Stances on Iran deal give Nevada voters a clear choice

President Trump’s decision to cancel Obama’s unilateral nuclear deal with Iran just became Nevada’s latest campaign issue in the race for the Senate.

Republican Sen. Dean Heller and his Democratic opponent, Rep. Jacky Rosen, came down on opposite sides of the matter, though Rosen did seem to hedge her argument as to the strength of Obama’s deal in the first place.

“The Iran deal was never good for America or our friends in the Middle East. This agreement has done nothing to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon or promote peace – in fact, it has done just the opposite,” Heller said in a prepared statement. “Iran has been emboldened since President Barack Obama signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action three years ago. In the face of this agreement, Iran has conducted ballistic missile tests, harassed U.S. naval ships in the Middle East, and helped prop up the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Members of Iran’s parliament have shouted ‘death to America’ and its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said ‘Israel will not exist in 25 years.’”

Rosen put a statement saying, “As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I’ve heard from military and intelligence experts about the dangers of withdrawing from the JCPOA without evidence of a material breach. After the JCPOA was agreed to, it should have been robustly enforced — not used as a political football. We need to hold Iran accountable in every way we can, and we cannot allow Iran to restart its nuclear program. Unfortunately, backing out of this agreement means undermining our international alliances, jeopardizing our national security, and re-opening Iran’s path to developing a nuclear weapon.”

Reopening Iran’s path to developing a nuclear weapon? Like they ever stopped?

As The Wall Street Journal points out in an editorial today, the Iranian documents recently released by Israel show that Iran repeatedly lied to U.N. weapons inspectors about its nuclear activity.

Also, this was not America’s deal. It was Obama’s deal. “He refused to submit it for Senate approval as a treaty, which would have had the force of law,” the editorial notes. “Mr. Trump is walking away from Mr. Obama’s personal commitment to Iran, not an American commitment.”

Iran is currently in economic turmoil. Now may be the time to pressure the Ayatollahs to agree to real deal that would defang their nuclear program for good and end their funding of terrorism worldwide.

Heller went on to say, “Clearly, Iran is not a trusted partner in America’s foreign policy goals. The agreement, which handed Tehran billions of dollars to help bolster its military and spread terror around the world, represented a volcano waiting to erupt. Make no mistake, Iran has been preparing for when the agreement was set to expire in 2025, and that’s why leaving this agreement and pursuing additional sanctions is the right choice.”


18 comments on “Stances on Iran deal give Nevada voters a clear choice

  1. Rincon says:

    Seems to me that our intelligence community agreed that at the time the Obama Iran deal was signed, Iran was perhaps 6 months or so away from having nuclear weaponry. It’s been 3 years since the accord began, but Iran still doesn’t appear to possess nuclear weapons. Either the Obama deal was working or our intelligence community was wrong, wrong, wrong. Take your pick. Given that our allies still support the plan as well, it seems unlikely that Iran has continued its pace in developing nuclear weapons while the Obama deal was in effect.

    BTW, Iran could also legitimately call the Obama plan a raw deal. With Conservatives constantly threatening to dismantle it, the hoped for investors pretty much stayed away in anticipation of what has just occurred.

    Perhaps more important than the deal itself, Trump slapped our allies and the United Nations in the face, proving once again to the world that the United States cannot be trusted to fulfill its commitments and therefore, makes a poor ally. A fair weather ally is not an ally. These events will come back to haunt us. Our alliances are now so much scrap paper. In the future, other countries will only help us when it is in their self interest.

    Trump appears to have no alternative plan. Since our “allies” intend to continue the deal without us, much as the Pacific nations continued the Trans Pacific Partnership, any sanctions applied by the U.S. are pretty much irrelevant. So how does Trump intend to improve the situation? Good question. He’s not saying, but Conservatives continue to put all their chips on an inveterate liar with no plan.

  2. Steve says:

    Obama signed an executive order. Those ensure any “deal” under an incoming administration is maintained only at the incoming administrations whim.
    Obama wanted a deal exiting from the middle east so bad he tried to bypass Congress, ensuring this very thing would result.
    Obama created the situation with Iran we see today. The USA did not “pull out” of the deal, the USA never agreed to it in the first place. The only agreement made was with the Obama administration. For this deal to be official, it needed to go through Congress first.

  3. Rincon says:

    Spot on Steve. Obama’s methods and a lack of Congressional support, led to a fragile accord. Legally, Trump is on firm ground. Nevertheless, our allies consider it valuable and this administration has shown that we couldn’t care less. And of course, it seemed to have been working. And Trump’s alternative?

  4. Steve says:

    Trump has been effective with China. They backed down and will open their auto market to foreigners…not just USA companies, all of them.
    People were freaking that Trump was playing havoc with nuclear NOK…then….
    Now, the Korea’s are talking and three US citizens were released today, without any pallets stuffed with cash, by the way.

    Next tough love for the middle east? Saudi and Israel seem pleased.

    Yup, we don’t give a damn,,,none at all. Thing is, sometimes that is the best medicine.

  5. Rincon says:

    Trump’s stance on trade may prove good or bad, but don’t bet the farm that North Korea is going to acquiesce. They certainly didn’t while Trump was blustering and they were still developing their weapons, so why reverse course now? The reason is that they have a key ingredient now that was missing then: Knowledge. Now, they can make weapons whenever they want.

