Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: On Trump Dumping Iran Deal: It's Time to Give President His Due - Michael Brown

  1. #1
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,274
    Thanked: 14133
    Blog Entries
    1

    On Trump Dumping Iran Deal: It's Time to Give President His Due - Michael Brown

    To those who questioned whether Trump would keep his word about Iran and to those who are quick to criticize him when he does wrong, here's your chance to prove your impartiality.

    To all the Never Trumpers and Trump-haters, it's time to give the man his due. Not only did he do the right thing in backing out of our deal with Iran, but he stood in full presidential stature in denouncing this terrorist-funding regime and sending a message of hope and liberation to the people of Iran. Well done, Mr. President!

    On a personal level, I have every right to ask my anti-Trump friends to commend him, since I have spoken out when the president's words or actions grieved me. And I have made clear that, as evangelical followers of Jesus, we must not sell our souls in his defense.

    Commend the President
    My policy has been simple: When the president does well, we should commend him. When he doesn't do well, we should constructively criticize him. That's what loyal citizens do.

    Today is a day to commend him. He hit the ball out of the park with his decision and speech regarding Iran. And in doing so, he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Obama.

    Let's examine the contrasts carefully.

    Calling a Spade a Spade
    First, Trump properly identified Iran for the dangerous nation it is. In his words, "The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda.

    "Over the years, Iran and its proxies have bombed American embassies and military installations, murdered hundreds of American service members, and kidnapped, imprisoned, and tortured American citizens. The Iranian regime has funded its long reign of chaos and terror by plundering the wealth of its own people. No action taken by the regime has been more dangerous than its pursuit of nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them."

    This is all patently true, and only the most strident supporters of Iran would dispute it.


    Did President Obama ever make a statement about Iran on this level? Did he ever call a spade a spade in such forthright, categorical terms?

    The Nuclear Deal
    Second, President Trump said no to a really bad deal with Iran, a deal that put tens of billions of dollars back into the hands of radical Muslim leaders committed to war and upheaval in the Middle East and beyond.

    Yet it was Obama who helped get us into this mess. In fact, according to a lengthy report on Politico, "In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation."

    The headline and sub-heading to the story were even more damning: "The Secret Backstory of How Obama Let Hezbollah Off the Hook. An ambitious U.S. task force targeting Hezbollah's billion-dollar criminal enterprise ran headlong into the White House's desire for a nuclear deal with Iran."

    If this report is true, not only did we make a foolhardy deal with Iran, we also helped to enable to Hezbollah, one of Iran's terrorist allies. And we did it to our direct detriment.

    It's also worth noting that our treaty with Iran was multinational, thereby bringing an aggressive, radical regime into a coalition with other nations (including the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and countries in the European Union).

    The president, in his speech, further isolated Iran when he stated that "at this very moment, Secretary Pompeo is on his way to North Korea in preparation for my upcoming meeting with Kim Jong-Un. Plans are being made, relationships are building, hopefully a deal will happen, and with the help of China, South Korea, and Japan, a future of great prosperity and security can be achieved for everyone."

    He was saying to Iran, "Get with the program, and you'll have a bright future. Dig in your heels, and you'll regret it."

    Strong Support for the People of Iran
    Third, Trump told the oppressed people of Iran they had a friend here in the United States. He said, "Finally, I want to deliver a message to the long-suffering people of Iran: The people of America stand with you. It has now been almost 40 years since this dictatorship seized power and took a proud nation hostage. Most of Iran's 80 million citizens have sadly never known an Iran that prospered in peace with its neighbors and commanded the admiration of the world. But the future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land and they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history, and glory to their god."

    What a message this sends to the people of Iran, who also understand from Trump's remarks that a new government means a prosperous Iran. This stands in stark contrast to the relatively weak support offered by President Obama during the protests of 2009. (Note also that, according to one Iranian dissident and defense expert, the country could fall within a year.)

