Trump Can’t Undo Nuclear Deal, Iran’s President Rouhani Says


#1

So, Trump says today that he will deal fairly with all people and all nations. Encouraging words!

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/trump-can-t-undo-nuclear-deal-stop-iran-s-growth-rouhani-says

It seems to me that since Iran has sacrificed so much in people and resources to beat back ISIS, we have good reason to do all we can to build bridges. With Russia and Iran rebuilding an alliance, we have some reason for hope concerning more cooperation.

As long as nobody gets in the way…:rolleyes:


#2

The “deal” with Iran isn’t a treaty, so no future President is bound by it. It’s the same with the “deal” with Cuba. A lot of people were pointing this out when Obama was making the deals. There’s a Constitutional process for agreements between the US and other nations. Obama chose to ignore that process.


#3

The Iranians were given fair warning by many members of the Senate, that the deal could very well be off by a new American president. They chose to ignore it.


#4

Well, what Obama did was not illegal. There have been nearly 18,000 of these types of deals since 1939. 94% of US international agreements are by executive order.

dailysignal.com/2015/03/13/will-white-house-pursue-treaty-executive-agreement-iran-heres-need-know/

The difference with this one is that it was opposed by the strongest lobbies in Washington, AIPAC and its allies. which not only donate to campaigns but set up individual donors with congressmen. Evidence of the lobby’s strength is seen in overwhelming support by congress of every military act carried out by Israel, whether or not deemed illegal/immoral by the international community and human rights people from Israel and around the world. Our congress is unquestionably purchased by the lobby.

Our local congressman, who once had a more objective view toward the injustice in the conflict, told me that “pressure from the lobby is enormous”. He eventually learned to walk in step with the lobby. Keep in mind, too, that lobbyists, not congressman, write laws nowadays and have become the go-to people for information.

Trump started out saying that he would take a balanced view toward Israel and Palestine, but since John Bolton is part of his campaign, his view changed almost immediately. Since Trump is saying that he will likely pick Bolton as Secretary of State, one would think that our country will now be run as if Netanyahu himself is running our nation.

So, I am guessing that Obama’s 38 billion dollar gift to Israel will no longer be considered big enough. This will not be lobbying business-as-usual in Washington, it will be lobbying business-on-steroids in Washington.

However, the Iran issue will be more tricky. After all, Iran has done far more to defeat ISIS than any other nation, at least in Iraq. In addition, Iran is one of the staging places for Russian military aircraft, and a warming is happening between those two nations. And, if Trump wants to reach to Russia to solve some of these international disputes, well… who knows what might happen. Trump may override Bolton’s extremism.


#5

I didn’t say it was illegal, I said it wasn’t a treaty, so it’s not binding on a future President.


#6

Are you thinking that our nation does not benefit from better relations with Iran? Isn’t it better to build bridges?


#7

I would like to see President Trump find a way to de-militarise the whole middle east.

Just think how much more peaceful the whole world would be.


#8

Are you going to get rid of the stones, so they have nothing to throw? I would be pleased if any President in my lifetime heals the divides in this nation, let alone in the Middle East!

Just as in our own nation, there is no “de-militarizing” of the Middle East, excepting when hearts change. The region knows it is sovereign, and will not submit to the United States of all places.


#9

Iran is a major state sponsor of terrorism. I’d rather build bridges to the victims of terrorism, rather than the supporters of it.


#10

Well, Iran supports Hezbollah, which is the political party of the Shia in Lebanon. Iran has no control over the injustices carried out by Hezbollah (which are rare, but there are some cases) and the U.S. does not have control over the injustices carried out by Israel (which are rare, but there are some cases.

The Gospel calls us to love our enemies, and someone must take the first step in carrying out the Gospel message. We can start by building bridges with Iranians who are open to us, especially those who supported the deal with the U.S.

Those not open to the U.S. were against the deal.


#11

What better relations? They are defying this DEAL everyday and now we have someone who will do something about it!


#12

Yes, for starters, instead of giving Israel 38B in arms, we could make such a gift contingent upon a peace deal with the Palestinians. Then there would be no reason for our taxes to go to their country in the first place, right?


#13

That is part of the “fundamentally changing America” he promised us. Thankfully, the election negated that.


#14

I think I heard that they were making too much plutonium, but that has been resolved, right?

And the Iranian public is upset because there are still sanctions in place, I hear. So maybe there is a bit of defying on all sides?


#15

Who know? We haven’t sent any inspectors, yet we gave them 1.5 billion.


#16

It is my understanding that the 1.5B was some money owed.

Inspections are happening:

washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/03/u-n-watchdog-iran-nuclear-deal-appears-to-be-working-so-far-but-inspectors-are-stretched/

I’m trying to find the article about plutonium, but no luck. Maybe there was no overproduction.


#17

We didn’t owe them that money. Its a myth. Obama follows the Dem playbook, throw money at it. If that doesn’t work, throw more. Lets see how he deals with his own money. I can guarantee he isn’t throwing it away!


#18

I’m fairly confident that “loving your enemies” doesn’t mean letting your enemy use your face as a punching bag.


#19

Apparently it was negotiated, as a reimbursement for money paid by the Shah to America for military equipment:

fortune.com/2016/09/07/us-iran-billion-hostages-arms-deal/

However, believing this is going to depend on a level of trust, and perhaps you do not trust the current administration, so your disbelief is understandable. Rubio and others are very much in the pocket of the lobbies that do not want to see any money going to Iran for any reason whatsoever, so their contention is also understandable. They are speaking for Netanyahu.

Which brings me back to the point that should be made: It would be much more honest to have Netanyahu as our president, or at least our Secretary of State.


#20

Since what you are saying is impossible. Lets get back to the issue. Is the Shah’s government there (who we supposedly owe money to) or not? NOT!!! We owe these terrorists NOTHING!!! Get it?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.