An excuse for war? Not enough, yet, needs more care and nurturing before any corpses can be harvested.
We will be bombing them in short order, worry not.
That is the only reason I can see to pull out of the deal, anyway. It would be bad form to go to war with a country that was holding up its end of a massive multilateral agreement.
Make spurious and uncited claims that they are not holding up their end, pull out yourself, and then all is fair game.
The entire point of diplomacy is to put hurdles in the way of the road to war.
That article says: “The other signatories have been scrambling to save the accord, arguing it offers the best way to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb”
What does this mean? What are other countries doing to save the accord?
There were several other countries that were involved in the negotiations that did not want to see the deal fall apart.
They have their own sanctions that they lifted as part of it, that they will put back into place if Iran doesn’t keep up its end.
What they are doing is not that effective, given that the US was the bulk of the deal, and that the US is also threatening other countries if they don’t pull out of it as well, but the two things that they are doing are trying to convince the US to change its mind (not likely), and to continue to put pressure on Iran with the remaining sanctions they have at their disposal.
In the end, it is like having the fire department pull out of fighting a 5 alarm fire, and leaving a dozen people with a bucket brigade to deal with it, but they are indeed “scrambling”.
This was a short-term money and assetsgrab deal for Iran, with hope attached to it onObama’s side.
Iran breaks deals all the time, and please show me where their supreme leader signed off on the contract. One can only ponder who much of the money we gave them, or assets freed was share shifted for proxy wars against the USA or Terrorism.
Obama was such a patriot, he actually told his own cybersecurity chief to stand down during a Russian cyber attack during the month of the election.
Why in the world would he do this? Giving Iran access to Billions, allow the Russians to cyber attack us without our defenses trying to stop them?
Ahem. It was your Supreme Leader who pulled out of the deal faster than he pulled out of Stormy Daniels.
LOL. You offer zero cites here, so I won’t bother responding to the citeless claims.
Trump made a choice to end US participation in an agreement that was meant (and widely supported by experts) to reduce the chances of Iran getting nuclear weapons. The US got absolutely nothing in return for this choice of Trump, but Iran got a much easier path to nuclear weapons.
These are facts. I know it’s tough for a Trump supporter to admit these facts, but they are facts. Trump gave up the deal and got nothing for the US, and Iran got an easier path to nukes. Trump’s choice weakens America and strengthens hardliners in Iran.
The US is not “threatening other countries if they don’t pull out of it as well.” The U.S. sanctions threaten *companies *from other countries that do business with Iran. A small, but very significant difference.
This is pretty much a distinction without a difference.
Obviously, I disagree, which is why I thought it was worth pointing out. Threatening other countries if they don’t pull out of an agreement is VERY different from* financially sanctioning companies* from those countries if they do business with Iran.
Maybe we can agree on it being a (big) difference without much of a distinction? 
Imposing sanctions against other country’s companies that do business with iran is a slight difference, to be sure, but I guess it matters whether you consider threatening to damage a country’s economy by damaging the multinational companies based in it is the same as a direct threat.
But I was under the impression that he was threatening to levy sanctions directly against governments that did not reimpose sanctions as well.
That sounds to me to be more than just against businesses that continue to do business with Iran, that sounds like threatening to impose sanctions on countries directly.
To be fair, this is an anonymous source, so there may be reason that what they said was not the case, if that is so, is there a more accurate version out there?
I had not heard about these possible secondary sanctions of countries, which I’ll accept as “threatening other countries” by trotting somebody out off-the-record to create doubt in the markets.
Cite?
Why do you guys engage with Silver Surfer or whatever his name is? The guy is clearly a paid shill.
What do you think economic sanctions typically are, if not limitations on businesses?
Either that’s a non-sequitur, or this is, but it’s Friday and I don’t care enough to sort it out. (But seriously, wasn’t that *exactly *my original, simple point?)
Well, lets say “business” is your nose. A sharp, focused right cross is a “punch in the nose”. Sanctions are a shovel upside your head, which includes your nose, so…yes and yes, but moreso.
Updating this thread: