Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
There was an agreement. Trump said he would not honor it. Then he got upset when Iran said they may not honor it as well since the US wasn't abiding by it. Iran did continue to follow it (until they recently passed the limits on how much uranium could be processed to a minimum level).
We are not at war with Iran- though some think we should be.
The Obama administration rammed the Iran agreement through without listening to the concerns of the Republican party who said it was a bad deal and that they would cancel the deal. Maybe if they made a deal that both parties agreed to we wouldn't be in this mess.
Democrats voted to filibuster and block American people from having a real vote on one of most consequential issues of our age
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
What Trump is said to be seeking in a "new deal" sounds a lot like the Obama deal he said was terrible. But he did the same thing with NAFTA. Call it terrible, agree to basically the same thing, and declare victory.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-obama-1417801
Trump’s better deal with Iran looks a lot like Obama’s
Donald Trump has long trashed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement as “the worst deal ever,” a “disaster” that didn’t cover nearly enough of the Islamist-led country’s nefarious behavior.
In recent weeks, however, the president has indicated that the Barack Obama-era deal might not be so bad after all.
Trump has repeatedly urged Iran to engage in negotiations with him, while saying that Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are his chief concern — “A lot of progress has been made. And they'd like to talk,” Trump asserted Tuesday at the White House. His aides and allies, meanwhile, have recently suggested that Iran and other countries should follow the guidelines of a deal they themselves have shunned as worthless.
At times, analysts and former officials say, it sounds like Trump wants to strike a deal that essentially mirrors the agreement that his White House predecessor inked — even if he’d never be willing to admit it. Iranian officials seem willing to egg him on, saying they’ll talk so long as Trump lifts the sanctions he’s imposed on them and returns to the 2015 Iran deal. And as European ministers warn that the existing deal is nearly extinct, Trump may feel like he is backed into a corner and running out of options.
“Trump got rid of the Iran nuclear deal because it was Barack Obama’s agreement,” said Jarrett Blanc, a former State Department official who helped oversee the 2015 deal’s implementation. “If you were to present to Trump the same deal and call it Trump’s deal, he’d be thrilled.”
The administration’s confusing messaging is a result of warring between two major factions, U.S. officials say, with Trump in his own separate lane. The infighting has been deeply frustrating to those involved in the debate. “In the past, even when I personally disagreed with a policy, I could explain its logic,” a U.S. official said. “Now I can’t even do that.”
He’s said he’s “not looking for war,” wants to talk to Iran without preconditions and isn’t interested in regime change. He called off a military strike on Iran over its downing of an unmanned U.S. drone, overriding the advice of several top aides. His main public demand is that Iran not build nuclear weapons. In return, Trump has offered to help revive Iran’s sanctions-battered economy.
To observers, that sounds suspiciously like the 2015 deal.
“They can't have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said Tuesday. “We want to help them. We will be good to them. We will work with them. We will help them in any way we can. But they can't have a nuclear weapon."Several European officials express astonishment at the audacity of the Trump administration demanding that Iran adhere to the deal when the U.S. the one who breached the agreement in the first place. Some said they were not surprised that Iran may have taken actions in the Persian Gulf as payback for the U.S. abandonment of the deal.
Europeans “know that the original sin causing the current escalation in the Gulf is the U.S. violation of the Iran nuclear deal,” said Nathalie Tocci, an adviser to European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. “At the same time, they are terribly concerned about the escalation and the threat it poses to the Middle East and to Europe itself.”
Trump seems to sometimes hate things just because Obama did them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48978484
More at link.New leak claims Trump scrapped Iran nuclear deal 'to spite Obama'
The Mail on Sunday reports that Sir Kim wrote to Mr Johnson informing him Republican President Trump appeared to be abandoning the nuclear deal for "personality reasons" - because the pact had been agreed by his Democrat predecessor, Barack Obama.
Under the 2015 deal backed by the US and five other nations, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
If the agreement restored my economy and was good for my people and I thought that the other party was going to follow through with the agreement and not send mixed signals that they wouldn't abide by the terms than why the hell not. If the agreement is just a power play by a bad actor to destablilze your country even further than no. In order to convince me you would need to prove that you would follow through with it. Why not though if it would help my people get the food and healthcare and defence that they need?
That doesn't sound like they like us either, because while they abide by the deal they make us look like an $#@! for leaving it. Perception management is fundamental with geopollitics. Often times optics matters more than substance. There are players that don't want us to go to war with Iran that are in the deal and that was the main reason why the deal was created. The original deal included a section that even if Israel attacked Iran we would have to defend Iran. That was one of the main things that brought Iran to the table and why the politicians didn't want to accept the deal. Israel has too many spies here and too much media control so they can destroy someeones political career if they don't do what is good for Israel. Israel wants to be able to attack Iran if they feel threatened by Iran, theerefore only a substantial agreement with Iran that includes Israel and what they want will be politically viable, anything else is fake.
^This.
Have to admire swordsmyth's consistent and principled stand for noninterventionism.
If more in MAGA crowd started raising their voices with courage against interventions, foreign-first lobbies and neocons funded politicians' globalist interventions would become a thing of the past alongwith parasitic neocons and perpetual wars profiteering deplorables.
Last edited by enhanced_deficit; 08-18-2019 at 12:23 PM.
MAGA Allies: 'Bully Israel with undeclared nukes steals land'
Dangerous conspiracy theories on Right claim MAGA fake frontgroup
Poll: Should US apologize for financing radicalization of Afghan children in 80s?
Obama-Clinton Years: A Violent Chapter in World History
Trump: If (Neocon) Adelson Backs Rubio "He'll Have Total Control" Over Him
Delta variant, death of 9 Chinese engineers in terror attack led to airport chaos & quick Kabul fall?
Connect With Us