Iranian official calls for negotiations with Washington in Iraq

[yota691]

Trump to announce decision on Iran deal Tuesday

 

 

The Post’s Alan Sipress and Karen DeYoung explain how President Trump’s decision might affect an already tense Middle East.(Sarah Parnass, Joyce Lee/The Washington Post)

By David Nakamura May 7 at 3:52 PM 

President Trump intends to announce his decision on the future of the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, days ahead of a self-imposed deadline and amid signals that he will withdraw the United States three years after the Obama administration signed the pact.

Trump said in a Monday afternoon tweet that he will make a statement at the White House at 2 p.m. Tuesday. The announcement comes after a flurry of entreaties from European allies, including in-person pleas last week from French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for Trump to reconsider his opposition to the deal and maintain support.

But Trump has continued to rail against the 2015 agreement with Iran, which was also signed by five other nations — China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany — as well as the European Union.

In a tweet Monday, Trump referred to a Boston Globe report that John F. Kerry, who led President Barack Obama’s negotiating team while serving as secretary of state, was continuing to work with foreign governments to influence the Trump administration. Trump wrote: “The United States does not need John F. Kerry’s possibly illegal Shadow Diplomacy on the very badly negotiated Iran Deal. He was the one that created this MESS in the first place!”

Last fall, Trump decertified the Iran deal, potentially allowing Congress to reimpose nuclear-related economic sanctions on Tehran that had been lifted as part of the pact. But the White House elected not to press lawmakers to act on the threats, instead maintaining the leverage that such measures could come down the line if Iran refused to renegotiate.

The president set a deadline of May 12 to make his decision.

 4:24

 

Macron: France wants to work on 'new deal' on Iran

French President Emmanuel Macron and President Trump spoke about the Iran nuclear deal at a joint news conference at the White House April 24. (Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

Supporters of the deal, including Macron, had hoped to persuade Trump to keep the United States in the deal while a separate, side agreement was negotiated that could offer the president additional reassurances that Iran would take steps to cut support for terrorist groups in the Middle East.

Critics, however, pushed Trump to follow through on his displeasure and end U.S. participation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech last week in which he called the agreement a “terrible deal” and predicted that Trump would “do the right thing.”

Macron told reporters during his visit to Washington that he expected Trump to “get rid of this deal on his own for domestic reasons.”

Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, a global risk analysis firm, said a withdrawal from the Iran deal would be the “biggest slap in the face to date to U.S. allies,” more significant than withdrawing from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the Paris climate accord, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and imposing steel and aluminum tariffs on Japan and other nations.

Trump’s decision comes weeks before he is expected to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in a bid to curb that nation’s nuclear weapons program. Some foreign policy experts said that canceling the Iran deal could send the message to Kim’s regime that the United States is an unreliable negotiating partner.

But Victor Cha, a Korea expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said at a conference Monday that the Trump White House would use a withdrawal to “send the signal that an Iran deal is not good enough for North Korea — that they need to do better than an Iran deal.” Cha added: “In terms of how the North Koreans would take it, I don’t think they’d take it one way or the other. I don’t think they’d see it as negative or positive because they think they’re different from everybody else, anyway.”

[yota691]

WATCH LIVE: Trump announces decision on Iran nuclear deal

[pokebu]

Macron is the one I trust most in this scenario, level-headed, insightful but fair with all parties.  The US is unfortunately blinded by extreme rhetoric.  Netanyahu is an extremist disgrace and Saudi Arabia has an unbroken history of supporting their fellow Sunnis in 9 - 11, Al Qaeda with Osama Bin Laden and then ISIS with Zarqawi and his terrorists.  I spent 4 years, some 50 years ago fighting the GD commies so I hate them with a passion and today hate their support of Iran, Syria and the other Shiite strongholds.  I strongly believe in what Trump is doing in Iraq and just wish we would apply the same balance to the Iran Nuke deal and not let the nut cases egg us into dumb moves.

