The news started to leak a few hours ago before the President’s statement, but there was little doubt of the outcome. We previously documented how unlikely it was that the Trump administration would continue with the existing deal.

Most outlets can’t resist the headline, “Trump Nukes Iran Deal.” It’s the low hanging fruit.

The Associated Press reports on the President’s decision to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the agreement:

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday the U.S. will pull out of the landmark nuclear accord with Iran, declaring he was making the world safer but dealing a profound blow to allies and deepening the president’s isolation on the world stage.

“The United States does not make empty threats,” he said in a televised address from the White House.

Trump said the 2015 agreement, which included Germany, France and Britain, was a “horrible one-sided deal that should never ever have been made.” He added that the United States “will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction.”

Perhaps given the recent developments in North Korea, Trump is feeling more confident in a strong foreign policy posture. Here are the President’s remarks in full from the White House just hours ago:

Iran dismissively responded to Trump’s decision, according to Politico:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday that his nation could “face some problems” in the months ahead but will withstand a U.S. exit engineered by Trump. “It is possible that we will face some problems for two or three months, but we will pass through this,” Rouhani said in Tehran, according to The Associated Press.

What Rouhani means by “we will pass through this” is unclear. Does he mean things will continue as they’ve been, perhaps just dealing with the nations that still remain in the deal?

It’s also unclear exactly how the United States will proceed with Iran beyond sanctions. What is not unclear, however, is that this administration is now filled with several Iran hardliners, as Politico also notes:

Top Trump advisers have repeatedly convinced him over the past year to take mainly symbolic and rhetorical action. But Trump recently ousted two key supporters of the agreement, former national security adviser H.R. McMaster and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and replaced them with John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, respectively. Both have been fierce critics of the agreement. In past debates, Defense Secretary James Mattis also has opposed upending the agreement.

Trump’s decision also comes on the heels of Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu presenting evidence that Iran has been cheating on the deal. Analysts tend to agree that Netanyahu’s aim was to specifically influence Trump’s decision toward withdrawing.

Only time will judge this decision depending on how Iran behaves over the next several months and years.

8 COMMENTS

  1. I think what Rouhani means by “we will get through this,” is that the United States will now be the isolated country, and Iran will work around us.

      • Sorry for the delay. I was just guessing what Rouhani was thinking.

        Since World War II, the United States has pretty much done anything it wanted, especially early on, when the rest of the world was destroyed by the war–and we were even making our allies pay us for war materiel. Now, China is rivaling us around the world, and Russia is trying to regain past glory, The European Union also seems to want to assert itself, apart from us. If we are the only country determined to punish Iran, Iran should be able to “work around us.” If that occurs, we will no longer be able to dictate to the rest of the world.

        • Obama once said the world “comes” to us. That it isn’t the other way around.

          Personally, I wish we weren’t the worlds keeper. Let China dictate to the rest of the world. They’ll find out. What do I mean by they’ll find out? well, since I’m presently in the Philippines almost dairy I read about how China has built man made islands in the Philippines sea territory. They have landed their planes there. They want, and will get, the large resources.

          Yes, the U. S. does what it thinks is best for the U. S. China will do, at any cost, what is best for China. But China has said they don’t want to be the world’s watch dog. Why? They said there is too much scrutiny.

          Different subject: I seldom get articles from Election Central. Have you all stopped sending them out as much?

          • I think China will extend its influence, but it doesn’t seem to be a macho thing. They seem to want to influence in the way people do–to be heard, to be understood, and hopefully, to be agreed with. Not to dictate.

            Thanks for your loyalty. Our main focus is elections. In between major elections, we only write when we are interested, personally, in some issue. As we get closer to November, you’ll be begging us to stop clogging your inbox.

            Here’s a question for you. Back in the 1970s, there was a public uproar, because Nixon said that “if the president does it, it’s not illegal.” Guiliani has gone way past that–just one instance: saying Trump could have killed Comey, and still could not be indicted.

            https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/4/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-could-have-shot-james-c/

            Why no public uproar?

          • Haven’t been posting as much, sorry for that. Sometimes time doesn’t permit at this busy time of the year.

  2. Analysts believe that most nations will ignore Trump’s new Iranian sanctions and continue buying Iranian crude. China, Iran’s largest customer, would be especially reluctant to cut Iran off because of the trade tensions between Beijing and Washington. Short of war, there is no other way Trump can interrupt Iran’s crude sales.

  3. It’s true that I am not Ron Paul’s biggest fan but, sometimes, he gets it so right and states it in basic terms. On Iran, Ron Paul said “Unleashing terrorists on Iran to overthrow its government is not only illegal and immoral: it’s also incredibly stupid. We know from 9/11 that blowback is real, even if Giuliani and the neocons refuse to understand it. Iran does not threaten the United States. Unlike Washington’s Arab allies in the region, Iran actually holds reasonably democratic elections and has a Western-oriented, educated, and very young population. Why not open up to Iran with massive amounts of trade and other contacts? Does anyone (except for the neocons) really believe it is better to unleash terrorists on a population than to engage them in trade and travel? We need to worry about blowback from President Trump’s fully-neoconized Middle East policy! That’s the real threat!”

Comments are closed.