Friday, October 13, 2017

Trump Will "Decertify" the Iran Nuclear Deal.


Trumps speech regarding this topic has just ended- I'll likely add it in later.
Reports suggest that Israel's Netanyahu has suddenly gone quiet. What more is there for him to say? - He got what he/Israel had wanted. The results he/Israel desired. 
I'm certainly he, and Israel's political class/military are all smuggly satisfied!

 Haaretz-
Consider the bias in the article- As of now there isn't a lot of coverage regarding this 'decertification'
On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to announce that he is “decertifying” the nuclear deal with Iran. In what is already a diplomatic process overloaded with obscure jargon – the agreement's full title is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which can mean anything – decertification is a relatively obscure feature. It was a requirement originally imposed by the Republican Congress that every 90 days, the administration certify that the JCPOA is in the United States' national interest and it is therefore still committed to it.

Since his inauguration, Trump has already certified the deal twice, but this time he is expected to act otherwise and announce that Iran has acted against the spirit of the deal and that the U.S. no longer sees it in its interest to honor it.
Will decertification kill the Iran deal?
The short answer is no. By U.S. law the Iran deal is neither a formal treaty nor an executive agreement but a “non-binding political commitment.” It would take actual action to break the deal. The agreement will not be invalidated if the Trump administration says it is no longer in favor or committed to it. 
Trump is not expected to announce concrete new steps against Iran on Thursday so for now, decertification is no more than an expression of intent. Furthermore, the U.S. is just one of eight signatories of the deal – along with Russia, China, Britain, Germany, France, the European Union and of course Iran. The remaining seven signatories who are still in favor of the deal could continue without the U.S.
Can Trump kill the deal?
Essentially, the Iran deal was an agreement through which the international community dropped the sanctions on Iran that were specifically related to its nuclear development in return for Iran's agreement to impose certain limits on its nuclear research and development, most crucially the level to which it enriches uranium. If the U.S. decided to reimpose nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, it would be in breach of the JCPOA. That wouldn’t necessarily mean the end of the deal.
Iran and the other signatories could decide to continue with the agreement, though Iran may demand to be compensated for the financial damage incurred by the U.S. sanctions. Trump signed the waiver on the Iranian sanctions last month. These waivers have to be extended every 120 days, so thus far, his administration is not taking action to kill the deal. Decertification, however, is a signal to Congress that it can now go ahead and impose the sanctions itself. Given the fractious relations between the White House and most Democrats and Republicans, along with the lack of any clear bipartisan consensus, it is still unclear whether this will happen before January, when Trump will have to sign the waivers once again – or else the sanctions will be reapplied automatically.
What will Trump’s decertification do to the Iran deal and the region?
Since the deal is still very much in Iran’s benefit and the diplomatic community adheres to it as an article of belief, the decertification almost certainly won’t kill the deal. It will, however, put its long-term future in doubt and may create additional pressure on Iran to both stick to the limitations of its nuclear program and perhaps even force it to curb its more overt actions in the region.
 Is that a bad thing?

The problem with the Iran deal is not that it’s a bad deal, as Trump says. It creates a mechanism that keeps Iran from developing sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon. That’s a good thing.  (notable bias alert)> The real problem is that the Obama administration and other cheerleaders for the agreement tried to sell it to the world as a major breakthrough for the Middle East, when in reality it solved only one problem – while emboldening Iran, together with Russia, to double down on its support for the mass-murdering regime of Bashar Assad in Syria as well as increasing its support for other murderous militias in Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon. If decertifying leads eventually to the collapse of the Iran deal, that would indeed be a bad thing. But Iran needs the deal more than any other nation and it won’t rush to abandon it. If the jeopardy that decertification brings increases pressure to curb Iran’s malignant influence in the region, it could turn out to be a positive development.< (notable bias alert)
As of ending this, I see there is more news forthcoming so there will be updates!

Flashback to 2015:  P5+1 is a distraction. Early Seeds of Iranian destabilization cross the Turkish border

From earlier

NATO Chief Warns Russia Over Libya

12 comments:

  1. Time for Curveball and his fellow travelers to tell tall tales about Iran nukes?

    Israeli TV Shows Footage Of ISIS Training Camp On Israel's Border

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-13/israeli-tv-shows-footage-isis-training-camp-israels-border

    They'll be there until Israel decides they're no longer needed, then it will go in blasting, stealing more of Syria, but only for 'security' purposes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Greg:

      You hit the nail in the head Greg! They will be there until Israel can repurpose them

      Delete
  2. Penny, I wonder what you will think about this article
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/world/asia/iran-afghanistan-taliban.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Kaz:
      apologies for being slow in responding
      re the article..

