The whole planet thought it was a good agreement.
It’s hard to understate how poor Trump’s Iran policy is going
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
They are in fact.
Yes, I'm sure Pompeo/Trump are the authority on this issue. If the Yemeni Houthis want to oust the guy doing a takeover, it's not up to Saudi to bomb/starve the fuck out of Yemen w/our support and tax payer dollars to restore the guy. Maybe they should not get involved if they don't expect Houthi Yemenis to knock at their door step.
Are you trying to claim that Saudi Arabia, the other Sunni Arab countries, Israel thought it was a good agreement? Are you trying to claim that every European nation thought it was a good agreement? -- several criticized it harshly.
Let me make my opinion very clear - this Iranian agreement was the worst foreign policy fiasco during the course of the entire Obama administration.
The world's top nations, no, not the head bobbers in Israel, including our allies and our enemies all signed on to it and agreed it was, as verified, working well. Calling it a "bad deal" was just Trump's ODS talking.
You are aware that many Democrats including Schumer, Menedez, Engel, Frankel, and others all opposed the Iran deal under Obama and voted to disapprove the deal in 2015.
I will state one thing though -- once the deal was in place, Trump should have left it in place because the U.S. should honor the significant multi-nation international agreements it makes and not simply void them unilaterally when an administration changes. Doing this undermines the faith of other nations in the U.S. If and when Iran was found to be violating the treaty with significant uncorrected non-compliance then the U.S. would have grounds to terminate the treaty -- but Trump could not demonstrate Iran was significantly non-compliant when he unilaterally terminated the agreement -- leaving our partner nations swinging in the breeze.
When I say whole planet I of course don't mean every living human, ok?
Take a break.
You are aware the Obama/Kerry Iranian deal was neither approved by the House or the Senate.... with many Democrats crossing the aisle and voting with Republicans.
Despite no Congressional approval -- Obama went forward with an international treaty that requires Congressional approval.
viewers refer to quote above. thank you.
Well, this is a bit of a trip down memory lane and water over the dam and I am not up for the full trip but just as a reminder the whole history of the Iran deal is bit more serpentine than you noted, although in your defense there is plenty of snakiness to note so it is hard to cover it all.
Part of the background, actually the essence of it, was that Obama did not have the votes for a treaty even though you referred to it as a treaty for shorthand. As you noted, even some key dems in his circle did not support it and he certainly did not have the votes to get it approved in the Senate. Thus there was no treaty as defined by the Constitution.
Obama deal with this by re-framing it as the "Iran Deal" rather than treaty. Yeh, as I said "serpentine." Thus he went forward with it as something allegedly approved and entered into by the United States and marketed it that way, even though it did not carry the weight and backing of a formal treaty. His thinking of course was that we would have a dem president during and after his term and, what the hey, they will not reverse it. That would take someone like Trump who could never get elected.
The price he paid for snaking around like that was that it left the next president with the power to pull the plug on it without senate approval and without having to make his case to anyone. It is messy business though. It requires the rest of the world to understand what I just said when they were still thinking treaty and it became a distinction without a difference. So I dont mind dinging Trump on this but Obama was the one that took us into snake village by misrepresenting the level of force and approval behind the deal.
lol. As if this is even a well founded argument. How did the Iranian nuclear deal not get overturned in the court if it “required” “congressional approval?”
Just to keep tally of the bullshit you’re trying to inject into this discussion you’ve made two very big false claims now about the nuclear deal: 1. The money given to Iran was not their own money from an arms deal and now 2. That it required congressional approval.