North Korea ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

    In ’92, North and South Korea agreed “not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy, or use nuclear weapons,” which included a ban nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities.

    Through the rest of the 90’s and early 00’s, Norko alternatively agreed to abide by their treaty obligations, or threatened to pull out. Every succeeding US President used conciliatory measures or simply ignored the obvious fact that North Korea was engaged in weapon research.

    On October 9, 2006 they lit off their first nuke.

    Also during the early 00’s, a cash starved North Korea engaged in a series of technology transfers to Iran. US intelligence believes these transfers have continued to this day. Iran doesn’t have to do their own research; they’re buying it from North Korea.

    Attacks on US Naval vessels stopped with the election of Trump; they must have concluded that harassing our ships or snatching US Navy sailors out of their boats (as they did when Obama was in charge) would be met with immediate retaliation.

    I don’t know what the smart move is here…it *appears* that Iran is most effected by harsh measures; strict sanctions and the overt threat of military intervention may be the best tactics…but I do know that ignoring the threat Iran poses, or engaging in specious deals like the one Obama made are dumb ones.

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 06/19/2019 - 10:04 pm.

      “engaging in specious deals like the one Obama made are dumb ones.”

      Yeah, that Obama was no Trump when it came to hiring only the best people to make deals:

      Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy (2013–2017)

      Moniz is one of the founding members of The Cyprus Institute and has served at Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, as the Director of the Energy Initiative, and as the Director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

      On May 16, 2013, his appointment was confirmed on a 97–0 vote by the Senate. He succeeded Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. Moniz was sworn in as Energy Secretary on May 21, 2013 by Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman.

      Secretary Moniz played a crucial role in negotiations toward a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, directly negotiating technical details with the Iranian atomic energy minister Ali Akbar Salehi, an MIT graduate, and reassuring President Obama that concessions important to the Iranians would not pose a major threat. The comprehensive agreement between Iran and the so-called “P5+1” (which includes the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany and a representative from the European Union) was finalized on July 14, 2015, to much fanfare and criticism.

      Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy (2017–Present)

      “Rick Perry himself may not be the sharpest crayon in the pack: at Texas A&M University, the future Energy Secretary got a B, two Cs, two Ds, and an F in his chemistry classes, according to The Daily Beast. He also got a C in physics, and a D in a class titled “Meats.” But Perry, at least, knows how to stay under the radar, and apparently has a knack for timing leaks about his career to coincide with the release of the Mueller report.”

      Only the best people?

      Michael Lewis’ new book: “The Fifth Risk” does a great job describing how the two cabinet offices that are essentially “The Repositories of Smart”, Energy and Commerce are being led by Perry and Ross.

      • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 06/20/2019 - 10:22 am.

        In addition to releasing $150 billion dollars..in cash mind you, and giving them tacit approval to build a nuclear bomb after 10 years, Obama gave Iran several key players involved in building that bomb in a ridiculously ignorant prisoner swap intended to grease the skids for a deal.

        “This has erased literally years — many years — of hard work, and important cases that can be used to build toward other cases and even bigger players in Iran’s nuclear and conventional weapons programs,” said former Justice Department counterproliferation prosecutor David Locke Hall, adding that the swap demolished the deterrent effect that the arrests and convictions may have had. “Even though these men’s crimes posed a direct threat to U.S. national security, the [Obama] administration has essentially told them their efforts have produced nothing more than political capital that can be traded away when politically expedient.”

        So, by all means, please continue to explain to us how Obama only hired scary smart people while making his specious deal.

        • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 06/20/2019 - 09:13 pm.

          Seems the “specious deal” was working according to most reports.

          The “Art of the Deal” implies something for both sides. Easy to criticize the fact that they got something: They had to get something and that something was negotiated by one of the most informed guys in the country. No different and probably better than smiling and excusing Un for flying rockets over Japan.

          How has the “no deal” improved our situation?

          We all clearly know that our withdrawal did not reflect a thought out, strategic policy:

          If Obama did it, Trump simply wants to undo it. Good, bad or indifferent,

          Basically because Obama ridiculed him at the WH Correspondence dinner in 2011. If you see that as a good basis for most decisions since 2017 you will be happy with the Iran “walk the dog” war in 2020…

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 06/20/2019 - 07:25 am.

      Iran is not N. Korea, not even remotely similar except for the fact that Trump has failed to produce his miracle “deals” in both countries.

      • Submitted by David Lundeen on 06/20/2019 - 02:49 pm.

        Don’t forget that Iran voluntarily offered to stop it’s nuclear program after the Iraq invasion. Bush turned them down, thereby strengthening Iran’s position in the region, and giving Obama less leverage in forging the agreement.

