4 ms·
It’s mostly a win for world stability because it preserves, to a limited degree, the notion that you can mutually agree, put it in writing, and count on the oth
by shaki-dora 8y ago
It’s mostly a win for world stability because it preserves, to a limited degree, the notion that you can mutually agree, put it in writing, and count on the other side fulfilling its obligations as long as you do.
Nobody with half a grasp of reality doubts that Iran was fulfilling its end of the nuclear deal. It’s entirely unclear why China, or North K, or really anybody should trust the US Government in the future. That means one of the arguably most important tools to avoid armed conflict was entirely eliminated from the US arsenal. What makes it even worse is that there just wasn’t any reason to do so, beyond some egotistical jingoism. Saudi Arabia is far worse in almost any observable category.
- colde 8y agoAbsolutely. It's completely stupid to go back on a deal when they were upholding their end. It means that there is no point in any country doing long term deals with the US when they know the next president is just going to tear it up if they feel like.
- zozbot123 8y agoIIRC, the whole argument for rejecting the deal is that supposedly there was some hard evidence that Iran was not complying with it as expected. You may think that this purported evidence is BS, but let's not misrepresent positions here.
- Tomte 8y agoEven the current administration admits that Iran is "technically" in compliance. That means theys fulfil all obligations they have signed up to. There is no "real" compliance beyond technical compliance. That's just wordplay. The problem is that the Iran deal is an Obama deal, so it must be wrong, and Iran's compliance is irrelevant.
- benj111 8y agoYou seem to be getting downvoted, I'm not sure why. Anyone care to justify? Edit: Or just downvote me instead.