    So, to those who questioned whether Trump would keep his word about Iran and to those who are quick to criticize him when he does wrong, here's your chance to prove your impartiality. Give the man his due today, without caveat. He deserves it.

    https://stream.org/time-give-president-trump-due/

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to fuego For This Useful Post:

    Ezekiel 33 (05-09-2018), GodismyJudge (05-09-2018), victoryword (05-09-2018)

  3. #2
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    There is the question of whether or not the US is in a position to simply withdraw from an agreement already made unless Iran demonstrably violated the terms of the agreement. What would happen if every nation withdrew from every agreement made, on every whim or every change in their domestic political climate ?

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    There is the question of whether or not the US is in a position to simply withdraw from an agreement already made unless Iran demonstrably violated the terms of the agreement. What would happen if every nation withdrew from every agreement made, on every whim or every change in their domestic political climate ?
    It was an purely an Obama Admin policy enactment, it was never taken to congress and was never legally binding.

    Obama pushed it through on his own initiative and "authority".

    Other countries need to keep these things in mind.
    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity (futility) of their mind, having the understanding darkened...
    (Ephesians 4:17-18)

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
    (Psalm 1)

  5. #4
    So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,828
    Thanked: 7523
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    There is the question of whether or not the US is in a position to simply withdraw from an agreement already made unless Iran demonstrably violated the terms of the agreement. What would happen if every nation withdrew from every agreement made, on every whim or every change in their domestic political climate ?
    Trump was elected by the people to do what he claimed he was going to do. The people spoke, the Iran deal is dead. It was nothing but payoffs, kickbacks and dirty business. I think when we learn of the details, some will be shocked.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to John For This Useful Post:

    GodismyJudge (05-09-2018), Quest (05-09-2018)

  7. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    There is the question of whether or not the US is in a position to simply withdraw from an agreement already made unless Iran demonstrably violated the terms of the agreement. What would happen if every nation withdrew from every agreement made, on every whim or every change in their domestic political climate ?
    There is no question Chief
    It was not a treaty , it was never ratified by congress hence non binding and even if was, countries Pull out of treaties and agreements all the time

    You said
    What would happen if every nation withdrew from every agreement made, on every whim or every change in their domestic political climate ?
    The same thing that happens when countries violote the terms of agreements they are signatory to. Let start with Iran who routinely threaten the Isrealis with annihilation Which goes against the UN charter that they are signatory to.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BAP For This Useful Post:

    GodismyJudge (05-09-2018), victoryword (05-10-2018)

  9. #6
    https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-ad...owed-iran-deal

    EXECUTIVE POWER

    The Trump Administration Reaps What the Obama Administration Sowed in the Iran Deal

    By Jack Goldsmith Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 9:29 AM


    The particular manner in which President Obama crafted the Iran deal paved the way for President Trump to withdraw from it. Obama made the deal on his own presidential authority, in the face of significant domestic opposition, without seeking or receiving approval from the Senate or the Congress. He was able to do this, and to skirt constitutional requirements for senatorial or congressional consent, because he made the deal as a political commitment rather than a binding legal obligation. As Curt Bradley and I recently explained, a political commitment “imposes no obligation under international law,” a nation “incurs no state responsibility for its violation,” and thus “a successor President is not bound by a previous President’s political commitment under either domestic or international law and can thus legally disregard it at will.”

    Presidents have the clear authority to make non-binding political commitments. That is why I defended the legality of the Iran deal (as opposed to its wisdom) at the time. But whenever a president makes an agreement as a political commitment rather than as a binding agreement under international law, he is making a tradeoff. On the one hand, the president can avoid the need for approval from the Senate or Congress and make the international deal despite domestic opposition. On the other hand, a political commitment has no binding force under international or domestic law—and there is thus a danger that it will not be honored by a subsequent president. As I wrote three years ago, Obama’s approach to the Iran deal made it “easier to make (because the President can clearly do it on his own) and easier to break (because there is no domestic or international legal obstacle to breaking it).”

    Support Lawfare

    The Obama team was aware of this tradeoff, but it knew it had no chance to secure approval for the Iran Deal from Congress. Because the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act forced a vote, we know that majorities in the Senate and the House opposed the deal. The House of Representatives voted 247-186 against allowing the president to lift U.S. sanctions contemplated by the deal. And 58 Senators (two short of necessary) voted to break a filibuster that would have allowed a vote on a resolution to disapprove the deal.

