Trump Violated the Iran Nuclear Deal: Will Iran Start Building Nukes?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (50 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image91
    My Esotericposted 4 months ago

    Since every authority, save a very biased Netanyahu, says Iran was complying with the terms of the Nuclear Pact, Trump's reinstating sanctions is a clear violation.  Do you think:

    1. Iran will go it alone and start up their nuclear weaponization program again?
    2. Iran will continue working with Europe, Russia, and China to keep the deal intact while those country's counter the effect of any sanctions Trump may impose?
    3. Will Un see that Trump cannot be trusted to keep his word on any deal and tell Pompeo and Trump to take a hike and cancel talks.?
    4. All of the above
    5. Something else?

    1. GA Anderson profile image80
      GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Has he violated the agreement, or withdrawn from it? One action would indeed be a negative, while the other is a prerogative. Your terminology suggest the negative. Are you right?

      GA

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        As soon as he said he imposed sanctions, he violated it.  And I would argue by unilaterally withdrawing from it also constitutes a violation.  It was something America signed on the dotted line.  Try "withdrawing" from your mortgage because you don't like the terms anymore.  Do you see any difference between the two?

        1. GA Anderson profile image80
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, I do see a difference MY Esoteric. I am not commenting in support of withdrawing from the agreement, (although I may support that action), I am commenting on calling it a violation of an agreement when I see it as a withdrawal from an agreement - which is entirely within his authority to do.

          Whether one agrees, or not, with his actions, I think calling it a violation is incorrect, and an indication of a bias, rather than a statement of fact. Maybe the courts will prove me wrong, but don't think they will. Which means you are wrong to call it a violation.

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Then I have to ask, GA, what is the difference between the two contracts?  While Trump may have the authority to pull out of the agreement, America nevertheless made a binding contract   How is pretending it doesn't exist any more (remember 5 other nations plus Iran are still signatories) and reimposing sanctions not a violation of the terms.  Are you suggesting the terms never existed in the first place?

            Why don't you simply void your contract with your mortgage company.  You can do that you know, but there will be consequences as there will be here; and appropriately so.  I would think the biggest of which is America can never be trusted again to abide by its promises.

            1. GA Anderson profile image80
              GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Hi guy, the difference is that even though I can pull out of my mortgage, I do not have the arbitrary authority to do so. I do not know it as a "fact" but I do believe a president does have such authority in agreements like the Iran deal.

              As is obvious, I am tentative in picking a side here. In one aspect I agree with you, if Iran was honoring the agreement, then it certainly does look bad on us. And damages our credibility. Even if it was a "bad" deal.

              On the other hand, if Iran has simply turned their nuclear ambitions into covert operations, as Israel implies, and not abandoned them, then I would have to support the withdrawal.

              Like you, I have also read the summary of the agreement. But I don't have trust in Iran's word. The one thing I do believe is that we "bought" the agreement in a smelly manner.

              So there I hang, just blowing in the wind.

              GA

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Sounds like another "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to me.  Intelligence says they've gone covert but supplies no proof to the general population.  Maybe they're right, maybe not, but a call must be made. 

                And, like you, I haven't a clue which call it should be.  I hate to see the US back out of it's agreements, but hate worse to see another country follow the footsteps of Kim and NK.

                1. GA Anderson profile image80
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  I think that pretty much nails my thoughts too Wilderness. I am not happy about what pulling out does for our reputation, so I must hope that there is some kind of proof that it was the right move.

                  Israel's "document display" was impressive, but I don't recall any of it relating to current activities - other than hiding that facility under a mountain of course.

                  GA

          2. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

            That's just great GA, we decide to breach the terms of a contract unilaterally without cause. Why should anyone contract with the U.S. in regards to anything?

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              "we decide to breach the terms of a contract unilaterally without cause"

              You might ask the Israelis if there was "cause" - you'll apparently get an earful.  Personally I have no more idea than you do if it's true or not, but you might want to wait until all the evidence is in before making such a statement.

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                What has Iran done to breach the terms of the agreement?  As GA alluded to, making an agreement null and void is different from violating it. i don't care about Netenyahu and any thing he says.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Any breach makes it null and void.  For one party (Iran) to breach, then another (the US) to declare it void does NOT mean the US breached it.

                  Of course you don't care what Israel says!  After all, it means Trump didn't do wrong if it is true.  But as I said, neither you nor I know at this point just who breached and who did not.  Until we do I, at least, shall with hold judgement.  And maybe for longer than that - another thread posted a link to a letter from Congress explaining to Iran that it was not binding on either side.

            2. GA Anderson profile image80
              GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              That fairly sums up my thoughts too Cred - if you follow the rest of my comments concerning our withdrawal.

              I especially don't like the pressure on our allies. I heard one blurb where, in their, (our allies),  consideration whether to ignore America's secondary sanctions and continue to honor the agreement and deal commercially with Iran, a certain someone said Iran was peanuts, and the U.S. was the 800 lb. gorilla - relative to commercial payoffs, and our allies had to choose - peanuts or jackpot. Expressing that sentiment isn't very... ah ... uh ... somebody will fill in the right word.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                GA, a very good article pointing out how Trump's pigheadedness continues to isolate us diplomatically and generally  is making the world a more dangerous place. What makes him think that his 'all or nothing' diplomacy style has got us any mileage? So now, the great deal maker has left us with our britches down?

                https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-apos-v … 00241.html

                Why do the Red folks insist that Trump is always right when the entire world ( Israel excepted) says that he used poor judgement in dissolving this agreement?

                I have too much blue to even attempt to explain the rationale of a rightwinger, perhaps you can translate?

                1. GA Anderson profile image80
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Sorry bud, you may have too much Blue, but I don't have enough Red to help you translate.

                  If, things are as they appear, (sometimes that is a big if), you're linked article is pretty damning. But since all I have to go on is appearances, and gut-instinct, I don't have enough to declare one way or another.

                  Now, if I had to make a call - with only what I know now, I would call our exit a bad faith and damaging move. Even if the deal is as bad as claimed, I would have done it differently.

                  Isolationism was a terrible idea in the world of the 1930s, in today's interconnected world I think it is a suicidal idea.

                  GA

    2. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      # 5 , "something else " meaning you have no clue #1 What the agreement is , was ,  comprised of or what consequences because of Trump cancelling Obama's  major screw up are !  Like you're an diplomatic attorney , what ? An Iranian attorney , a U.N attorney ?  What gives you ,as a mere Trump Resistance warrior , any idea  that you decide the consequences of political /diplomatic deal-making or that you have some clue of what you're even  talking about ?

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
        JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Wait, hang on a minute:

        Kim Jung Un had NO long range missile capability while President Obama was in office but now he does under Mr Trump and Iran had NO Nuke capability under President Obama but will soon have that capability under Mr. Trump:

        And President Obama screwed up?? Really?

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Wow , you are just plain ideologically delusional and can't even help it .

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            And that is how ahorseback deals with facts; call the person who uses them names since he has nothing better to back up his unreasoned opinions.

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
              JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Of course they block out the facts, how else can Trump fans avoid damage to their fragile psyches?

              It's obvious Trump fans have difficulty recollecting all those hollow red lines Spanky Trump drew in the sand that Kim Jung Un laughed at, simply erased and stepped over with impunity, or all that recklessly insane 'fire and brimstone' blabber emanating from the oval office about blowing up a country, all the innocent people within it and creating a radioactive aftermath which would have poisoned the world:

              All this retardation from Spanky Trump, and Kim Jung Un simply ignored him while continuing to test his weapons and ultimately achieved success months later and now Spanky want's some kind of prize?: For what? Allowing Kim Jung Un to develop long range missiles by accelerating his efforts under Mr. Trump's watch? UNREAL:

        2. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Another fact for ahorseback to ignore.  Under #TerribleTrump, NK has tested bigger nukes and shot of more ballistic missiles of all types than under ALL OTHER presidents COMBINED.  Yep, it is a safer world alright.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            And it doesn't occur to you that they did so because they were never reined in.  That if prior presidents had taken the steps they should have those bigger nukes and missiles would never have been developed, let alone tested.  Those things did not come into existence overnight - they are the result of years or decades of development. 

            On this one, Horseback is right - this can be nothing but ideological blindness coupled with the burning need to blame Trump for everything bad that happens.  For the first time NK has been subjected to sanctions that hurt enough to sway them (the jury is still out on whether it will continue or be effective long term) and yes, the world may well be a safer place...the direct result of Trumps actions, actions that should have been taken years ago.

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        How do you know I don't know what is in the agreement? It was there for anybody, including you, to read.

        Here is a good summary for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nucl … _framework

        Here is the unclassified version of the agreement for you:  https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docum … deal/1651/

        It took me about a minute to locate these.  But in summary, here is what Iran can do, should it choose to do so, now that America, via #TerribleTrump, violated the agreement:

        1. Reopen or start-up new uranium enrichment facilities that had been terminated under the agreement
        2. Re-purpose Fordow back to its original use in developing nuclear weapons
        3. Re-purpose the Arak "heavy-water" facility to start producing weapons grade plutonium again
        4. Keep and reprocess spent fuel again
        5. Shut down the effective monitoring program of their nuclear capability

        Obama stopped Iran from becoming a nuclear state, but because #TerribleTrump hates Obama so much, he is going to allow them to start it up again.  What a stupid, stupid demagogue.

