Your claim that Iran was an obvious bad deal is not shared by our allies and other participants who are working hard to keep it in place and would be more likely to be negatively affected that the US would. Constantly claiming that it is a horrible deal is an opinion but is no excuse for ignoring Trump's horrible performance internationally.
Do you actual expect those Allies who entered into this failed agreement to now claim the same to be a bad deal. It's just not my opinion but the opinion of almost every analyst out there. As I stated above...no deal would have been better than this mess which Obama inexcusably agreed too. In fact, the Iran deal is likely the worst international agreement the U.S. has ever entered. Hard for you to criticize anything Trump does foreign policy-wise when you support deals such as this....I assume based solely on a partisan basis. Point is that if you're happy with the agreement Obama made with Iran you should be happy with just about anything Trump does with NK. Here's the opinion of one of Clinton's advisors on the deal:
n the coming days,
President Trump plans to announce his final decision on whether the United States will withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord. President Trump, who has described the agreement as “one of the worst deals” he has ever witnessed, is expected to leave the pact.
Ultimately, this is the right decision for the United States and for global security at large. From the outset, the accord, which provided sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for restrictions on their nuclear program, has a number of
fatal flaws.
Foremost, while the plan limits Iran’s access to uranium, this restriction only lasts until 2025 to 2030. After that, the Iranians are free to revitalize their nuclear program on a potentially even larger scale. Notably, however, this “sunset” clause, which allow parts of the deal to expire, are the least of the deal’s shortcomings.
One of the primary failures of the deal is that the agreement fails to address Iran’s ballistic missile program. As such, the country has continued to unrestrictedly build and test ballistic missiles. Moreover, President Trump and others have rightly objected to the terms under which regulatory inspectors are permitted to visit nuclear sites.
The terms of the deal give Iran 14 days to object to a request for inspection, followed by a period of seven days for an arbitration committee to rule about the inspection, and another three days for Tehran to set up an inspection. Thus, this provides Iran with up to 24 days to conceal, destroy, or relocate contraband materials.
Even more problematically, Iran has stated that it will prohibit inspections of military sites, thus further complicating the issue of compliance verification. These flaws have become so glaringly problematic that even those who once championed the deal have begun to question it.
“Everyone recognizes that the deal is not ideal. I think President Obama would say the deal is not ideal,” said
Bob Einhorn, who was the State Department’s special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control during the Obama administration. While these flaws are not necessarily brand new, there have been several recent alarming developments that have sparked concern among elected officials.
Last week, standing in front a screen which blatantly displayed the text “Iran lied” in all caps, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israeli intelligence services had obtained proof that Iran had been deceptive about its nuclear program.
Netanyahu claims to have
55,000 pages and 183 CDs full of evidence that Iran had sought “to design, produce and test five warheads with 10 kiloton of TNT yield for integration on missiles.” He also indicated that the documents had been stolen from a warehouse in Tehran by a team working for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, and that they definitively proved that Iran has been lying about its nuclear program.
While some
intelligence experts doubt that the evidence is quite as reliable as Netanyahu claims, the prime minister’s presentation did underscore an important point: Under the terms of the current Iran deal, it is next to impossible for us to truly know the full details of the Iranian nuclear program and whether Tehran is abiding by the guidelines established by the accord.
Indeed, it has become increasingly clear that the Iran agreement was a bad move for the United States and its allies. Instead of forcing Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons, the deal has merely compelled Tehran to become more covert about the project. At the same time, relief from sanctions has provided tens of billions of dollars for Iran, much of which will certainly be funneled to the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad and terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
Ultimately, President Obama’s heralded deal is really a win for the rouge Iranian regime and its allies and a major setback for the West. At this time, President Trump would be right to withdraw from the deal.