Edited May 8, 2018 by pokebu

[coorslite21]

33 minutes ago, yota691 said:

WATCH LIVE: Trump announces decision on Iran nuclear deal

 

Thanks Yota........big deal here with the up coming elections.....Iran has some influence......who knows how Trumps announcement might affect all of this.......

 

Here is one interesting take on it......

 

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Comment-Iran-deal-collapse-would-endanger-US-in-Iraq-553715

 

 

 

• Jerusalem Post
•  
• Middle East

COMMENT: IRAN DEAL COLLAPSE WOULD ENDANGER U.S. IN IRAQ

Iran is seeking to create a pro-Iranian government in Iraq so Tehran is better placed to hit back at the United States should Trump re-impose sanctions.

BY REUTERS

 

 MAY 7, 2018 19:11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An American soldier takes his position at the U.S. army base in Qayyara, south of Mosul October 25, 2016. (photo credit: REUTERS/ALAA AL-MARJANI)

May 12 is more than the deadline for Donald Trump to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement. It’s also the day that Iraqis are due to go to the polls to vote for a new parliament. And while the election has been largely overlooked amid the tension over the US president’s decision, it’s hard to understate the significance of the ballot for Washington and Tehran.

Iran is seeking to create a pro-Iranian government in Iraq so Tehran is better placed to hit back at the United States should Trump re-impose sanctions. The defeat of Islamic State in Iraq has been a major victory for US-backed Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, but Iran is working towards shifting the political balance in its own favor – to force an early exit of US forces, to end the strategic partnership between Iraq and the United States, and to secure Iraq’s support for its regional agenda. Such an outcome would undermine stability in Iraq and would further strengthen Iran in the Middle East at the expense of the United States.

 

 

Washington’s influence has waned in the region, even as Iran has secured substantial leverage in Syria, Lebanon and to some extent Yemen. Iraq is one country where the United States has made gains. Despite a dramatic loss of influence early in the Obama administration, which was compounded by the withdrawal of US forces in 2011, the United States made a comeback in Iraq in 2014, providing intensive support to defeat Islamic State.

As the Iraqi parliamentary elections approach, Iran is intensifying its efforts to cultivate wide-ranging political partnerships in the country. Trump may yet decide to stay in the accord if the European Union manages to identify new sanctions that could satisfy him without endangering the deal. However, the failure to reach an agreement to date raises the likelihood that Trump will end sanctions relief for Tehran.

Iran may respond by restarting its nuclear weapons program, but this is a high risk strategy that could prompt Trump’s hardline advisers to pursue air strikes on weapons and research facilities in Iran. To avoid such strikes, Iran may instead seek other ways to hit back.

For example, if Iran succeeds in building a loyal political coalition that takes power in Baghdad, that new government could eject US troops from Iraq – something that Iraqi political figures close to Iran have long wanted. As recently as March, a small majority of the Iraqi parliament called on the Iraqi government to set out a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. The surprising vote by a largely pro-Iranian group of parliamentarians was seen as an effort by Iran to demonstrate its political leverage in Iraq.

The proportional representation system that governs Iraq’s elections means there will be no clear winner after the vote. Instead, once the results are announced, several electoral blocs will scramble to build a coalition large enough to take power. The two largest blocs are likely to be Nasr (“Victory”), led by Prime Minister Abadi, and Fatah (“Conquest”), led by pro-Iranian former militia leader Hadi al-Amiri.

Iran is seeking to persuade, among others, the major Iraqi Kurdish political parties, the KDP and the PUK, to support Fatah. The Kurdistan Region of Iraq has seen a collapse in its revenues and its political leverage since it lost control of oil-rich Kirkuk and other disputed territories to federal government control following the Kurdish independence referendum last September. Iran is exploiting Kurdish disappointment over the lack of US support over the ballot by offering the Kurds a new political deal with Baghdad that it says Fatah will deliver. Although these efforts are being led by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is responsible for expanding Iran’s networks of influence in the region, other parts of the Iranian government are also supporting this outreach. A high-level Iranian delegation traveled to the Kurdish capital of Erbil this month for a conference designed to bolster trade ties between Iran and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The message to the Kurdish parties is clear: the path to economic vitality and political autonomy goes through Tehran, not Washington.

