What Is the Iran Nuclear Deal? And Why Does Trump Hate It?
October 6, 2017 by admin
Filed under Lingerie Events
Comments Off
Why has Mr. Trump called it the “worst deal” and an “embarrassment”?
He has said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations body that oversees compliance with the agreement, have insufficient monitoring powers. He has complained that some provisions in the agreement are not permanent, and that it failed to include restrictions on missile testing. He also has criticized the release of billions of dollars in impounded Iranian money returned to Iran’s control, describing it as a giveaway that has reduced American leverage.
How have other American politicians responded to Mr. Trump’s complaints?
That depends partly on whom you ask. Strident anti-Iran voices agree with Mr. Trump. But while many critics of Iran in the United States, both Democrats and Republicans, agree that the agreement has flaws, they also say it is better than nothing. