What is most predictable is that Trump will let the markets drop a few percent, and he and his cronies will put out buy orders. Then he'll announce that a deal is imminent. Again. The lemmings on Wall Street will dutifully move the markets higher. Rinse, repeat.
Exactly. I was about to write the same thing. This article left out "stock market manipulation" as a main -- perhaps the main -- reason behind Trump's back-and-forth. My question is this: Why does the market continue to fall for it?
Also, Trump is not "forceful." He's impulsive and retaliatory and a thug.
The fact that Wall Street has now fallen for this same stunt 39 times tells me that the "wisdom of the markets" is a myth. The Wall Street lemmings are reminiscent of Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football.
So today, Donnie calls off the strikes. Again. And claims there are promising new talks. Again. And the markets are up as sharply as they were down yesterday.
Again.
How is it that so many people never figure this out?
If he's like Obama, something that effectively kicks the can down the road until after his term expires. That way, if the worst-case scenario happens (Iran gets the bomb and strikes Israel), Trump can still claim that he made a great deal.
That's some desperate whataboutism there. The JCPOA had inspectors and no evidence that Iran ever violated the deal before Trump unilaterally withdrew. Now, if Trump hadn't started a trade war with the whole world and insulted every one of our allies, but instead had closely coordinated with them to come up with an actual plan to address Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, things might have been different.
As it is, Trump schemes but never plans, so lost this war on day one, and the "deal" will cost more than ten times the Iranian money that was part of the deal Obama negotiated while emptying our arsenal and treasury. And the right is already all over it with preemptive false equivalence.
"As it is, Trump schemes but never plans, so lost this war on day one, and the "deal" will cost more than ten times the Iranian money that was part of the deal Obama negotiated while emptying our arsenal and treasury. And the right is already all over it with preemptive false equivalence."
As it is, David, Trump has squandered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rid Iran of its fanatical regime. He failed in a way that has both emboldened the regime and deflated the hopes of its people. I don't care how much spin Trump and his acolytes put on this, Trump is truly "The Biggest Loser" here.
"That's some desperate whataboutism there. The JCPOA had inspectors and no evidence that Iran ever violated the deal before Trump unilaterally withdrew."
Don't listen to me, David. Listen to Jen Rubin from ten years ago in regard to the JCPOA:
"The Wall Street Journal reports:
'The Obama administration has concluded that uranium particles discovered last year at a secretive Iranian military base likely were tied to the country’s past, covert nuclear weapons program, current and former officials said, a finding that contradicts Tehran’s longstanding denials that it was pursuing a bomb.
Traces of man-made uranium were found at the Parchin facility, southeast of Tehran, by investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, as part of an investigation tied to the landmark nuclear deal reached last July between Iran and global powers.'
It also appears the administration has been hiding the ball about inconvenient evidence that Iran cheated in the past: “The Obama administration didn’t comment about the uranium in December when the IAEA released its report; the finding got only one brief mention in the 16 pages.” The report continues: “In recent interviews, current and former U.S. officials asked about the uranium finding said the working assumption now is that it is tied to nuclear weapons development that Iran is believed to have pursued more than a decade ago.”
This goes back to the administration’s bait-and-switch. After the administration repeatedly promised Congress and the American people that Iran would need to reveal possible military dimensions (PMDs) of its nuclear program, the final deal did not do so. The administration claimed it was unrealistic to expect Iran to come clean, and besides, we would know everything about Iran’s program. Now we know at least at Parchin there is evidence of precisely what we suspected all along. What we do not know — because the administration let Iran off the hook — is the extent of that program, other sites that might have been used and any information that would have come had the IAEA been allowed to interview scientists.
“If this were not Iran and the IAEA discovered this, we would be demanding further inspections and interviews with the key scientists involved in weaponization, which Iran has already refused,” sanctions guru Mark Dubowitz tells Right Turn. “Since this is Iran, we won’t be asking because we won’t get any further inspections and the administration lives in fear of doing anything that could collapse the deal. So they invent fictions like we know everything anyway, which is patently untrue, and they preemptively surrender.” He urges Congress insist on physical inspections of Iranian military sites.
Congress can exercise oversight here, demanding to know what steps we are taking to determine the entire picture of Iran’s past violations. Why should Congress not demand renegotiation of inspection provisions and a further accounting of Iran’s nuclear program? The administration will be unresponsive, of course, but there is good reason for Congress to remain vigilant and engaged on this issue.
If Hillary Clinton takes office in 2017, Congress will want to hold her to the position that additional sanctions should be passed in response to Iran’s illegal missile tests, human rights violations, regional aggression and sponsorship of terrorism. In addition, Congress is certainly entitled to put into legislation additional conditions for lifting such sanctions — including a full accounting of PMDs. After all, once upon a time, the administration promised it would deliver on that point. Iran looks upon agreements as the start of endless negotiations; we should adopt the same attitude.
It should be clear to both Democrats and Republicans that the Iran deal allowed Iran to escape scrutiny of past violations and left plenty of room to maneuver and evade future inspections. It should likewise be clear that fear of losing the deal has led the administration to countenance Iran’s non-nuclear misbehavior. With a new president should come a new Iran policy, one that halts new concessions (e.g. dollar transactions), applies new economic pressure and, where possible, claws back concessions the prior administration made. If nothing else, a tougher stance against Iran will persuade our Sunni allies that we have stopped deluding ourselves about the nature of the Iranian regime."
From the Washington Post op-ed, "New evidence of Iran’s chicanery — and the Obama administration’s"
Jennifer Rubin was a conservative columnist for The Washington Post back then, but recognized the threat Trump constituted to the nation. She has learned and changed her tune, and if we ever see a new deal with this administration, we both know it will have less, not more monitoring, and has already cost far more in blood and treasure than the JCPOA. Rubin knows what she wrote ten years ago now applies more to Trump than it did to Obama.
"Jennifer Rubin was a conservative columnist for The Washington Post back then, but recognized the threat Trump constituted to the nation."
That may be true, but when has she ever articulated that she has changed her views on Iran? It's clear she's totally in the "anti-Trump" camp. During her time at Commentary (and early days at WaPo), Jen was able to "walk and chew gum" at the same time. By that, I mean she could argue that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel and beyond while simultaneously criticizing the Obama administration about its dealings with Iran. Now all she does is criticize the Trump administration. There is no longer any commentary on Iran or the threat it still poses. That is neither an accident nor oversight on Jen's part. Which begs the question as to why the glaring omission. Only Jen can answer that, but thus far she has maintained her silence.
"...if we ever see a new deal with this administration, we both know it will have less, not more monitoring..."
I have no illusions that Iran will honor this "deal", just as it has ignored and cheated on every other deal in the past. The only way this ends is with the removal of the current regime and the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. Until that happens, the regime will continue on its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons and using them against its enemies. The irony is that Jen knows that but is too committed to hating Trump to admit it.
What is most predictable is that Trump will let the markets drop a few percent, and he and his cronies will put out buy orders. Then he'll announce that a deal is imminent. Again. The lemmings on Wall Street will dutifully move the markets higher. Rinse, repeat.
Exactly. I was about to write the same thing. This article left out "stock market manipulation" as a main -- perhaps the main -- reason behind Trump's back-and-forth. My question is this: Why does the market continue to fall for it?
Also, Trump is not "forceful." He's impulsive and retaliatory and a thug.
The fact that Wall Street has now fallen for this same stunt 39 times tells me that the "wisdom of the markets" is a myth. The Wall Street lemmings are reminiscent of Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football.
So today, Donnie calls off the strikes. Again. And claims there are promising new talks. Again. And the markets are up as sharply as they were down yesterday.
Again.
How is it that so many people never figure this out?
Vice President JD Vance, in the same breath this week, said it could also take “months.”
JD Who?
What would a win actually look like by Trump metrics? Not that we could actually call it that.
If he's like Obama, something that effectively kicks the can down the road until after his term expires. That way, if the worst-case scenario happens (Iran gets the bomb and strikes Israel), Trump can still claim that he made a great deal.
That's some desperate whataboutism there. The JCPOA had inspectors and no evidence that Iran ever violated the deal before Trump unilaterally withdrew. Now, if Trump hadn't started a trade war with the whole world and insulted every one of our allies, but instead had closely coordinated with them to come up with an actual plan to address Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, things might have been different.
As it is, Trump schemes but never plans, so lost this war on day one, and the "deal" will cost more than ten times the Iranian money that was part of the deal Obama negotiated while emptying our arsenal and treasury. And the right is already all over it with preemptive false equivalence.
"As it is, Trump schemes but never plans, so lost this war on day one, and the "deal" will cost more than ten times the Iranian money that was part of the deal Obama negotiated while emptying our arsenal and treasury. And the right is already all over it with preemptive false equivalence."
As it is, David, Trump has squandered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rid Iran of its fanatical regime. He failed in a way that has both emboldened the regime and deflated the hopes of its people. I don't care how much spin Trump and his acolytes put on this, Trump is truly "The Biggest Loser" here.
"That's some desperate whataboutism there. The JCPOA had inspectors and no evidence that Iran ever violated the deal before Trump unilaterally withdrew."