If Fatah is able to build momentum in its effort to build a governing coalition, it could quickly attract support from political leaders keen to secure a ministerial position. Iran may even be able to persuade Abadi to form an alliance with Fatah, in a bid to stay on as prime minister. In such a scenario, the Iranians would try to ensure that Abadi is simply a figurehead for a staunchly pro-Iranian government. Abadi briefly joined the Fatah coalition earlier this year, before changing his mind and running a separate electoral coalition.

We may even see small Iranian-backed militia groups attempting to attack US troop positions in Iraq. This tactic was widely used by Iran to undermine the United States after the invasion of Iraq, and Iranian-backed militias have occasionally threatened to target US troops since 2014. Asaib Ahl Al-Haq, which is part of the Fatah coalition, threatened to attack US forces engaged in the liberation of Mosul. Directly targeting US troops is a risky strategy, however, that Iran may avoid for fear of retaliation on Iranian soil.

The premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would halt the critical effort to rebuild Iraq’s security forces. This would enable Iran to strengthen the position of the Popular Mobilization Units, a recently formalized militia force subject to substantial Iranian influence. The continued undermining of Iraq’s national security forces could threaten stability in Iraq’s liberated areas, where local populations often chafe under the control of the Shi’ite-dominated units.

Iran may also seek Iraqi support for its regional agenda by strengthening the participation of Iraqi militias in the Syrian civil war, isolating Iraq from the Gulf states, and denying the United States access to a strategic foothold in the region. In these efforts, Iran will face little effective push back from US-aligned regional powers. Although there has been much press coverage of the warming relationship between Iraq and the Gulf States, these new ties are only skin deep. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have created much fanfare with high level visits, but, unlike Iran, they have not done the painstaking groundwork needed to build relationships of influence across the political spectrum.

The United States has made great strides in reviving a neglected political relationship between Baghdad and Washington, and restoring at least superficial relationships between Iraq and the Gulf Cooperation Council states. This rare success story could be undermined by an Iran that sees Iraq as a place where it can strike back. 

[justchecking123]

31 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

 

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Comment-Iran-deal-collapse-would-endanger-US-in-Iraq-553715

 

 

 

• Jerusalem Post
•  
• Middle East

COMMENT: IRAN DEAL COLLAPSE WOULD ENDANGER U.S. IN IRAQ

Iran is seeking to create a pro-Iranian government in Iraq so Tehran is better placed to hit back at the United States should Trump re-impose sanctions.

BY REUTERS

 

 MAY 7, 2018 19:11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An American soldier takes his position at the U.S. army base in Qayyara, south of Mosul October 25, 2016. (photo credit: REUTERS/ALAA AL-MARJANI)

May 12 is more than the deadline for Donald Trump to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement. It’s also the day that Iraqis are due to go to the polls to vote for a new parliament. And while the election has been largely overlooked amid the tension over the US president’s decision, it’s hard to understate the significance of the ballot for Washington and Tehran.

Iran is seeking to create a pro-Iranian government in Iraq so Tehran is better placed to hit back at the United States should Trump re-impose sanctions. The defeat of Islamic State in Iraq has been a major victory for US-backed Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, but Iran is working towards shifting the political balance in its own favor – to force an early exit of US forces, to end the strategic partnership between Iraq and the United States, and to secure Iraq’s support system">support for its regional agenda. Such an outcome would undermine stability in Iraq and would further strengthen Iran in the Middle East at the expense of the United States.

 

 

Washington’s influence has waned in the region, even as Iran has secured substantial leverage in Syria, Lebanon and to some extent Yemen. Iraq is one country where the United States has made gains. Despite a dramatic loss of influence early in the Obama administration, which was compounded by the withdrawal of US forces in 2011, the United States made a comeback in Iraq in 2014, providing intensive support system">support to defeat Islamic State.