  18. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 06/19/2019 - 11:11 am.

    Trump is simply an imbecile. The neo-con war hawks like Bolten how have got back into the game were always nimrods who think they bomb and threaten their way around the world. The Iran policy is a shambles because shambles is all these guys were ever capable of delivering. And it will get worse.

    To me the most depressing thing about all of this was a recent segment I saw on PBS News Hour. They got these two National Security “experts” on and asked him if they “believe” Trump’s claims that Iran was behind the tanker attacks. They BOTH said: “Oh yeah sure” as if no one would ever question the biggest group of pathological liars to ever inhabit the White House. Even Nixon was more honest than these guys. It’s like WMD’s all over again, we have a White House making claims with no evidence whatsoever and our media is swinging in behind them without question. It’s WMD’s all over again.

  19. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 06/20/2019 - 07:30 am.

    By the way… and forgive me is someone has already pointed this out but this isn’t an “ironic” situation, it was absolutely predictable and deliberate. Trump was obviously provoking Iran. At any rate, we cannot know to what extent the US government is deploying misinformation and deception at this point so we really don’t to what extent Iran is actually responsible for any these actions. We do know for a fact that this administration is historically dishonest, and we know that less dishonest US regimes of the past fabricated pretexts for military actions. I don’t know why we would consider THIS administrations claims to be MORE reliable that past administrations.

  20. Submitted by joe smith on 06/20/2019 - 07:39 am.

    The German intelligence informed the USA of Iranian violations within one year of the deal, Obama Administration did nothing. Iranian scientist admitted the Iranians were cheating on the deal. Iran, at the very start of the deal, said certain sites would not be subject to inspections. Then to top off this “great deal”, we loaded up pallets of cash to payoff Iran into signing a deal they wouldn’t comply with.
    That is why the USA got out of it.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/20/2019 - 09:06 am.

      “Then to top off this “great deal”, we loaded up pallets of cash to payoff Iran into signing a deal they wouldn’t comply with.”

      Good Lord, are you still on that one? It makes a nice change from the 400% increase in manufacturing jobs, but it is still no real argument.

      One more time: The cash on the pallets was money that the US had agreed to pay the US years before. Iran got nothing more than it was already legally entitled to receive. It was cash because Iran is curt off from the world banking system.

      I realize that reneging on deals is an essential feature of Trumpism. Many of us old timers, however, prefer to think we live in a country whose word can be trusted.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/20/2019 - 09:35 am.

      Or at least we unfroze foreign funds that we had embargoed.
      No ‘pallets of cash’ involved.

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 06/20/2019 - 09:50 am.

      Joe,

      These are the claims Trump made when he pulled out of the deal. The problem is Trump and his cabinet are historically dishonest, and these claims are contrary all the other claims that Iran was by and large complying with the deal. This is the US was alone in pulling out.

    • Submitted by Brian Gandt on 06/20/2019 - 12:28 pm.

      I took a look around. The Vox link at the end pretty much sums up most sources I found re Iranian cheating.

      Some sites had a different viewpoint. The Washington Times was one, the others were mostly Israeli sources. If you google “Iran cheating on nuc deal”, you should be able to pull them up.

      What are the sources that you used?

      https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/8/17328858/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-announcement-chart

      Also, if anyone has research tips, I’m all ears!

    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 06/20/2019 - 02:38 pm.

      JS please provide some support for that other than your word, or did that intel come from Info-wars?

      • Submitted by joe smith on 06/20/2019 - 08:28 pm.

        Not hard to find but you won’t find it on MSNBC. The reason it is called the Iranian Deal not Iranian Treaty is Congress wanted nothing to to do with it. Just because the echo chamber claims the deal was “great” doesn’t mean it is. Thinking for yourself is very liberating.

        • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 06/22/2019 - 08:56 am.

          Actually Joe it’s impossible to find the facts you’re providing without relying on unreliable reports or statements from right wing media like FOX. Which is why you’re not answering the question and providing your sources.

  21. Submitted by Richard Steuland on 06/20/2019 - 10:11 am.

    Look at what America has allowed to be . A pay to play Congress Senate and President. Campaign financing that allows politicians to be bought. A President with little or no regard for the long term consequences of his actions. A bloated, wasteful and corrupt defense department. A disregard for veterans after their service. Massive cuts to programs that help veterans integrate back into society. Trump is not hiding his crimes neither is MCconnell. We seem to be powerless in the face of these criminals evil intent. We have forgotten how valuable liberty is and gradually allowed creeping fascism. Question is, what do we choose to be in regard to these things.

Leave a Reply