    For Obama to join the agreement that he thought so crucial to the fate of the world, he needed a constitutional mechanism that avoided the need for approval by Congress. The only available option was to make the agreement a fragile political commitment not binding on his successor. Easier to make, easier to break.

    In the wake of Trump’s announcement yesterday, former Obama administration officials are complaining about the harm done to U.S. reputation for compliance with international agreements. “When the United States unilaterally abrogates an international agreement in the absence of any breach, we undermine international perceptions of our reliability and responsibility,” Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice tells us. “Trump’s action … severely undermines the credibility of the United States to uphold international agreements that we sign which will endure after he is gone,” echoes Obama foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes.

    Sorry, but you don’t get to make an enormously consequential international deal in the face of opposition from Congress, and skirt the need for congressional consent by making the agreement non-binding under domestic and international law, and then complain about a withdrawal from the fragile non-binding agreement you made when a new president who ran on the issue and won does what a majority of Congress wanted at the time.

    In Federalist 75, Alexander Hamilton explained the wisdom of the original constitutional mechanism of Senate approval for treaties in terms directly applicable to the Iran deal. It would be “utterly unsafe and improper to intrust” the “entire power of making treaties” in the president alone, since the president alone could not be trusted to serve the national interest. “The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States,” Hamilton added. Rather, “the vast importance of the trust … plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.”

    One of the most important purposes of legislative consent for international agreements is to ensure that the agreement actually serves the national interest clearly enough to garner such consent. Agreements that have the approval of the Senate or Congress tend to be longer-lasting and more durable. One reason is that they, unlike the Iran deal, are binding under international law. A more important reason is that a later president is much less likely to back away from an agreement made by a prior president with the support of the nation secured by its consent through elective representatives.

    The Obama administration did not secure this consent. It made the agreement unilaterally, and thereby pledged the reputation of the nation, even though it knew the Iran deal was non-binding and lacked approval among the nation’s elected representatives. If the United States’ reputation for upholding agreements takes a hit, the responsibility for that outcome lies squarely with the original decision by the Obama administration to make the hugely consequential deal on its own.

    The Obama administration took a bet that either Hillary Clinton would win the election or that the unwinding of sanctions for three years would make any reimposition of sanctions too painful politically. And it lost the bet.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to BAP For This Useful Post:

    GodismyJudge (05-09-2018)

  11. #7
    Super Moderator Quest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ashville, Alabama
    Posts
    5,920
    Thanked: 3402
    Blog Entries
    2
    What's interesting is the President looked at the entanglement of all these countries, Japan, China, NK, Russia Syria and Iran and like untangling yarn strategically worked one piece at a time...by the time he got to Iran he had already dealt a blot to Russia, via Syria....warning them to stand down because Iran was next...

    So many think he is just acting irrationally but it's a well thought out plan...

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Quest For This Useful Post:

    BAP (05-10-2018)

  13. #8
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by GodismyJudge View Post
    It was an purely an Obama Admin policy enactment, it was never taken to congress and was never legally binding.

    Obama pushed it through on his own initiative and "authority".

    Other countries need to keep these things in mind.
    If that is the case then the current administration ought to make it very clear to the entire world that that is what gives them the right to withdraw again.

  14. #9
    So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,828
    Thanked: 7523
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    If that is the case then the current administration ought to make it very clear to the entire world that that is what gives them the right to withdraw again.
    We the people of the United States of America don't answer to the "entire world". You need to pay close attention to Trump when he says "Make America Great Again", he means it, we mean it.

    The "entire world" has been having a field day with the US for far too long, at our expense.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to John For This Useful Post:

    GodismyJudge (05-10-2018), Quest (05-10-2018), victoryword (05-10-2018)

  16. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    If that is the case then the current administration ought to make it very clear to the entire world that that is what gives them the right to withdraw again.
    They have... but the entire world prefer to listen to CNN and other liberal outlets ..

    As John has made clear Trump is not the president of the entire world

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BAP For This Useful Post:

    GodismyJudge (05-10-2018), Quest (05-10-2018), victoryword (05-10-2018)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can stop worrying about unexpected, expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Volkswagen. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.