As the Iraqi parliamentary elections approach, Iran is intensifying its efforts to cultivate wide-ranging political partnerships in the country. Trump may yet decide to stay in the accord if the European Union manages to identify new sanctions that could satisfy him without endangering the deal. However, the failure to reach an agreement to date raises the likelihood that Trump will end sanctions relief for Tehran.

Iran may respond by restarting its nuclear weapons program, but this is a high risk strategy that could prompt Trump’s hardline advisers to pursue air strikes on weapons and research facilities in Iran. To avoid such strikes, Iran may instead seek other ways to hit back.

For example, if Iran succeeds in building a loyal political coalition that takes power in Baghdad, that new government could eject US troops from Iraq – something that Iraqi political figures close to Iran have long wanted. As recently as March, a small majority of the Iraqi parliament called on the Iraqi government to set out a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. The surprising vote by a largely pro-Iranian group of parliamentarians was seen as an effort by Iran to demonstrate its political leverage in Iraq.

The proportional representation system that governs Iraq’s elections means there will be no clear winner after the vote. Instead, once the results are announced, several electoral blocs will scramble to build a coalition large enough to take power. The two largest blocs are likely to be Nasr (“Victory”), led by Prime Minister Abadi, and Fatah (“Conquest”), led by pro-Iranian former militia leader Hadi al-Amiri.

Iran is seeking to persuade, among others, the major Iraqi Kurdish political parties, the KDP and the PUK, to support system">support Fatah. The Kurdistan Region of Iraq has seen a collapse in its revenues and its political leverage since it lost control of oil-rich Kirkuk and other disputed territories to federal government control following the Kurdish independence referendum last September. Iran is exploiting Kurdish disappointment over the lack of US support system">support over the ballot by offering the Kurds a new political deal with Baghdad that it says Fatah will deliver. Although these efforts are being led by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is responsible for expanding Iran’s networks of influence in the region, other parts of the Iranian government are also supporting this outreach. A high-level Iranian delegation traveled to the Kurdish capital of Erbil this month for a conference designed to bolster trade ties between Iran and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The message to the Kurdish parties is clear: the path to economic vitality and political autonomy goes through Tehran, not Washington.

If Fatah is able to build momentum in its effort to build a governing coalition, it could quickly attract support system">support from political leaders keen to secure a ministerial position. Iran may even be able to persuade Abadi to form an alliance with Fatah, in a bid to stay on as prime minister. In such a scenario, the Iranians would try to ensure that Abadi is simply a figurehead for a staunchly pro-Iranian government. Abadi briefly joined the Fatah coalition earlier this year, before changing his mind and running a separate electoral coalition.

We may even see small Iranian-backed militia groups attempting to attack US troop positions in Iraq. This tactic was widely used by Iran to undermine the United States after the invasion of Iraq, and Iranian-backed militias have occasionally threatened to target US troops since 2014. Asaib Ahl Al-Haq, which is part of the Fatah coalition, threatened to attack US forces engaged in the liberation of Mosul. Directly targeting US troops is a risky strategy, however, that Iran may avoid for fear of retaliation on Iranian soil.

The premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would halt the critical effort to rebuild Iraq’s security forces. This would enable Iran to strengthen the position of the Popular Mobilization Units, a recently formalized militia force subject to substantial Iranian influence. The continued undermining of Iraq’s national security forces could threaten stability in Iraq’s liberated areas, where local populations often chafe under the control of the Shi’ite-dominated units.

Iran may also seek Iraqi support system">support for its regional agenda by strengthening the participation of Iraqi militias in the Syrian civil war, isolating Iraq from the Gulf states, and denying the United States access to a strategic foothold in the region. In these efforts, Iran will face little effective push back from US-aligned regional powers. Although there has been much press coverage of the warming relationship between Iraq and the Gulf States, these new ties are only skin deep. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have created much fanfare with high level visits, but, unlike Iran, they have not done the painstaking groundwork needed to build relationships of influence across the political spectrum.

