How are we better off post Iran deal?

This is true, war is not profitable for anyone least of all when that war is in the middle east. Why? Because wars in the middle east raise gas prices.

 

Meh, the EU has a lot at stake with trade with the largest supporter of terrorism.

 

Good post, I agree with a lot of it. This is from the New York Times and while I am not a huge fan of their newspaper, they make some solid points:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/iran-trump.html

In case some do not have access to the article, here it is:

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
A Deal for Iran: Normalization for Normalization
The theocratic regime could not long survive if the Islamic republic acted like most nations.

There has always been a fair and symmetrical formula for the United States and Iran to resolve the full range of their differences: full normalization for full normalization. Donald Trump, who may — but probably doesn’t — want a war with the Islamic republic, should propose it, publicly and in detail, and see what happens.

It will be clarifying for everyone.

What is normalization? From the U.S. side, it would mean the immediate suspension of every economic and diplomatic sanction imposed by this or previous administrations. It would mean an American Embassy in Tehran and an Iranian one in Washington. It would mean direct flights between Iranian and American cities. It would mean two-way trade, direct investment, and the end of secondary sanctions that punish non-U.S. companies for doing business in Iran. It would mean tens of thousands of Iranian students once again enrolled in U.S. universities, and tens of thousands of American tourists once again exploring the grand bazaars of Iranian cities.

Iran’s people could surely use that deal. Since Trump reimposed U.S. sanctions last year, Iran’s oil exports have fallen by more than half, inflation has spiked to close to 40 percent and the rial has lost about 60 percent of its value against the dollar. Iran’s economy is expected to contract by 6 percent this year. By some estimates, a third of all Iranians live in absolute, not relative, poverty, unable to afford the most basic staples of life.


As for the Iranian side, normalization would mean behaving like a normal country.

A normal country, with the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves, is one that wouldn’t need to embark on multiple underground programs to enrich uranium and produce plutonium.It wouldn’t engage in extensive experimental work to figure out how to detonate a fissile nuclear core. It wouldn’t retain an illicit network to circumvent Western restrictions on the sale of dual-use technologies for its missile programs.

A normal country is one that would not perpetrate terrorist massacres in Argentina. It wouldn’t seek to murder (via a Mexican drug cartel) the Saudi ambassador at a Washington, D.C., restaurant. It wouldn’t attempt an assassination plot in Denmark, or a bombing attack in France.

A normal country would not furnish military, financial and logistical support for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, who seems to have resumed using chemical weapons against his enemies. It wouldn’t supply the Taliban with weapons, training and new recruits. It wouldn’t provide its proxies in Yemen with ballistic missiles, especially now that those proxies are firing missiles at Mecca. It wouldn’t be a principal sponsor for militias and terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. It wouldn’t constantly avow and seek, at considerable cost to itself, the destruction of another state with which it has neither a historical nor territorial conflict.

A normal country wouldn’t hang gay people. It wouldn’t imprison women in their own clothes. It wouldn’t constantly arrest foreign nationals, including American journalists, on trumped-up charges as a means of gaining diplomatic or financial leverage.

In short, under the terms of a normalization-for-normalization deal, Iran could relieve itself of all U.S. pressure by permanently abandoning its nuclear ambitions, its human rights outrages and its reckless international behavior. That’s not a big ask.

Or at least it shouldn’t be, which is why Trump ought to deliver it in a carefully written speech — the kind normal presidents make about vital international and domestic topics. Mike Pompeo laid out roughly similar terms in his own speech on Iran a year ago, but his tone was more bellicose than beguiling. Trump prefers the combination of brash moves with simple messages. This would be it.

It would also be unlikely to win over Iran’s leaders. Death to America — and to Israel — aren’t propagandistic slogans for the regime. They are its reason for being and its motive for action. The regime’s objections to the United States don’t date to 1953 and U.S. connivance in the ouster of Mohammad Mosaddegh as prime minister of Iran (a coup the clerics supported at the time). They date to 1776 and the birth of political liberalism, the enemy of all theocratic and virtue-centric politics.

An American bombing campaign in Iran could hurt the regime. Complete and genuine normalization would, over time, be fatal to it. It would mean, as Trump put it the other day, Iran’s “official end” — not as a nation, but as the regime that has tyrannized that nation for 40 years.

Last week’s saber-rattling is unlikely to lead to a confrontation neither side wants. Trump thinks that avoiding war is crucial to his re-election. Tehran thinks Trump is more likely to be a one-termer if it can wait him out without a war. These are incompatible analyses, but they should induce mutual caution.

