3 ms·
There's an easier way to do it that required no effort on the part of the current administration, which is to just not cancel the Iran deal. > By torpedoing U.
by koube 8y ago
There's an easier way to do it that required no effort on the part of the current administration, which is to just not cancel the Iran deal.
> By torpedoing U.S. adherence to the accord, Trump has all but guaranteed its collapse, a move that opens the door to the unfettered resumption of Iran’s nuclear program and unleashes unpredictable escalatory pressures in an already volatile Middle East.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/around-the-halls-brookings-experts-discuss-the-implications-of-president-trumps-iran-nuclear-deal-announcement/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/a...
> Although the deal didn’t address every concern, it was successfully preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Trump has instead opted for an uncertain future, raising the risks of an Iranian bomb and a U.S-Iranian conflict.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal-sets-needless-international-crisis https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-dea...
> The United States is left without good options moving forward. It is hard to see how this decision serves U.S. interests or regional stability.
https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-us-withdrawal-from-the-iran.html https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-u...
In addition I believe there are long term costs for a country to be violating agreements for no discernible benefit.
- rgbrenner 8y agoThe deal with Iran is not relevant.. since Huewai's and Meng's actions are from 5+ years ago, when Iran was subject to UN approved sanctions.
- koube 8y agoYou're correct, although I would say the Iran deal is still relevant to Iran sanctions in the general sense.
- austinheap 8y agoWhile I agree exiting the Iran deal was a mistake, your links are pretty one-sided... 1) The Brookings Institute is a right-wing pay-to-play lobbying group: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Brookings_Institution https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Brookings_Institution 2) Cato Institute is funded by the Koch Brothers: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute 3) RAND Corp is partially funded by the US Govt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation
- koube 8y agoBrookings and Rand are considered centrist, Rand sometimes center left, and Cato is conservative. I linked them because the case has already been made on the left, the case is usually being made to the right, so conservative sources would be relevant here.
- acali 8y agoThe quotes are by individuals associated with the organizations, it doesn't appear to be the official position of the think-tanks. I think it is unfair to call the Brookings Institute a "right-wing pay-to-play lobbying group" but you are just sourcing from a left-leaning activist group.
- austinheap 8y agoMy intention was to highlight the sources of funding for each -- not to make a pedantic left v right argument -- and people should question _all_ DC think tanks. Re: Brookings Institute, it's clear that their foreign sources of funding should cause pause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funding_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funding_...