The United States has made great strides in reviving a neglected political relationship between Baghdad and Washington, and restoring at least superficial relationships between Iraq and the Gulf Cooperation Council states. This rare success story could be undermined by an Iran that sees Iraq as a place where it can strike back. 

 

Great op-ed piece about the situation everyone should read.

Lots of pieces to this political puzzle.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by justchecking123

[yota691]

08-05-2018 10:41 AM

Rohani: Iran seeks constructive relations with the world

 

 

 

Iranian President Hassan Rowhani said on Tuesday that Iran is seeking constructive relations with the world but will continue domestic development despite possible sanctions.

[yota691]

 

Trump announced his position on Iran's nuclear deal today

 

07:45

Last updated

The time now is 07:47 AM

365

Watch

 

 

 

Follow - up / Tomorrow 's Press: 

announce US President Donald Trump on Tuesday its decision on the Iranian nuclear deal, while likely a White House official said Trump would pull out " in part" of the agreement. 

"I will announce my decision on the Iran deal, tomorrow from the White House at 2:00 pm," Trump said in a tirade on his official website at the Tuttir website.

The BBC said Trump had repeatedly criticized the deal, which aims to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing economic sanctions. 

A White House official said the US president might announce a partial withdrawal from the deal. 

The Europeans hope to reach a settlement in an attempt to salvage the agreement. 

Britain, France and Germany are making intensive efforts to try to keep the Iranian nuclear deal concluded during the term of former US President Barack Obama and signed by Russia and China as well. 

Trump said the terms of the agreement were too lenient and limited Iran's nuclear activities for only a limited time and failed to prevent them from developing ballistic missiles. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macaron and UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutierrez Trump have warned against withdrawing from the nuclear deal.

McCron said he agreed that he had to deal with Trump's concerns, adding that he feared the latter's withdrawal from the nuclear deal. 

Iranian President Hassan Rowhani said the United States would "regret" it if it withdrew from the nuclear deal with Tehran. 

"Iran has a plan to repel any decision that Trump might make, and we will face it," Rouhani said in an interview broadcast on state television. 

He hinted that Iran may reach a deal with the other parties to the agreement. 

"If we can reach an agreement without America, Iran will remain committed to the agreement, and if not, Tehran will go on its way." 

Iran has described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "notorious liar," after the Israeli prime minister's claims about a secret nuclear weapons program in Tehran.

Netanyahu's announcement led to the division of Western powers, days before the United States announced its decision on the nuclear deal.

 

 

I will be announcing my decision on the Iran Deal tomorrow from the White House at 2:00 pm.

 - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)May 7, 2018

 

 

 

[yota691]

 

US senator: Congress can not prevent Trump's withdrawal from Iran's nuclear deal

 

08:37

Last updated

The time now is 08:59 AM

385

Watch

 

 

 

Follow-up / tomorrow Press:

Ben Kardan, a Maryland Democrat, said Tuesday that the US Congress would not be able to prevent President Donald Trump from withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran.

"Congress can not do very little, this is an executive-level agreement. Congress does not play a role in the president's decision to withdraw from this agreement," Cardin said, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

"I think it is in the interest of the international community to maintain the SVPD, as long as Iran is committed to it," he said, noting that he "observes Tehran's commitment to it. It is not in our national interest for the president to re-impose possible sanctions on Iran and put them back on. under excution".

"Now Iran is using mechanisms in the SVPD to hold America accountable for its own violations of this plan (the nuclear deal with Iran), which is sad."

In 2015, six international mediators (the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia) reached a historic agreement with Iran on resolving long-term problems over Iran's nuclear program, adopting a comprehensive joint action plan, which removes Iran's economic and financial sanctions From the United Nations, the United States and the European Union.

Trump, however, has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with the deal and has spoken of the possibility of withdrawing it if efforts to reform this agreement fail. 