Don't listen to me, David. Listen to Jen Rubin from ten years ago in regard to the JCPOA:
"The Wall Street Journal reports:
'The Obama administration has concluded that uranium particles discovered last year at a secretive Iranian military base likely were tied to the country’s past, covert nuclear weapons program, current and former officials said, a finding that contradicts Tehran’s longstanding denials that it was pursuing a bomb.
Traces of man-made uranium were found at the Parchin facility, southeast of Tehran, by investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, as part of an investigation tied to the landmark nuclear deal reached last July between Iran and global powers.'
It also appears the administration has been hiding the ball about inconvenient evidence that Iran cheated in the past: “The Obama administration didn’t comment about the uranium in December when the IAEA released its report; the finding got only one brief mention in the 16 pages.” The report continues: “In recent interviews, current and former U.S. officials asked about the uranium finding said the working assumption now is that it is tied to nuclear weapons development that Iran is believed to have pursued more than a decade ago.”
This goes back to the administration’s bait-and-switch. After the administration repeatedly promised Congress and the American people that Iran would need to reveal possible military dimensions (PMDs) of its nuclear program, the final deal did not do so. The administration claimed it was unrealistic to expect Iran to come clean, and besides, we would know everything about Iran’s program. Now we know at least at Parchin there is evidence of precisely what we suspected all along. What we do not know — because the administration let Iran off the hook — is the extent of that program, other sites that might have been used and any information that would have come had the IAEA been allowed to interview scientists.
“If this were not Iran and the IAEA discovered this, we would be demanding further inspections and interviews with the key scientists involved in weaponization, which Iran has already refused,” sanctions guru Mark Dubowitz tells Right Turn. “Since this is Iran, we won’t be asking because we won’t get any further inspections and the administration lives in fear of doing anything that could collapse the deal. So they invent fictions like we know everything anyway, which is patently untrue, and they preemptively surrender.” He urges Congress insist on physical inspections of Iranian military sites.
Congress can exercise oversight here, demanding to know what steps we are taking to determine the entire picture of Iran’s past violations. Why should Congress not demand renegotiation of inspection provisions and a further accounting of Iran’s nuclear program? The administration will be unresponsive, of course, but there is good reason for Congress to remain vigilant and engaged on this issue.
If Hillary Clinton takes office in 2017, Congress will want to hold her to the position that additional sanctions should be passed in response to Iran’s illegal missile tests, human rights violations, regional aggression and sponsorship of terrorism. In addition, Congress is certainly entitled to put into legislation additional conditions for lifting such sanctions — including a full accounting of PMDs. After all, once upon a time, the administration promised it would deliver on that point. Iran looks upon agreements as the start of endless negotiations; we should adopt the same attitude.
It should be clear to both Democrats and Republicans that the Iran deal allowed Iran to escape scrutiny of past violations and left plenty of room to maneuver and evade future inspections. It should likewise be clear that fear of losing the deal has led the administration to countenance Iran’s non-nuclear misbehavior. With a new president should come a new Iran policy, one that halts new concessions (e.g. dollar transactions), applies new economic pressure and, where possible, claws back concessions the prior administration made. If nothing else, a tougher stance against Iran will persuade our Sunni allies that we have stopped deluding ourselves about the nature of the Iranian regime."
From the Washington Post op-ed, "New evidence of Iran’s chicanery — and the Obama administration’s"
Jennifer Rubin
June 20, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/20/new-evidence-of-irans-chicanery-and-the-obama-administrations/
Jennifer Rubin was a conservative columnist for The Washington Post back then, but recognized the threat Trump constituted to the nation. She has learned and changed her tune, and if we ever see a new deal with this administration, we both know it will have less, not more monitoring, and has already cost far more in blood and treasure than the JCPOA. Rubin knows what she wrote ten years ago now applies more to Trump than it did to Obama.
"Jennifer Rubin was a conservative columnist for The Washington Post back then, but recognized the threat Trump constituted to the nation."
That may be true, but when has she ever articulated that she has changed her views on Iran? It's clear she's totally in the "anti-Trump" camp. During her time at Commentary (and early days at WaPo), Jen was able to "walk and chew gum" at the same time. By that, I mean she could argue that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel and beyond while simultaneously criticizing the Obama administration about its dealings with Iran. Now all she does is criticize the Trump administration. There is no longer any commentary on Iran or the threat it still poses. That is neither an accident nor oversight on Jen's part. Which begs the question as to why the glaring omission. Only Jen can answer that, but thus far she has maintained her silence.
"...if we ever see a new deal with this administration, we both know it will have less, not more monitoring..."
I have no illusions that Iran will honor this "deal", just as it has ignored and cheated on every other deal in the past. The only way this ends is with the removal of the current regime and the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. Until that happens, the regime will continue on its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons and using them against its enemies. The irony is that Jen knows that but is too committed to hating Trump to admit it.