Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

still_one

(96,601 posts)
11. For one thing the republican party platform has rejected the Iran nuclear deal as binding on the
Fri Dec 16, 2016, 12:31 PM
Dec 2016

next president, and his threats regarding dismantling the deal have enough experts concerned about it

It shouldn't surprise anyone if they ratchet up some lame excuse for a purported violation by Iran as an excuse for the U.S. to leave.

Recall the bush administration unilaterally walked away from the ABM treaty

Even if they don't formally leave, they can, and most like will apply economic and other sanctions against Iran, thinking it would give them leverage.

Again, there are enough concerned voices out there that a trump administration could dismantle the deal unilaterally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/world/americas/cia-trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html

" Dismantling the deal is very possible, but it's not simple either.

Trump won't be able to simply throw is hands up and walk away. He would have to work with Congress to enact measures to undermine it, such as reimposing U.S.-based sanctions that were lifted. He could, for example, recreate the sanctions that prevented U.S. aviation businesses from selling to Iran and in turn scuttle the Boeing deal. That would anger the Iranians and could cause them walk away from the nuclear terms; and it would also likely upset Boeing.

Or he could take a strict enforcement approach to the current plan and attempt to end the deal if Iran falters in the slightest and fails to meet its own obligations. Outside observers opposed to the deal argued last week that Iran has already violated the terms of the deal by exceeding the producing limit of heavy water at its Arak nuclear facility. The U.S. has sought to downplay the incident, saying the Iranians acknowledged the excess and made no attempt to hide it, but a Trump administration could just have easily argued it was a violation.

Any such complaint of a violation would be sent to a "dispute resolution mechanism" as outlined in the agreement, but if that governing body is unable to resolve the issue, the complaining participant would then have the right to end its commitments to the deal."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/donald-trump-dismantle-iran-nuclear-deal/story?id=43521933

Liberal Jewish vs Israeli HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #1
support for Israel is a conservative position. geek tragedy Dec 2016 #2
That is definitely not true oberliner Dec 2016 #5
Most liberal country in the Middle East is like being the tallest resident in Hobbiton. geek tragedy Dec 2016 #7
Jimmy Carter: "I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment..." shira Dec 2016 #18
Well at least you are acknowledging that your opinion is the opposite of Obama's oberliner Dec 2016 #25
Obama fears that the Israel he loves will cease to exist. geek tragedy Dec 2016 #44
He has never expressed that sentiment oberliner Dec 2016 #59
Not sure how that quote undermines my statement. geek tragedy Dec 2016 #64
Obama has expressed no such fears oberliner Dec 2016 #65
what Obama thinks geek tragedy Dec 2016 #66
Unquestioning public support is, though. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #14
This will put pressure on the PA/Hamas to work for peace.... shira Dec 2016 #17
You have articulated the J Street position oberliner Dec 2016 #26
I stand with them and also with Rabbi Michael Lerner Ken Burch Dec 2016 #31
I agree that the J Street position ought to be considered a pro Israel position oberliner Dec 2016 #33
Can we cancel the $40B exboyfil Dec 2016 #3
We'll be fortunate if he doesn't double it geek tragedy Dec 2016 #4
You have no idea what you are talking about oberliner Dec 2016 #6
Bush increased it over Clinton. Never tried to cut it. geek tragedy Dec 2016 #8
Obama increased aid to Israel more than any other US president oberliner Dec 2016 #24
He did appoint a new ambassador to Israel who supports moving the embassy to Jerusalem Ken Burch Dec 2016 #29
Because he is his bankruptcy lawyer oberliner Dec 2016 #34
I suppose we're lucky he didn't make Ivanka chief of staff.... Ken Burch Dec 2016 #35
She is actually one of the more reasonable people around his orbit oberliner Dec 2016 #36
Eric or Donald Jr., then. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #37
Or Hulk Hogan Sec Def, Lightning McQueen Sec. Transport.... shira Dec 2016 #39
And Obama is still considered less pro Israel than geek tragedy Dec 2016 #45
You are wrong oberliner Dec 2016 #58
To anti-zionists, all Zionists are the same Left to Right.... shira Dec 2016 #61
That is true oberliner Dec 2016 #62
Well, yes, the pro-Israel community amongst Democrats is less than absolute geek tragedy Dec 2016 #63
The second Bush was more Likudnik than Netanyahu. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #15
Not true in either case oberliner Dec 2016 #23
Reagan? Certainly not. grossproffit Dec 2016 #27
He had every Security Council resolution that was even mildly critical of the Occupation vetoed. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #28
The UN is horridly obsessed with Israel, you know that. shira Dec 2016 #40
...so THAT's where he'll build that Wall!... Ken Burch Dec 2016 #30
We would have to cancel the Camp David accords first hack89 Dec 2016 #71
I disagree with the assessment that this is the "most pro-Israel administration possible" still_one Dec 2016 #9
being pro-Israel and doing what's best for Israel are two very different things geek tragedy Dec 2016 #10
For one thing the republican party platform has rejected the Iran nuclear deal as binding on the still_one Dec 2016 #11
they make lots of noise. geek tragedy Dec 2016 #12
Hmmmm....... GeoWilliam750 Dec 2016 #13
Good. That'll probably pressure the PA into making concessions. n/t shira Dec 2016 #16
Havent they made a few? TheHak Dec 2016 #53
The PA hasn't quit the armed revolution, not even close.... shira Dec 2016 #55
Armed revolution? TheHak Dec 2016 #57
Yeah, terror. It's never stopped although it should have 20 years ago. shira Dec 2016 #60
This message was self-deleted by its author Little Tich Dec 2016 #19
LoL @ your ridiculous view that Israel is a useless asset. n/t shira Dec 2016 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author Little Tich Dec 2016 #21
Well yeah, Israel is a friendly loyal democracy, it's neighbors are tyrannical.... shira Dec 2016 #22
It's not possible to achieve peace by coercing the Palestinian leadership Ken Burch Dec 2016 #32
And pressuring Israel hasn't worked out either, so? shira Dec 2016 #38
This message was self-deleted by its author Little Tich Dec 2016 #41
How do u know? Pressuring the PA has never been tried before. shira Dec 2016 #42
This message was self-deleted by its author Little Tich Dec 2016 #43
I'm well aware you think no Palestinian state can exist with Jews in it. shira Dec 2016 #46
This message was self-deleted by its author Little Tich Dec 2016 #47
You're not addressing the argument, that settlements could become Palestinian.... shira Dec 2016 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author Little Tich Dec 2016 #49
Under the Clinton/Olmert plans, Jerusalem would be split. Next question? shira Dec 2016 #50
Why couldn't they integrate? TheHak Dec 2016 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author shira Dec 2016 #52
Are you answering to me? TheHak Dec 2016 #54
My bad, thought you were someone else. n/t shira Dec 2016 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author Little Tich Dec 2016 #68
It's a domestic political calculation. geek tragedy Dec 2016 #67
This message was self-deleted by its author Little Tich Dec 2016 #69
Palestinians have nothing to gain in the short term geek tragedy Dec 2016 #70
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»trumps envoy: new adminis...»Reply #11