        And BTW, ahorseback, since I engage in facts and critical thinking, I am much better positioned than you to render logical opinions.

        I am not a high-scoring, delusional, RWA following ideologue like you.

        1. GA Anderson profile image80
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          WRA? That's a new one to me. I think I got the "RW" - Right-Wing, or Right-Winger??? But the "A"? Nah, couldn't be my first thought ... could it?

          GA

    3. promisem profile image96
      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Iran has good reason to believe that Israel and Trump want a war. So it will try to avoid provoking one and keep complying with the deal.

    4. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Currently serving military and intelligence personnel have indicated that Iran are compliant with the JCPOA. See this post for sources.

      But the best way to address any doubts about Iran's compliance is through the terms of the JCPOA itself. It has provision for sanctions to snap back if non-compliance is confirmed.

      Instead, the US is now threatening EU companies with penalties for trading with Iran(1). And the EU is threatening to "block" US sanctions by activating Regulation 2271/96, passed in '96 to counteract the impact on U.S. sanctions against Cuba on EU companies(2).

      Meanwhile Germany, France and the UK have publicly stated they intend to stay in the JCPOA agreement, regardless of what the US does(3).   

      So unilaterally withdrawing from the JCPOA has only created a dangerous mess (which I'm certain China, Russia and N. Korea are relishing). The JCPOA itself provides the necessary legal framework to constrain Iran's nuclear capability. Leaving that agreement, on the basis of no real evidence that I can see, makes no sense.

      (1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/09/trumps- … urope.html
      (2) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran … SKBN1IA2PV
      (3) https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/frenc … y-08-05-18

  2. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    Did Obama go before Senate to get the Iran deal signed ? No .    You cannot cry "Wolf , wolf , wolf "everytime Trump makes what becomes a diplomatic / geo political /economic move --of course few listen to liberal rants  anymore , so no big deal  . Why should we ? You ALL have screamed  FIRE in the theater at each of his political successes  .
    - North Korea
    - Paris Accord
    - Tax Cuts
    - Iran Pull out
    - The wall
    - Trade
    - Nafta threats
    So not only has the ignorance of  a very loud media screamed at each turn but they scream today and they will continue to scream  tomorrow . What will happen when something serious needs addressing ?
    Answer , No one will listen !

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Congress passed a bill, and Obama signed it, that gave Congress to disapprove the agreement.  They didn't disapprove it and today Iran has no nukes.  They would have otherwise.

      - North Korea (remains to be seen although kudos to Trump for getting the three Americans back)
      - Paris Accord - a disaster in the making. Hopefully there is still time left after 2020, but I only give it a 50/50 chance of preventing catastrophe after 2040.
      - Tax Cuts - tiny help to the middle class, huge help to the wealthy, corporations, stock owners, and a small number of workers
      - Iran Pull out - remains to be seen but ripe for disaster
      - The Wall - a huge waste of money for no gain
      - Trade - if he goes through with it, lost jobs and higher prices MUST follow (they have EVERY other time America started a trade war)
      -  NAFTA threats? - remains to be seen, but again, if NAFTA fails, higher prices and lost jobs MUST be the result

      There is nothing louder than the conservative Right.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Just curious, but how would YOU have spread the tax cuts?  Use it to further increase the number of people that contribute nothing to the maintenance of the country, increasing the disparity between what one person pays and what the next pays?

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Yep, the economy works much better when the rich don't profit off the poor which is exactly what happens when income inequality becomes rampant like it is today.

          Tell me why, since 1967 that the top 20% if income earners share increase from 43.6% to 51.5% today?  What is different about that person today than in 1967 to make them worth that much more?

          Tell me why, in the same period, the share of income of the lowest quintile FALL from 4% to 3.1%?  What is it about them to make them worth less?

          Tell me why the shares of income didn't remain steady (meaning everybody was able to profit from a growing economy) over those 49 years?  If things were fair, those shares would have remained nearly constant.  Because they didn't remain steady and the top actually gained a bigger piece of the pie means they "took" their wealth from the less wealthy.

          The rich get richer because they are powerful and can make it happen at the expense of real working Americans and not because they "earned" most of it.

