President Trump is expected to decertify the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran this week, pushing the issue to Congress for a vote. With Iran not having violated the deal, Trump’s efforts to kill it are fueling a lot of reaction at home and abroad.
European nations are looking down the road for ways to save the deal, saying that it would be difficult to keep the deal in place if the US withdraws. The nations are planning to issue a joint statement in support of the deal, and also commit to lobbying Congress on the matter.
Congress was broadly opposed to the deal two years ago, but it’s not clear that’s the case anymore. Heavy Israeli lobbying was making it a very divisive issue back then, and while the lobby still has some opposition to the deal, it’s not clear it’s as vocal, nor necessarily something the EU couldn’t counter with its own lobbying.
Some top figures in Congress are already deeply skeptical of the Trump effort to kill the deal, with Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) saying the US should “enforce the hell out of it” instead. With many nations seemingly committed to at least trying to keep the deal going with or without US involvement, they see pulling out as simply losing their seat at the table for enforcement of the pact.
“Enforce the hell out of it”
Already happening.
The US moves to garrison troops and war materiel around Russia are obviously intended to give Russia pause in supporting any country the US chooses to attack, most notably Iran. The movement of troops and materiel are tactics in a grander strategy to inhibit Russia’s ability to support its partners in defending themselves against American aggression. The problem is that Russia knows that any regional conflict initiated by the US has the potential to go nuclear if the US does not appear to be achieving its military objectives. Therefore, the positioning of conventional forces around Russia is meaningless bluster because tactical nukes will render them all ineffective and will no doubt be used at some point during any conflict.
The US imperialist foreign policy is predicated on other states being intimidated into compliance with its wishes. Unfortunately, in an era of small scale, low yield, short range nuclear weapons, troops and materiel are pretty much counter balanced by a very few tactical nukes. The US is counting on no rational state being willing to deploy nuclear weapons against it because of its huge superiority in nukes of all kinds and sizes.. The unfortunate truth is that no rational, nuclear armed state can afford to lose a war. The Sampson Option is on the table for any state possessing nukes of any kind that wishes to maintain its sovereignty and standing in the global community. My fear is that the US will use them to overcome a military disadvantage brought about by its hubris and arrogance upon getting its heiny kicked with conventional forces and as they say “Game On!”.
Fact: We have not won a war with a major power since WWII and even that win is debatable in the light of Russia bleeding Hitler white before and after D-Day.
frump only started this complaining after a visit from muster paranoia of iran,nutty boo hoo,one has to wonder what the insane polish/israeli offered to blackmail.