All the more reason for Trump to seize the initiative. Normalization for normalization is a concept this and future U.S. administrations could embrace. It’s one ordinary Americans and Iranians alike could understand. And it’s one Iran’s leaders would fear. Let them be the ones to explain why Iranian children should go hungry so Hamas can aim its fire at Jews.

Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. @BretStephensNYT
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I find it alarming that Iran was trying to keep the European nations in the Iran Nuclear Deal and at the same time was carrying out terrorist actions on European soil. What "normal" or good standing nation would do that if they were really serious about peaceful aims in the Middle East or in the rest of the world?

In addition to this, the crisis in Yemen is directly tied to Iran and directly tied to the money that we gave them in the nuclear deal. They would have struggled to fund such activities if we didn't front load the deal with so much cash.

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...es-mecca-jeddah-dc-embassy-confirms-1.7258359

 

Yes and no. IMO.

On the surface it may not look like it, but yes, we are because we have sanctioned Iran to the point where they struggling to fund their proxy terrorist groups to cause mischief throughout the world. Even when they were in the agreement, they were still carrying out attacks on Americans in the Middle East, jailing journalists and destabilizing the region. They had a lot more money to do a lot more damage. Communication intercepts have shown that Iranian leaders have been cautioning Hezbollah and other terror groups that they will need to secure funding through other means and to start raising money on their own. Iran has lost it's slush fund of money to send out to these groups.

The "no" portion might be attributed to the volatility in the stock market caused by Trump pulling us out and the spotlight being put on Iran's attacks. They seem to be stepping up their attacks to more high profile, like tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

I would like to see Middle East nations like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman and even Qatar start to escort and patrol civilian tankers through that region and ask the United States for help in surveillance and information to keep the region safe. IMO, they do not do enough to keep those waters safe as it's right off their coast! If they stepped up their security, America would gladly provide all the help they wanted. But they need to do more, that is for sure. They should all be tired of the nonsense Iran has been causing in that region. Why can't they step up their own involvement?

 

Did we need to withdraw from the deal to sanction Iran over it's support of other groups?

 

The EU also have a lot at stake with China and the rest of the world - likely more at stake there with respect to trade than the USA in fact - and this disparity grows every year. That was what I was trying to tell you when I talked about how we used to just "whisper" our desires - and nations would come running. Obviously this fell on deaf ears.

Putting partisan blinders on and ignoring reality will not change that reality - nor will living in the past - and this is no way to assess the geopolitical chessboard.

If you have been around this forum for any length of time - and you have - you should know by now that I am not mindlessly against Trump. I don't like him much but I can also be found defending him when attacked for no good reason "Russiagate" and I give him credit where credit is due (getting rid of some stupid regulation for example - the Keystone). I am a devoted centrist - not by choice but because neither Red or Blue Establishment has any respect for the founding principles. Red hates the principles of Republicanism and Blue hates the principles of Classical liberalism.

What they both like is "Power and Money" - This is how decisions are made - not on the best interest of the people. You living in a world of self deception if you think the Establishment is working for us rather than for the big money interests that control them.

 

I wasn't a big fan of the Iran deal. I think our negotiators were walked all over, at just a time when Iran was about to capitulate. That said, it was foolish to go back on a flawed deal. It makes our country look less trustworthy and reliable in terms of foreign policy.

 

I don't disagree with the above, but nothing was gained by getting out of it, and we are losing trustworthiness in the international community. Countries that make deals with us don't know if we're going to stick to them or not. That's no way to run foreign policy. American promises have to be kept.

 

Yes. The agreement included sanctions relief in exchange for Iran accepting limitations to its nuclear program. We are also isolating Iran and letting them know that terrorism is not acceptable.

Do you think Iran was cheating in the deal? Germany thought they were. They issued a 317 page report detailing Iran's clandestine efforts to obtain nuclear technology:

Germany's domestic intelligence agency said in its annual report that Iran has a "clandestine" effort to seek illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies "at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level."

The Institute for Science and International Security thinks so:

The Institute for Science and International Security has learned that Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) recently made an attempt to purchase tons of controlled carbon fiber from a country. This attempt occurred after Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The attempt to acquire carbon fiber was denied by the supplier and its government. Nonetheless, the AEOI had enough carbon fiber to replace existing advanced centrifuge rotors and had no need for additional quantities over the next several years, let alone for tons of carbon fiber.

This attempt thus raises concerns over whether Iran intends to abide by its JCPOA commitments. In particular, Iran may seek to stockpile the carbon fiber so as to be able to build advanced centrifuge rotors far beyond its current needs under the JCPOA, providing an advantage that would allow it to quickly build an advanced centrifuge enrichment plant if it chose to leave or disregard the JCPOA during the next few years. The carbon fiber procurement attempt is also another example of efforts by the P5+1 to keep secret problematic Iranian actions.