          Why, in the 1960s and 70s it was perfectly reasonable that a CEO earned 25 times what a line worker makes, yet today it is running 271%.  'What changed that made them worth that much more other than they are in a position to take it for themselves?

          If it were up to me, I would tax a CEOs salary at 30% up the point where it exceeds 25 times the average workers wages, because that represents real "earned" income.  I would tax the remainder over that at 60% since that is not earned income.

          I could except this as an alternative to an income tax.

          Exempt:
          - All nutritional food (not including candy, sodas, chips, beer,  alcohol, and the like
          - All medicines, over-the-counter or otherwise
          - The first $200,000 (or what ever the average price of a home is) of the purchase price of a home
          - The first $2,000 of rent
          - The first $30,000 of a vehicle
          - The first $1,000 spent on clothes per year

          - Tax the sale of stocks and bonds at 2%
          - Tax the sale of businesses at 5%
          - Tax everything else at 20%

          BTW, alt those people who work you say don't contribute to the maintenance of the country actually do.  They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, use taxes, tolls, and all sorts of other taxes in addition to providing the cheap labor so many of the wealthy rely upon to stay wealthy.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            "If it were up to me, I would tax a CEOs salary at 30% up the point where it exceeds 25 times the average workers wages, because that represents real "earned" income.  I would tax the remainder over that at 60% since that is not earned income."

            I'm sure you would - after all, that money belongs to the American people rather than to the one that earned it.  And defining an artificial limit to earnings in your own mind doesn't mean it wasn't earned.  Perhaps that's one of our biggest disagreements - you think you get to define everything as you would like it to be, I live in the real world where corporations don't give money to CEO's because they exist - they pay a salary for work performed and whether you think it is "earned" or not means nothing whatsoever.

            For exemptions, you forgot all medical costs. all taxes, all utility bills, all mortgage interest, all cosmetics, all home maintenance, all education costs, any HOA dues, all pet costs, costs for kids to play sports, etc.  Anything the normal human in the USA pays for, and for God's sake don't forget to tax your 2 year old granddaughter for the birthday gift you gave her .  But I did like that you get to decide what is "nutritional" or not and tax only those things you don't use much of.

            Don't forget to tax yard sales, car sales, sales on eBay, Craigslist and FB Marketplace (as well as anything else that is sold as well).  Or was that included in the "Tax everything"?

            Heck, Esoteric, why don't we just go whole hog and confiscate all money or other wealth in the country (from each according to their ability to give) and dole it out to those people that agree with your political stance (to each according to their need)?  We could join the third world in a heartbeat the way you want what belongs to others!

            1. Randy Godwin profile image90
              Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Better yet, why not confiscate the small percentage of money the middle and lower class have and give it to the upper classes? It seemed to work well for our ancestors in the Old Country.  How would you like to be a real peon, Dan? tongue

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                How would you?  If you think wealth confiscation is the way to help the poor you're no better than those in the Old Country, and worse in many ways for you would completely destroy the economy and the nation.  Rich and poor and in between - it will make no difference.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image90
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  I've never been for wealth confiscation, Dan. Neither do I want unregulated capitalism which ultimately ends up with a few having all of the money, as we are seeing now. Those few use their unneeded surplus to make sure they stay "the few".

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Unneeded by YOUR standards.  Of course, the majority of your own wealth is "unneeded" by the standards of those with far less. 

                    I confess I have a problem understanding "I've never been for wealth confiscation" followed by "The few have unneeded surplus that I can take and give to those I think need it more".

                    If you think we have "unregulated capitalism" you've obviously never participated in the running of a business of any kind.

  3. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    Liberals have such a shallow view of wealth ; The richer one percent have stolen all their wealth from the poorer 99 %  and the saddest part is ,  that it took sometimes many degrees of education to come to that brilliant conclusion .

    When in truth the bottom percentage of wealth have fared way better in recent decades of the actual rise in personal protections and possessions ,  in America no longer are the poor without access to some kinds of financial help , to home ownership , minimum wage , labor protections , higher education ,  blanket protections of social security , welfare , food and needed goods , daycare  , nutrition ..........etc.

    Wealth Redistribution , Guaranteed minimum income [notice they no longer call it minimum wage ]  free higher  education ,  no work clause welfare , Make no mistake THIS Is the goal of liberals in America , The elitist european form of socialism where all is provided by government , all one has to do is open the mail box once a month , IS the new-liberal agenda .

    Work for Welfare ? Are you kidding , That is a draconic Idea !

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image82
    Kathleen Cochranposted 4 months ago

    Well said.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)