Trump is due to announce on Tuesday evening whether or not to extend the lifting of sanctions against Iran in accordance with the agreements.

[nannab]

Thanks Yota and good morning DV. 

[yota691]

A sudden drop in oil prices

- 5/8/2018 7:04:00 AM .176 Number of readings

 

 

 

 

KINDAN - 

Oil prices fell from a three-and-a-half-year high on Tuesday as investors awaited US President Donald Trump's announcement on whether the United States would again impose sanctions on Iran that it suspended under Tehran's nuclear deal with world powers. 

Oil prices rose for the fourth consecutive day on Monday, their highest level since late 2014, supported by new problems facing Venezuelan PDVSA and the possibility that the United States could impose sanctions on Iran. 

If the United States withdraws from the deal, Iran's exports of crude oil could be affected, increasing supply in the oil market, which has begun to return to equilibrium after years of erosion.

US WTI fell 63 cents, or 0.9 percent, to $ 70.10 a barrel by 0024 GMT. And 

fell at a stage below $ 70 after surpassing the previous session the level for the first time since November 2014. The benchmark Brent crude fell 53 cents, or the equivalent of 0.7 percent, to 75.64 dollars a barrel, after jumping 1.7 percent in the settlement To reach $ 76.17 a barrel in the previous session.

[yota691]

Trump decertifies Iran nuclear deal (full)

[yota691]

Iran responds after Trump won't certify nuclear deal

[yota691]

Trump withdraws from nuclear deal and signs new sanctions against Iran

---

 

8/5/2018 22:06:00

 

      

Donald Trump

 

 

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced Washington's withdrawal from Iran's nuclear deal and signed new sanctions against Tehran .

"Iran's nuclear deal is full of flaws and it has failed to prevent Iran from developing missiles and announced the withdrawal of the United States from it, " Trump told a news conference at the White House .

Trump stressed the need to "do something about it and stop Iran's malicious behavior in the Middle East," adding that "his administration will seek a sustainable and comprehensive solution to Iran's nuclear program ."

Trump signed new sanctions against Iran .

 

 PUKmedia agencies

[Floridian]

19 hours ago, pokebu said:

Macron is the one I trust most in this scenario, level-headed, insightful but fair with all parties.  The US is unfortunately blinded by extreme rhetoric.  Netanyahu is an extremist disgrace and Saudi Arabia has an unbroken history of supporting their fellow Sunnis in 9 - 11, Al Qaeda with Osama Bin Laden and then ISIS with Zarqawi and his terrorists.  I spent 4 years, some 50 years ago fighting the GD commies so I hate them with a passion and today hate their support system">support of Iran, Syria and the other Shiite strongholds.  I strongly believe in what Trump is doing in Iraq and just wish we would apply the same balance to the Iran Nuke deal and not let the nut cases egg us into dumb moves.

 

Really?  Guess you don't know he went to high school in Philadelphia, attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology, worked in Boston and is a good friend of Mitt Romney, and also President Trump.  

 

Yes, we need a lot more "extremist disgraces" like that in the world.  Are you a fan of the Ayatollah?

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Floridian

[bostonangler]

 

What Netanyahu’s dramatic speech about Iran’s nuclear program revealed — and concealed

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is no amateur when it comes to appearing on live television. In a televised speech Monday, Netanyahu made bold accusations about Iran’s nuclear record. The speech came ahead of President Trump’s expected announcement about whether the U.S. will continue to participate in the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, on May 12.

Not one to shy away from props, Netanyahu dramatically pulled a curtain to reveal bookshelves containing dozens of files and CDs, copies of original Iranian documents secretly removed from Tehran by Israeli agents in recent weeks. The documents, Netanyahu said, represented Iran’s “nuclear archive” — information on Iran’s 1999-2003 nuclear weapons program. Incoming Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vouched for their authenticity.

Iranian possession of this “nuclear archive” is not a clear JCPOA violation. However, a precedent supports the argument that retaining these documents violates Iran’s obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Did the presentation reveal anything new?

