5 ms·

Can anyone actually give me an elevator summary of what this actually means without relying on tribal language or dog-whistles? Clicking link related doesn't ac

Can anyone actually give me an elevator summary of what this actually means without relying on tribal language or dog-whistles? Clicking link related doesn't actually explain why any of this matters to me outside of signaling and posturing; it just sends me to a timeline of various pundits and celebrities telling me how I should feel bad and angry about this.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
The US had a deal with Iran where they wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons, and we would ease back on the sanctions that were hurting their economy. Trump scrapped the deal, which (I presume) means the sanctions are going back in effect. That's going to hurt Iran's economy (and, to a much lesser extent, the US economy as well). It's also going to raise international tensions. Whether it's good or bad depends on your interpretation of whether Iran was keeping their end of the deal (the spirit, the letter, or both).
- s2g 8y ago
  Everyone except trump and Netanyahu said they were. It wasn’t just good faith, thy had to agree to access as part of the deal. This means they have much more freedom to pursue nuclear weapons research.
- nitwit005 8y ago
  The US might put the sanctions back in place, but I doubt the rest of the world will follow. Russia and China both signed trade deals to forge closer ties after the agreement. There's no real way for the US to impose sanctions without international support, except on the finance side.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The US had a deal with Iran where they wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons, and we would ease back on the sanctions that were hurting their economy. Note that we did not agree to remove direct sanctions, only secondary sanctions (sanctions on non-Iranian entities doing business with Iran.)
runesoerensen 8y ago
This article gives a better overview than the "live" Guardian page: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-ir... Also, Obama's take: https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10155854913976749 https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10155854913976749
- thrillgore 8y ago
  I miss Obama. Jesus christ, I can't believe i'm saying that now.
  - tzs 8y ago
    Heck, I miss Obama, Bush (both of them), Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon (I was too young to really remember anyone earlier), because no matter how much I might have disagreed with any of them on any particular thing, they were at least reasonably coherent. Compare to this 2016-07-19 campaign speech Trump gave on the Iran deal: “Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-sentence/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-sentence/
poster123 8y ago
I think the Trump administration plans sanctions on multinational corporations that do business with Iran. This could affect financial markets, although it may already be priced in.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Can anyone actually give me an elevator summary of what this actually means without relying on tribal language or dog-whistles?. To be studiously neutral: The US is withdrawing from the international agreement under which Iran agreed to limit certain nuclear activities and submit to IAEA monitoring of its nuclear activities, in exchange for various concessions from other countries, including the removal of US “secondary” sanctions on those doing business with Iran (but not direct sanctions on Iran, which remained in place.) The direct impacts would seem primarily to be the end of Iran's obligations under the agreement and a return to US secondary sanctions; indirect impacts are somewhat more speculative and disputed with splits that have a distinct partisan/ideological correlation, though not breaking on party lines.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

The US had a deal with Iran where they wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons, and we would ease back on the sanctions that were hurting their economy. Trump scrapped the deal, which (I presume) means the sanctions are going back in effect. That's going to hurt Iran's economy (and, to a much lesser extent, the US economy as well). It's also going to raise international tensions. Whether it's good or bad depends on your interpretation of whether Iran was keeping their end of the deal (the spirit, the letter, or both).

s2g 8y ago
Everyone except trump and Netanyahu said they were. It wasn’t just good faith, thy had to agree to access as part of the deal. This means they have much more freedom to pursue nuclear weapons research.
nitwit005 8y ago
The US might put the sanctions back in place, but I doubt the rest of the world will follow. Russia and China both signed trade deals to forge closer ties after the agreement. There's no real way for the US to impose sanctions without international support, except on the finance side.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The US had a deal with Iran where they wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons, and we would ease back on the sanctions that were hurting their economy. Note that we did not agree to remove direct sanctions, only secondary sanctions (sanctions on non-Iranian entities doing business with Iran.)

runesoerensen 8y ago

This article gives a better overview than the "live" Guardian page: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-ir... Also, Obama's take: https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10155854913976749 https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10155854913976749

thrillgore 8y ago
I miss Obama. Jesus christ, I can't believe i'm saying that now.
- tzs 8y ago
  Heck, I miss Obama, Bush (both of them), Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon (I was too young to really remember anyone earlier), because no matter how much I might have disagreed with any of them on any particular thing, they were at least reasonably coherent. Compare to this 2016-07-19 campaign speech Trump gave on the Iran deal: “Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-sentence/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-sentence/

poster123 8y ago

I think the Trump administration plans sanctions on multinational corporations that do business with Iran. This could affect financial markets, although it may already be priced in.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Can anyone actually give me an elevator summary of what this actually means without relying on tribal language or dog-whistles?. To be studiously neutral: The US is withdrawing from the international agreement under which Iran agreed to limit certain nuclear activities and submit to IAEA monitoring of its nuclear activities, in exchange for various concessions from other countries, including the removal of US “secondary” sanctions on those doing business with Iran (but not direct sanctions on Iran, which remained in place.) The direct impacts would seem primarily to be the end of Iran's obligations under the agreement and a return to US secondary sanctions; indirect impacts are somewhat more speculative and disputed with splits that have a distinct partisan/ideological correlation, though not breaking on party lines.