This maps to the podcast prediction I linked. It splits the US and Europe, forces the US to try and bully Europe to put sanctions back on, and the US loses any credibility it had to put a tougher deal in place.
Yes, his entire arguement is referring to an Israeli intelligence document, he never cites another source. He never mentioned anything like “our intelligence agencies reviewed and supported them”. This whole thing was created by Israel with a document he refers to. He never referred to our intelligence apparatus.
I want to see this document.
Reports of Israel attacking Iranian positions in Syria, bomb shelters being opened in Israel:
Good LUCK future presidents:
The Israeli government is using the fear of Iran to deflect attention from its own internal problems, and has been for years. Whatever legitimate concerns Israel has over Iran, and there are definitely some, have been dwarfed though by the consistent pattern of lies and manipulation of intelligence (usually aimed at the US) in order to paint Tehran’s polices as not just annoying and obnoxious and often rather disgusting, but as actual existential threats.
Nothing anyone has ever shown or presented has made me feel the Iranians were seriously interested in actually attacking Israel proper with anything like the sort of force Netanyahu and Co. constantly warn about. The idea that, even if Tehran had a nuke, they’d somehow gleefully commit suicide and lob one at Israel would be laughable if it wasn’t a) such a horrible thing that you probably shouldn’t joke about it, and b) utterly unlikely to the nth degree.
That’s nothing a little regime change can’t fix. The Iranians will greet us as liberators!
This is the part I agree with. Nobody but the biggest religious fanatic could see mutual destruction as a win. And while Iran is controlled by the Mullahs I don’t think they are the crazy variety.
This is going to destroy America’s credibility for a long time. How can anyone trust us when we even backstab ourselves?
I think permanently. What Trump is exploiting has always been a weakness in the US constitution/government, but has been kept in check by unwritten rules and norms. Once broken, there is no way you can go back and reinstate them (that’s the whole point about them being unwritten, after all).
There’s no putting the genie back in the bottle from this. Everyone who does business with the US in future, will have to take into account that any agreement reached may be worthless within four years.
Agreed. The only thing that could would be new legislation limiting the power of the Presidency. Good luck getting that past a veto.
Bams:
Because of these facts,
Sorry Barack. Trump is a fucking idiot and so are his supporters. He does not understand facts at all and is never going to read something that has paragraphs. Dont waste your time trying to help him and them get better, they are a lost cause. Focus on making Republicans lose in November.
If the Iran deal had been a treaty instead of an executive agreement, we would not have had this problem (and the same goes for the Paris accords.) But because it was impossible to get the required 60 votes, the only choice left to Obama was the aforementioned executive action.
I honestly don’t know if given the choice between no treaties or the easily-broken ones that did pass, which would have been better? In all probability, any other Republican president would have honored those agreements, but trump has on a host of issues exposed the inherent weakness of our system (as you’ve outlined.)
Now, and for the foreseeable future, the only bi-partisan agreements we’ll probably ever see are for increased military spending and banking deregulation.
Tail end of his message:
Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.
Kind of like a hope and change type of thing.
CNN reported today that the latest intelligence in the Israeli docs is from 2005 and none of it contradicts US intel assessments from as early as 2003. So, nothingburger.
Hope so. But really, Obama has to abandon his quaint respect for his political opponents. They mean ill for the country. This is no time for politeness. I know it is against his character but he needs to start getting pissed off.
The US tried this before, the EU poor in laws that prevented companies from abiding by the US rules, and then took the US to the WTO.
It didn’t work out for the US.
No he doesn’t.
It benefits no one to have him debase himself in such a way.
There are plenty of other folks who are willing to call Trump a piece of shit.
There’s no reason for our actual presidents to lower themselves into the gutter where Trump resides.
Killjoy. My dad can beat up Republicans dad. Just sayin :)
I’m guessing it is based on that thing Netanyahu did on television last week, where they were showing off documents they apparently smuggled out of Iran.
I definitely disagree with the notion that there is no upside for Trump in this.
There’s the appeal to his base, as GC mentioned. This is red meat to them - a highly visible, clearly important action taken by Trump that accords with his rhetoric. Also Obama.
And, I suspect, it is the inevitable prelude required prior to a US attack on Iran. If you accept that the US plan is to attack Iran, then pulling out of treaty makes perfect sense. And - IMO - this has always seemed a likely endgame for Trump’s first term. When Trump was elected, I commented (not on this forum) that we would have war with Iran or NK before 2020, with Iran overwhelmingly being the most likely victim. The latter because - from the beginning (even before election) - Trump’s campaign was heavily anti-Iranian (and supported by donors who are heavily anti-Iranian). Trump’s middle-east tour only reinforced my expectations.
The rush to reach an accord with NK and the willingness of the Trump administration to negotiate should probably be seen in that context. Even if a treaty reached with NK is effectively worthless, it will be useful for Trump if it allows him to “bury” the NK problem for a few years.
Trump benefits from war.
Firstly, he will certainly want to have a war to bolster the “rally round the flag effect” for his re-election bid. It worked for Bush; with Trump’s approval ratings, it can hardly make things worse for him and probably will make things better. Sorry, US electorate, I have no faith in your good sense any longer.
Secondly, his cabinet, donors, and probably himself, will without a doubt borrow, buy and sell to profiteer on any conflict at a scale that would put the monumentally corrupt Bush administration to shame. A significant proportion of these gains would undoubtedly find itself funneled into the campaign coffers of Trump’s reelection bid.
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.
The optimistic take here, I think, is that if someone took the existing Iran deal and didn’t change a single word, added a giant bold faced title called "Trump’s fantastic Iran Deal’, Trump would probably sign and brag about how amazing it is.
Maybe there’s someone still in the mix who could pull that off.