As commentator Joshua Pollack noted, some of the documents contained details hitherto unknown outside the intelligence community. Most notable was the planned Iranian nuclear arsenal’s size: It would have included five nuclear devices with a yield of 10 kilotons each.

But the captured documents refer only to Iranian activities that were finished by 2003 — about which the international community already knew. While Netanyahu implied that nuclear weapons development had continued, he presented no evidence to that effect.

Western reaction was split. The White House welcomed Netanyahu’s presentation as containing “new and compelling details.” European powers maintained that they had learned nothing new.

1. Did Netanyahu prove that Iran was in violation of the JCPOA?

No. Netanyahu accused Iran of lying in 2015 “when it didn’t come clean to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] as required by the nuclear deal.” However, this by itself does not violate the JCPOA. The agreement, signed in July 2015, did require Iran to cooperate with the IAEA in investigating its nuclear past. The deal did not require Iran to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Iran was required to provide the IAEA with “explanations regarding outstanding issues,” but false explanations were not cited as reasons to void the deal. The JCPOA did require that the IAEA submit a report on Iran’s past nuclear activities. The agency investigated evidence from various sources and submitted questions to which the Iranian government was required to respond and did. That report was submitted in December 2015.

The agency’s report was not contingent on Iranian candor. Even if Iran “did not come clean” to the IAEA, as Netanyahu alleged, this would not violate the JCPOA.

2. So what’s the problem with the archive?

While not a clear violation of the JCPOA, by possessing the archive, Iran is violating its obligations as a Non-Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS) party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). NNWS members such as Iran are obligated by the treaty “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.” Possessing documents about producing nuclear weapons contradicts the spirit of the treaty because such documents could promote nuclear proliferation — either by the country possessing the archive or by transferring know-how to other actors seeking nuclear weapons.

That’s on top of Iran’s more serious violation of actively trying to develop nuclear weapons before 2003.

Destroying the records of a nuclear program has an important historical precedent. When F.W. de Klerk became South Africa’s president in 1989, he ordered that South Africa’s nuclear stockpile, consisting of six and a half bombs, be dismantled. That way, he could bring his country into the NPT as an NNWS. He ordered that weapons-related documents be destroyed as well. Nic Von Wielligh, a former South African nuclear official, explained that de Klerk believed that “as a future signatory of the NPT, South Africa had an obligation not to pass on detailed plans” — and should not retain any documents with nuclear weapons know-how.

But Israeli officials probably won’t be pointing to de Klerk’s example any time soon. Israel doesn’t like to draw attention to the question of whether it helped apartheid South Africa develop nuclear weapons. Some researchers argue that the South African nuclear documents were destroyed not because of lofty ideals, but because of combined U.S., British and Israeli pressure.

3. Was Netanyahu trying to influence Trump, or was he doing him a favor?

Within Israel, Netanyahu’s decision to publicly divulge information on a recent covert operation drew criticism. Most observers, including the Iranian Foreign Ministry, say he did so as part of an Israeli campaign to persuade Trump to withdraw from the JCPOA.

But it is also possible that Netanyahu was acting at Trump’s request, revealing the sensitive information to give Trump a reason to withdraw from the agreement. In other words, he might have been doing Trump a favor.

Such a request would have precedents. After the successful Israeli raid against the Al-Kibar Syrian nuclear reactor in September 2007, President George W. Bush asked Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to publicly divulge related information, as Bush revealed in his biography. Bush wanted to make the details of the operation public to further isolate the Syrian government. Olmert, who wanted to avoid giving Syria cause to react against Israel, refused.

4. Sharing is caring?

Sharing sensitive information with a powerful ally about a hostile nuclear program is always tricky. That’s especially true if it happens before a planned counter-proliferation raid takes place. The Reagan administration is said to have foiled a planned Indian raid against a Pakistani nuclear facility in 1984 by leaking the plan to the Pakistanis. When Israel considered its June 1981 raid against the Iraqi nuclear reactor, it did not share its intelligence on the Iraqi program with Washington, so as not to compromise freedom of action.

