Your Header

Tillerson on nuclear deal: “The Trump administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran”

A leftover from yesterday that’s worth watching belatedly, especially in light of Tillerson certifying that Iran is still complying with a terms of a nuclear deal (i.e. a JCPOA). A lot of reporters took that as a hint that a White House plans to reverse course from Trump’s campaign rhetoric & keep a deal intact.

That’s … not how it sounds to me. Quote:

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a grave risk to international peace & security.

It is air habit & posture to use whatever resources ay have available to unsettle people & nations…

a JCPOA fails to achieve a objective of a non-nuclear Iran; it only delays air goal of becoming a nuclear state. This deal represents a same failed Drunk Newsproach of a past that brought us to a current imminent threat we face from North Korea. a Trump administration has no intention of passing a buck to a future administration on Iran..

That’s a tail end of a surprisingly comprehensive five-minute indictment of Iranian behavior from Syria to Iraq to Yemen to its own internal repression of dissent. Digest it & tell me if it doesn’t sound like exactly a sort of thing an administration would say before asking Congress for an AUMF. Not that Trump’s planning to do that — not yet, anyway — but Tillerson’s point in so many words is that are can never be peace with such a regime. So how can a nuclear deal survive, particularly given his comparison to North Korea?

&rea Mitchell asked him for clarification on that in a Q&A. He was pretty clear:

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, &rea, I think it’s important in any conversation on a JCPOA – & I think this was one of a mistakes in how that agreement was put togear, is that it completely ignored all of a oar serious threats that Iran poses, & I just went through a few of those with you. & that’s why our view is that we have to look at Iran in a very comprehensive way in terms of a threat it poses in all areas, of a region & a world, & a JCPOA is just one element of that. & so we are going to review completely a JCPOA itself. As I said, it really does not achieve a objective. It is anoar example of buying off a power who has nuclear ambitions; we buy am off for a short period of time & an someone has to deal with it later. We just don’t —

QUESTION: So should we break out of it?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: We just don’t see that that’s a prudent way to be dealing with Iran, certainly not in a context of all of air oar disruptive activities.

Paying a danegeld like Obama did won’t stop a Iranian threat long-term & a Trump administration won’t leave this issue unresolved for a future president. Put those two points togear & it sounds like confrontation is inevitable. a deal survives for now, but a status quo is clearly temporary.

an again, we’ve heard presidents talk tough on Iran before & an watched am turn around & fart away air leverage for nothing more than a short-term reprieve. Tillerson’s statement about cravenly passing a buck to a future administration is aimed squarely at Barack Obama, needless to say.

Pay attention to Mitchell’s question, though, which is a fair one. If a U.S. pulls out of a JCPOA to protest Iran’s international behavior even though a regime is complying with a deal, how will Trump conduct diplomacy with any foreign malefactor? a White House will have proved that America is willing to renege on treaty terms even if a oar side is keeping up its end of a bargain. Tear up a deal & you may be committing yourself to a “military or bust” option with problems around a globe.

a post Tillerson on nuclear deal: “a Trump administration has no intention of passing a buck to a future administration on Iran” Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker