Trump presents dishonest case against the Iran deal

President Trump followed through on his promise to pull the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear agreement, which was carefully negotiated over years with Iran -- and a coalition of the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia.

In his short speech announcing it, Trumpj gave no coherent rationale that was based on the realities of the agreement -- rather, he gave dishonest claims about things that were not covered in the negotiated agreement.   Here are some thoughts about all this, in no particular order.

1.  I'd wager that the prime motivator for Trump is that the agreement was one of the most important legacy items of the Obama presidency.   Trump can't stand not to undo everything Obama did, starting with the Affordable Health Care Act.

2.  The Iran deal was intentionally limited to their nuclear program -- and the sanctions we and our allies put on them to pressure the Iranians.   Intentionally left out -- because Iran would never have come to the table if we included them -- were their sponsoring of terrorist groups and actions, their aggressive military actions, their treatment of their own people etc. 
    But now Trump cites those things as though they were in the agreement and Iran's continuation of them is evidence of their cheating.  That is false and dishonest to use as an argument.  Yes, they are still doing those things, but they were not part of the nuclear agreement.  Either Trump doesn't even understand the agreement, or he is being willfully dishonest.

3.  The always arrogant Trump hardly even mentioned our allies in this agreement.  He spoke as though it were a bilateral agreement between Iran and the U.S.   In fact, some Iranians are saying they might continue the terms of the agreement -- minus the U.S. -- and hope the U.S. comes back around (translation:  maybe Trump will be gone soon).

4.  Let's  remember that it was the United States that was instrumental in covertly over-throwing the democratically elected, socialist government of Iran and Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1953 -- and put the Shah back in power until his death and the takeover of the clerics.   We don't exactly own the high ground here,

5.   Trump claims that Iran has cheated on the deal (not true to any significant degree according to the International Atomic Energy Agency that does aggressive inspections).  Trump also denigrates the IAEA falsely claiming that there is a deal between them and Iran that let's Iran get away with hiding stuff -- the  "evidence" that Netantyahu trotted out is not new and proves nothing of the sort.

6.   What will be the political effect in Iran?   President Rouhani is leader of the more moderate political wing, but also someone who is adept at getting along with the conservative clerics in power.   Rouhani was the champion of getting the nuclear agreement;  in effect his reputation depends on its success.   Trump's action will undermine his authority and reputation.  That is not good.   

7.  What will be the effect on the U.S. and on Trump's credibility?   Except for Trunp's base, for whom he can do nothing better than carry through on the rough  claims he made during the campaign.    For everyone else, including our international allies and our foes -- both he and the U.S. will lose credibility.  How can your trust us as a negotiating partner, whether in political treaties or trade agreements, when we just walk away from something as important as the Iran nuclear agreement?

8.   It's another giant step away from the United States being a leader of the free world.    When all our allies tried to talk Trump out of doing this, when many of his own staff tried to talk him out of it -- and he refused to take their advice -- that is not leadership in the modern world.   That is simply being obstreperous.

9.  And how will this affect Trump's position weeks before he goes into negotiations with North Korea's Kim Jong-un?   Kim is a shrewd observer, it seems.  He's been taking notes on how Trump operates.    He knows by now how to play him.   It does not bode well for that nuclear agreement being a lasting success.   Kim is making all the concessions at this point.   [Note:  Wednesday morning. Kim has released the three American citizens being held in North Korea prisons;  Mike Pompao is bringing them home.]  Is Kim really playing it straight and wants to put his past behind and become a modern economic nation?  Or, given his past crimes like assassinations of relatives to ensure his power, is this simply playing Trump with flattery until he gets what he wants -- and then reneges on the nukes?

10.  We know that Trump now has a National Security Adviser (John Bolton) and a Secretary of State (Mike Pompao) who oppose the Iran deal.   What I don't know is what they think is going to come of this action.    Will the other allies and Iran just continue on as though we just 'dropped out'?   Will they try to renegotiate?  Will we?    What would motivate Iran to do so at this point?
[Note:  Wednesday morning.   John Bolton says that "Iran is pushing us toward war."    We pull out of the agreement, and it's they pushing toward war?]

11.  Let's be clear about what's happening here.   The U.S. is about to violate the agreement which, if they so choose, could give Iran the rationalization to declare the agreement dead -- and start their nuclear program again.    From the rhetoric coming out of Iran, it sounds like they may not want to do that, at this point.   But they could logically.   But it's true.   Trump has said that Iran was cheating, but no one in an official inspection capacity has said so.   But it is absolutely a fact that we have violated the treaty by withdrawing.   Journalist Nick Kristoff said on tv today that what Trump did was not just a violation of the agreement, "it was vandalism."  Because what he is doing is an attack on the very structure of the thing itself.

12.  Ryan Cooper, writing about this in "The Week" concluded with this:

"At any rate, all this should put the hawks' carping into context. The real core of the Iran deal has virtually nothing to do with what the country was doing 15 years ago — . . .  what really matters is what Iran is doing now, and on that score the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have consistently reported that Iran is living up to its end of the bargain. They are keeping their nuclear programs and facilities within the deal's limits, and allowing inspectors the extensive access needed to confirm this fact. 

"Ultimately, proving a negative is very difficult, but the IAEA staff come as close as one could realistically get. Moreover . . .  the quickest way to get Iran to restart a crash nuclear weapons program would be to unilaterally abrogate the deal, allowing them to kick out the inspectors and do whatever they want.

"The IAEA is full of professional nuclear physicists, diplomats, and security experts. It is the most credible voice in the world on nuclear security questions — and at a minimum, it's surely not in the pocket of the Iranian government. The people on the other side of the debate are either bloodthirsty neocons who never saw a war of aggression they didn't like, or the Israeli government and its apologists. What they want is an end to Iran as a regional power, and to make the United States shoulder the burden. Let us decline the invitation."

Ralph