Then there is this:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/258124

If you take this at face value, it doesn't look good. They essentially say that the West was going to renege on the deal anyway so why should we comply?

“When our team was in the midst of the negotiations, we knew that [the Westerners] would ultimately renege on their promises. The leader warned us that they were violators of agreements. We had to act wisely. Not only did we avoid destroying the bridges that we had built, but we also built new bridges that would enable us to go back faster if needed,” he continued.

 

I think the real benefit was to impose sanctions again and limit the amount of money they have to spend on their nuclear program and on terrorist activity across the globe.

https://www.newsweek.com/why-obama-ignoring-iran-cheating-nuke-deal-479689

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/donald-trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal-is-clear-success/

 

International heads of state are savvy enough to understand the difference between a deal that is ratified versus one that is not. Basically, if a deal is not ratified, it is NOT a promise beyond that current administration. With that in mind, you cannot truly even call this a broken promise. If anyone is to blame, it is the Obama administration for moving forward knowing full well they did not have anywhere close to the votes necessary to ratify.

 

Still looks bad.

 

The only one that matters is this one.

The UN nuclear monitoring agency says Iran continues to comply with a landmark 2015 nuclear deal, although its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium and heavy water are growing.

The finding by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is included in its latest quarterly report distributed to member states.

In its report on May 31, the agency said the IAEA found Iran had stayed within key limitations spelled out in the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

https://www.rferl.org/a/iaea-report-says-iran-continues-to-comply-with-nuclear-deal/29974795.html

 

Perhaps it looks bad to average Joe's that dont know any better. To any international negotiator representing any country, they know full well the limitations of an unratified deal. It doesn't look bad to them or give them pause when making a deal that IS ratified. It may actually make them insist upon any deal being ratified, which would be a good thing. Such a consequential deal should have NEVER been acted upon unilaterally by the Executive branch. Doing so was truly a disgrace.

 

That is the worst source to find out if they actually "comply". The IAEA is easy to fool because of the conditions placed on the deal. Too many fatal flaws. Even Olli Heinonen (The former #2 man at the IAEA, itself!!) has pointed out, the Iran could have a lot of components for the clandestine production of high-velocity centrifuges, but the IAEA can’t verify their stockpiles and compliance because they can’t answer the big questions about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. Iran could have a clandestine centrifuge site in Mashhad in northeastern Iran and the IAEA would never know it.

He worked on Iranian operations for nearly a decade in the Central Intelligence Agency. There is nothing in the JCPOA that would aid them in discovering this or any other possible secret facility.

In other words, IAEA is essentially useless when it comes to discovering or enforcing Iran to comply. They can cheat with impunity, yet stay in "compliance".

 

And we wonder why N. Korea will never sign a deal with Trump.

 

So you want to expand the contract to include component parts that might be used for nuclear power.
Do I need to get my 1950's chemistry set back from them? It had uranium in it.

 

Because they can't get all the loopholes in the deal that allows them to cheat. Funny how that works.

The real goal anyway is not a nuclear deal, but to somehow get the US to lift sanctions.

 

Loopholes in what deal? This one?

 

No silly, an entire nuclear site!

Obama couldn't even get him to the table. Maybe he should have offered to send him pallets of cash like he did to Iran.

 

He will never sign a deal with Kim. Why would Kim give him anything knowing what he did with Iran?

 

When he does make a deal, it won't include sending him pallets of cash in exchange for hostages.

That idiot Obama couldn't even get a meeting with Kim and he had to send cash to Iran to even get them to the table. lol Obama was a clown....still is.

 

We only had to 'whisper' when most of the nations were still recovering from a devastating world war. Past feckless administrations gave away the farm based on that. Trump is trying to get it back.

 

As some policy experts have said, sanctions are more effective against Iran than just letting them skate and sending pallets of cash.

 

The period of "whispering" lasted long after the nations recovered from WW2 and involved nations that were not even part of the war. It is true that we took our exceedingly strong position for granted but the farm was given away on the basis of self interest and greed - in particular the ability of international corporations siphon money out of the the US via tax loopholes.

Trump has not addresses this issue. Obama actually stated he was going to do something about this loophole early in his first term. He must have been reminded by his masters that this was a no no .. and nothing was done. Since Trumps masters are the same .. nothing will be done in by his administration either.

I have never seen other nations - and especially not allies - disrespect us like in the last few years (Sans a few rogue nations over the years that matter not). This is due to the sanctions and belligerence - none of which is going to "get it back". What this is doing is expediting our downward spiral.

We are not winning - every time we turn around we are losing.