    One likely scenario is that North Korea will promise to disarm while hoarding weapons, fissile materials, and necessary equipment. This way, they get sanctions removed, but have their nuclear option intact. Just how much fissile material do they have right now? Nobody knows, so how will we know if they actually disarm or not?

    As for Iran, they have kept their side of the bargain, despite not receiving many of the economic benefits they were promised. (Economist 5/5/18 p. 11) Obama’s agreement would have cut off Iran’s path to nuclear weaponry for 10 years by making any future attempt likely to be detected early. Iran is now once again in sight of a weapon and is presumably now actively pursuing that goal. In response, other countries such as Saudi Arabia are likely to dust off their plans for nuclear weapons of their own. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, our best bulwark against nuclear proliferation, has been seriously undermined. How this decision is going to play with Kim Jong Un as Mr. Bolton compares North Korea to Libya, whose leader gave up atomic weapons only to be toppled by the west and butchered a few years later? Why would he trust us?

  6. Steve says:

    You believe Iran.


    I bet they also roll over soon. And this time you won’t have the worm to call on to claim the honor!

  7. Rincon says:

    The Economist said Iran has kept its part of the bargain. I have no reason to doubt them except for your suspicions that if Obama did it, it must be wrong. Hmmm…who should I believe?

  8. Steve says:

    Iran’s part of the deal was so easy on them they could do it while maintaining all the tools and plans needed to ramp up at any time they wish.

    Obama made a bad deal. He wanted out of the middle east so bad, he rolled over and the deal was bad for the USA. Trump campaigned on it being a bad deal. Anyone who claims to be in the least bit surprised Trump exited that deal is simply not paying attention.

  9. Rincon says:

    Plans cannot be destroyed, but tools have been destroyed. The fact that our European allies are refusing to entertain Trump’s (lack of a ) plan strongly suggests that your words are not accurate. Any support for them or are they merely unknowing assertions?

  10. Rincon says:

    Did YOU read it? From the link in the article: “Netanyahu did not accuse Iran of violating the deal. Instead, he said the deal, reached by the Obama administration, was so weak that Iran has no need to break it.”

    So you have the opinion of the leader of a country that has gone to war with Middle Easterners 8 times that we’re not being tough enough on a Middle East country. What a surprise!

    Sorry Steve. Netanyahu’s opinion does not count as fact. It is true that the Obama deal allows development of missiles and does not curtail Iran from fomenting its usual mischief, although mischief is really too weak of a word. The goal of the Obama agreement was to prevent Iran from possessing functional nuclear weapons. It seems to be working so far. They have no nuclear weaponry at this time and almost certainly would have if not for the agreement. The aggressive approach was tried with North Korea and we have been rewarded for our efforts with a pipsqueak nation that can lob a nuclear missile to most parts of the United States. And you think the same approach would work with Iran?

    I still have hope that Trump will bring home a significant peace agreement with North Korea though. It’s possible that Trump will bargain with China: No trade war in exchange for China’s getting North Korea to behave. If he pulls it off, I will be the first to give him credit.

  11. Rincon says:

    Yeah, and Obama wasn’t born in the United States. The National Review is about as reliable as the Enquirer.
    Regardless of the truth or likely falseness of this assertion, Iran appears to be sticking to the deal. Additionally, ask yourself who would have enforced this deal if Iran reneged? The answer is that the deal merely makes public what the two nations agreed to. If Iran reneged, they risked the ire of the world’s other nations, which is significant. Universal support for more punishing sanctions would be a powerful motivator. No, Iran stuck to the accord for good reason. Trump should have done the same. Given his antagonistic actions against nations around the world, I wouldn’t be surprised if they put sanctions on us. Ask yourself, to whom are we friends? We’ve crapped on pretty well everyone.

  12. Rincon says:

    BTW, according to the New Yorker, our friend Netanyahu dispatched a group of former Massad agents to discredit the Obama officials working on the accord. Would a man who tried to discredit those formulating the agreement also try to discredit the agreement itself? What do you think, Sherlock?

  13. Steve says:

    Iran’s part of the deal was so easy on them they could do it while maintaining all the tools and plans needed to ramp up at any time they wish.

    “Netanyahu did not accuse Iran of violating the deal. Instead, he said the deal, reached by the Obama administration, was so weak that Iran has no need to break it.”

    I certainly comprehend where you apparently fail.

    Stop making shit up.

  14. Rincon says:

    Your comment of, stop making shit up” is not only rude and inappropriate, it’s so nonspecific as to be meaningless. A suitable end for this conversation.

  15. Steve says:

    Calls’m as they are too.

    You made shit up.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Interesting to look back at this, and other related threads. Does the right EVER get anything correct?

    “Iran has announced that it will begin enriching uranium using centrifuges at a controversial and heavily fortified nuclear facility. It’s the latest in a series of breaches by Iran following President Trump’s decision to abandon an international nuclear deal and impose economic sanctions.

    In a televised speech on Tuesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said there are about 1,044 centrifuges at the Fordow nuclear facility. And on Wednesday, even though it is against the terms of the deal, Iran will begin to inject them with a gas containing uranium.”

    Can someone PLEASE blame this on President Obama or Hillary Clinton before I lose my faith in humanity?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s