In a forthcoming paper that I co-authored with Giordana Pulcini, we outline how that decision to keep the Reagan administration in the dark backfired. Reagan and his officials were surprised, and the initial U.S. reaction was harsh. It took Israel a considerable amount of effort to change the tone.

This time, Netanyahu used his considerable theatrical skills to keep Israel in the conversation.

Or Rabinowitz is an assistant professor of international relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/04/what-netanyahus-dramatic-speech-about-irans-nuclear-program-both-revealed-and-concealed/?utm_term=.28e4c16bd057

[bostonangler]

 

Politics

McCaffrey: We'll be in 'real trouble' if Trump ditches Iran deal

 

Retired Four-Star General Barry McCaffrey responds to the speculation that Trump will announce that the U.S. is abandoning the Iran Nuclear Deal. Allies and lawmakers alike are pushing Trump to stay in.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mccaffrey-apos-ll-apos-real-214441130.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

 

 

 

 

Because our generals have really not that good...

B/A

Edited May 8, 2018 by bostonangler

[Floridian]

 

Sorry, no matter what is found in print or said by anyone, here or anywhere else - I stand with Trump on what he did today and I cannot abide those that constantly shout "Death to Israel!", "Death to America!"

 

 

 

[bostonangler]

5 minutes ago, Floridian said:

 

Sorry, no matter what is found in print or said by anyone, here or anywhere else - I stand with Trump on what he did today and I cannot abide those that constantly shout "Death to Israel!", "Death to America!"

 

 

 

 

Well that should be true for anyone who shouts "death to anyone"... Netanyahoo is just a crooked politician. I'm not sure how he is not in jail. Just like Clinton or Bush.

 

B/A

Edited May 8, 2018 by bostonangler

[Floridian]

2 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Well that should be true for anyone who shouts "death to anyone"... Netanyahoo is just a crooked politician. I'm not sure how he is not in jail.

 

B/A

 

Oh please, let's not argue about who's a crooked politician and who should be in jail, lest I bring up the Clintons.  

[bostonangler]

6 minutes ago, Floridian said:

 

Oh please, let's not argue about who's a crooked politician and who should be in jail, lest I bring up the Clintons.  

 

Yeah I added them... Sorry you must have replied before I made the edit... LOL

 

B/A

[Synopsis]

2 minutes ago, Floridian said:

 

Oh please, let's not argue about who's a crooked politician and who should be in jail, lest I bring up the Clintons.  

 

The Best Of Your Tuesday To You, Floridian!!! 

 

And don't forget Barry & Scary!!!

 

But, hey, "the sky is falling" rhetoric is Standard Fare from the Peanut Gallery Occupants!!!

 

              

 

In The Mean Time...............

 

Go Moola Nova (YEAH AND YEE HAW, BABY!!!)!!!

   

[Floridian]

3 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Yeah I added them... Sorry you must have replied before I made the edit... LOL

 

B/A

 

Let's face it!  There are lots of crooked career politicians.  That's why we need term limits.

Being a politician is very lucrative. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Floridian

[Floridian]

1 minute ago, Synopsis said:

 

The Best Of Your Tuesday To You, Floridian!!! 

 

And don't forget Barry & Scary!!!

 

But, hey, "the sky is falling" rhetoric is Standard Fare from the Peanut Gallery Occupants!!!

 

              

 

In The Mean Time...............

 

Go Moola Nova (YEAH AND YEE HAW, BABY!!!)!!!

   

 

Who's "Scary"?  Barry's wife?  😂

[bostonangler]

Just now, Floridian said:

 

Let's face it!  There are lots of crooked career politicians.  That's why we need term limits.

 

Floridian I completely and totally agree. In 1996 I voted for the Contract with America... When Newt and the boys promised term limits... It was just a ploy to win back the house... I was gotten by their deceit... I have not forgotten...

 

B/A

[Synopsis]

              

 

Yep. "Wife".