      I wonder at all why the headline is suggesting the US is leaving Afghanistan?
      That doesn't seem correct or even likely

      As for Iran's role- undoubtedly they operate across the border. In what capacity I've no real clue- but do think it would make sense they would need to secure their borders and interests in their neighbour..

      "Four senior Iranian commandos were among the scores of dead" According to Afghan officials.."
      They claim this was based on funerals held in Iran- maybe? Or maybe not.
      In this specific situation it is unclear if this is official Iranian policy in operation or if this is NATO smuggling fighters into Afghanistan by way of Iran- Here in Canada we have a notorious, should not be an MP, whose father was a smuggler (killed) and who forgot she was Iranian, because her mother forgot that too, claiming to be Afghani and getting the road paved with gold in Trudeau's cabinet- I digress
      Also not to sound like a broken record but many Kurds from Iran as well as other places fought as mujaheddin way back..
      so could be them
      Could be MEK
      The US could spin this entire saga to justify their continuing presence in Afghanistan- A place they have no intention of leaving.

      I see this is an older article (August 2017) and from what I understand presently the US isn't going anywhere

      I've been scratching my head over this news regarding some alleged captive Canadians that were suddenly 'released' by the Taliban

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/14/canadian-held-in-afghanistan-says-child-was-killed-and-wife-raped-in-captivity

      I don't believe this "news" as presented
      Seems designed to ensure Canadian Forces stay alongside the American in Afghanistan

      and today see the droning goes on

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/14/us-drone-strike-kills-14-isis-militants-in-afghanistan

      Long story short, without more information, this story appears to be mostly spin to justify continued US intervention- In my opinion

      Whew! What did you think of the news encapsulated in the article?

      Delete
    2. - from my own
      "..... Typical Iran"
      As in knowing how Iran is in the past and is now. I am not surprised.

      Iran is the definition of "the end justifies the means"
      And even though one would want to say the Americans or the Brits. I will hold my position on Iran, because they have been doing this longer, consistently and more effective than both of them combined. Anything which benefits the Iranian government and people like-minded is pain which will come back later in time to bite you, well maybe not you, but to the area.

      The question is, whether America is serous about Iran or that this is all one big theater/ a set up for the final chapter. Because judging from Americans action, Iraq and Afghanistan. Removal of those 2 how horrific they might be in their own rights were adversaries of Iran. Removing them eased the load on Iran. And with Isis they have a casus belli which they used to spread their webs over Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Also Turkey is also dealing with Iranian subversives and spies.

      Look I know you are on the camp of that Iran/Russia/Turkey should work together against NATO. I digress Turkey should just be doing what it does, keeping them both busy.

      Why not Nato is obvious,
      but why not the others. well to get an idea from where I am comming from https://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Strategy-Islam-Alexandre-Bennigsen/dp/1349104329

      This is a book I am trying to acquire at the moment.

      - from yours
      "..... How do you even, there has to be something more behind it"

      so basically, I have no firm opinion about that matter. However sometimes I wonder if this kind of news is made to fill the search history.




      Delete
    3. Some excerpts from that book https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-349-10430-7

      Delete
    4. Look I know you are on the camp of that Iran/Russia/Turkey should work together against NATO.

      I wish they would because I see NATO as something very heinous..actually I think NATO shouldn't even exist, but, that's just me

      I digress Turkey should just be doing what it does, keeping them both busy.

      I suspect that is what Turkey will do-
      And Russia will do too
      They are both former empires and are used to that type of engagement/interaction

      Delete
    5. thanks for the link - I shall look

      Delete
  3. This is a comment I left at Green crows- I'm putting it here because I do not see Trump as bungling anything!
    It's probably going to form the basics for a new post

    "I hate the 'bungled policy' meme
    Along with the incompetence meme...
    It's a limited hangout

    Trump didn't bungle anything- he is doing exactly that which he is supposed to do.
    In 2015 I wrote the nuclear deal was a distraction because the US was already, at that time, involved in destabilizing Iran- The deal was created to make the peace president look good, with the idea of using the deal in the future- in whatever manner deemed necessary- to make Iran look bad, perception management-
    to increase sanctions- (by claiming that Iran was non compliant) whatever!
    We've seen the US do this time and time again- It's not bungled policy, it's just policy!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Penny:

    Do you know what happened to syrianperspective ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey MieszkoI

      Haven't a clue what happened to SP? Haven't been over that way for ages...

      Hopefully Ziad is well?

      Delete
    2. Yes Ziad hasn't been updated and his sons site seems to be under attack.

      Here the newspapers doing the rain of fire in Calli.
      http://www.mercurynews.com/

      http://www.sfgate.com/

      Delete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS