EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 174
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
An Israeli intelligence firm was hired last year to do "dirty ops" research on former Obama administration officials who worked on the Iran nuclear deal, according to reports in the U.K.'s Observer and The New Yorker. The firm is Black Cube, according to The New Yorker: the same company reportedly hired by Harvey Weinstein in 2016 to investigate the women and journalists he thought might come forward with allegations against him. Black Cube touts that the company is run by "a select group of veterans from the Israeli elite intelligence units." The reports differ on who hired Black Cube. The Observer reports that an Israeli intelligence firm was hired by aides to President Trump, "who contacted private investigators in May last year to 'get dirt' on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama's top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal." Sources told the Observer that Trump's team had contacted the firm just days after he visited Israel last May. "The idea was that people acting for Trump would discredit those who were pivotal in selling the deal, making it easier to pull out of it," a source told the newspaper. A Black Cube spokesman told NPR that the firm was never hired by anyone within the Trump administration and said Black Cube's clients have business rather than political interests. But the company would neither confirm nor deny that a business client had hired the firm to do the work described in the New Yorker and Observer reports. The White House did not respond to NPR's request for comment. In the New Yorker, Ronan Farrow writes that a source told him "it was, in fact, part of Black Cube's work for a private-sector client pursuing commercial interests related to sanctions on Iran." The documents he reviewed, Farrow says, "show that Black Cube compiled detailed background profiles of several individuals, including Rhodes and Kahl, that featured their addresses, information on their family members, and even the makes of their cars. Black Cube agents were instructed to try to find damaging information about them, including unsubstantiated claims that Rhodes and Kahl had worked closely with Iran lobbyists and were personally enriched through their policy work on Iran (they denied those claims); rumors that Rhodes was one of the Obama staffers responsible for "unmasking" Trump transition officials who were named in intelligence documents (Rhodes denied the claim); and an allegation that one of the individuals targeted by the campaign had an affair. The campaign is strikingly similar to an operation that Black Cube ran on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, which was reported in The New Yorker last fall. One of Weinstein's attorneys, David Boies, hired Black Cube to halt the publication of sexual-misconduct allegations against Weinstein. Black Cube operatives used false identities to track women with allegations, and also reporters seeking to expose the story." Kahl tells NPR that he first heard he had been a target of the firm's smear campaign about a week ago, "when reporters who were working on the story for The Observer and Guardian just sent me an email out of the blue, saying that in the course of their previous investigation on Cambridge Analytica, they had uncovered information suggesting that Ben Rhodes and I had been targeted by some firm. ... They asked if I had any information about it or ever heard about it, and I hadn't." Source We only touched on this yesterday, but I have caught up on the subject. If these reports are verified, it is worth noting that Black Cube would have been retained in 2017, while Trump was in office. It isn’t known how this firm was paid, or if government funds were involved. Or if government employees are the ones who retained the firm. In short, this could be a case where the sitting President hired a firm to spy on what he perceived as his political enemies in an effort to discredit them. And it is entirely possible that laws were broken by the firm that the President retained. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Beyond the huge hit to our international credibility, this is the first step towards possible war with Iran, which I'd wager Trump and his hawks want. Expect things to get worse before they get better. Russia probably going to start selling Iran arms like mad now. Imo this is a perfect example of why Trump is a horrible leader. This is not a decision based on any policy reality; this is ruling by spite. He hates Iran and he hates Obama. Since they were party to this deal, ofc he will break it, consequences and allies anger be damned | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
President Trump says he will announce Tuesday whether he is going to keep the U.S. in the Iran nuclear deal. This comes after Trump has allowed the deal to stay in place through the first 15 months of his presidency while frequently criticizing it and threatening to pull the U.S. out of it. In recent weeks, foreign leaders including France's Emmanuel Macron and British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson have come to Washington to try to persuade Trump to stick with the deal. If Trump pulls out, it would be another step he has taken to nullify a move by his predecessor, Barack Obama. It would set off an unpredictable series of events and reactions from Iran and several U.S. allies. The deal, signed in 2015, placed strict limits on Iran's nuclear program to keep it from developing nuclear weapons. It required ongoing inspections and the destruction of nuclear equipment. In return, Iran got relief from some economic sanctions. Six nations signed the deal with Iran — the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. It was approved by the U.N. Security Council. (It's titled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.) Why is this coming up now? + Show Spoiler + Over the years, Congress has passed numerous sanctions against Iran but given the president the power to waive their enforcement. They come up for waiver or renewal every few months, and the next deadline is Saturday. Under its part of the bargain in the deal, the U.S. has been waiving some of the sanctions — that is, kept them from being enforced — repeatedly. Trump has threatened to stop issuing the waivers, meaning they would be reimposed on Iran. That would place the U.S. in breach of the agreement. The sanctions coming up for continued waivers this week are key. If they were reimposed, they would penalize countries or companies buying oil from Iran by making it hard for them to do business with U.S. banks and markets. What are the arguments for and against the deal? + Show Spoiler + Trump and opponents to the deal say it is flawed because it gives Iran access to billions of dollars but does not address Iran's support for groups the U.S. considers terrorists, like Hamas and Hezbollah. They note it also doesn't curb Iran's development of ballistic missiles and that the deal phases out by 2030. They say Iran has lied about its nuclear program in the past. Deal supporters say it keeps Iran from building nuclear weapons and that will make it easier to deal with Iran's other behavior around the region — better to have an Iran without nukes than with them, in other words. They say evidence that Iran has lied in the past makes it all the more necessary to have a deal that keeps inspectors on the ground in Iran. They say ending the deal could prompt Iran to develop nuclear weapons and even set off a nuclear race in the Mideast. The International Atomic Energy Commission, which enforces the deal, and U.S. officials have said Iran is complying with its terms. If the U.S. pulls out of the deal, how can it expect Iran to react? + Show Spoiler + Iran has been issuing warnings about vague but dire consequences. It would have a few choices. First, Iran could wait and let the U.S. take some blame from around the world for violating an agreement it signed just three years ago. It could in the meantime lobby other countries — some of its biggest oil consumers are in Asia — to continue buying Iranian oil by evading the new U.S. sanctions. In that case, Iran might promise to keep the deal and continue to limit its nuclear program even though the U.S. has pulled out. But it could also pull out of the deal itself, expel the inspectors and start ramping up its nuclear program. That could put the region on a short fuse, opening the possibility that Israel might strike at Iranian nuclear facilities with its air force. Iranian leaders have threatened Israel repeatedly over the years. How might the other countries in the deal respond? + Show Spoiler + This could be key. Led by France, which had taken a hard line against Iran during the talks, the other countries in the deal have asked Trump to stay in it and let them help him put pressure on Iran to stop missile tests and other destabilizing behavior around the region. If the U.S. pulls out, other countries involved in the deal might try to talk Iran into sticking to the agreement without the U.S. in it, promising Iran that the rest of the world will keep buying its oil and investing in its economy. That would isolate the U.S. But it would be difficult and risky for companies and countries doing business with Iran. They might get cut off from doing business with the U.S. Is there a middle ground? Possibly. Trump could announce that he is pulling out of the deal and reimposing the sanctions. But economic sanctions are complicated and the details have to be spelled out in U.S. Department of the Treasury regulations. In the past, the oil sanctions still allowed countries to continue buying oil, with some limits, from Iran. And certain types of industries can be exempted from sanctions. If that's something Trump has in mind, it might soften the blow for U.S. allies — and for Iran. Source Christiane Amanpour of CNN called backing out of the Iran deal the greatest case of foreign policy self harm in modern history. Not because of the content of the deal itself, but because of the message it sends for all future negotiations this administration. Which includes the talks with NK in several weeks. The Trump team is showing that agreements the US's international commitments, past and future, are currently driven by the political winds of the moment. Given that Trump perceived as unpopular, nations will be reluctant to enter or comply with agreements that could be undone by the next administration. Edit: Trump is blowing up one of the few pieces of good pieces of America foreign policy in the last two decades. Any nation that thought the Bush era foreign policy mistakes were a blip on the radar not longer believes that. Our foreign policy, as deeply flawed as it is, currently is on a path where we will be seen as an unreliable partner and ally. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 09 2018 02:31 Tachion wrote: I haven't heard any alternative to the Iran deal from this administration. Is renegotiating even on the table? If not, then what? Regime change by who knows what means? Threaten them with military action if they don't comply with new demands? yes. threaten military action/regime change while making additional demands. the admin don't have an actual alternative. there won't be a renegotiation because Iran won't agree to one; nor will the other parties involved be willing to support a renegotiation of the deal anyways, or go along with this kind of nonsense. trump will demand a renegotiation, but it's not on the table, and for good reason. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10600 Posts
| ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
RenSC2
United States1041 Posts
On May 09 2018 02:41 Velr wrote: Isn't this whole ordeal just another try to take the heat off Trumps internal problems? He has been threatening this deal since the beginning. The timing could be suspicious to take the heat off internal matters, except it would be hard to find a time when he’s not in some trouble internally. I think this treaty is dead because Trump added Bolton to his team recently to replace the mildly sane people that used to hold him back. So I don’t think this is about timing. I think it’s about incompetence and surrounding himself with incompetent people. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21364 Posts
On May 09 2018 02:41 Velr wrote: Isn't this whole ordeal just another try to take the heat off Trumps internal problems? Setting the car on fire to distract your wife from the panties she found in the wash isn't a good strategy. It won't even distract much because something new scandal will probably come out in a week orso. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 09 2018 02:46 Tachion wrote: Does Trump even have the political capital to wage military action against Iran? I thought people voted for him for his isolationist policies, not further entrenching the US in the middle east. His base kinda rallied around him for NK since they could be perceived as a threat to the US, but Iran? no; but he can tear up the deal unilaterally and do a lot of saber rattling to get the support of (part of) his base; and that's just as good, especially since he can blame congress if they don't support him wanting to go to war. alot of his base, while they like the isolationism, they also like going after "bad guys". while some liked his isolationism, he was never really isolationist, and hasn't acted that way sinc ein office. also alot of the people he's chosen for cabinet positions and such are war hawks. I don't think the isolationism was a significant part of his appeal really; it was a very tiny factor for a few people. he could also probably provoke some incidents/escalate to cause some combat to occur. and he could unilaterally order some cruise missile strikes against Iran. They can pretty easily stoke the fear to cause some fools to believe that Iran is a threat to the US. and all that matters is the perception, not the reality. all they need to do is combine "nukes" and "muslim" and a lot of his base will get terrified. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
It is official. We are backing out of the deal, leaving our allies with the hard choice of agreeing with the President or ignoring him and continuing to work with Iran. And giving Iran the excuse to go right back to developing nuclear weapons. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 09 2018 03:24 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/993877703601291265 It is official. We are backing out of the deal, leaving our allies with the hard choice of agreeing with the President or ignoring him and continuing to work with Iran. And giving Iran the excuse to go right back to developing nuclear weapons. This Trump, what a mastermind. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 09 2018 03:20 Doodsmack wrote: Anything that happens from here on out with respect to Iran is on Republicans. Clearly, Iran is going to ramp up nuclear development, and the only means to stop it will be military force. But this is the goal of at least some of them, so mission accomplished. Bolton must be pleased. I imagine when the time comes, Trumps speech will look much like this, with Bolton or Pompeo being the chick, and the crowd being Trumps raving fans. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On May 09 2018 03:33 On_Slaught wrote: But this is the goal of at least some of them, so mission accomplished. Bolton must be pleased. I imagine when the time comes, Trumps speech will look much like this, with Bolton or Pompeo being the chick, and the crowd being Trumps raving fans. + Show Spoiler + https://youtu.be/IqzAXHInX48 Hopefully the war lovers will be willing to sign up to fight in the war. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21364 Posts
On May 09 2018 03:24 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/993877703601291265 It is official. We are backing out of the deal, leaving our allies with the hard choice of agreeing with the President or ignoring him and continuing to work with Iran. And giving Iran the excuse to go right back to developing nuclear weapons. I'm expecting the rest give Trump the finger and keep working with Iran. Daring Republican to sanction them for working with Iran. The real question is when will Israel go to war backed up by the US. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9345 Posts
That's quite an achievement. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11927 Posts
| ||
| ||
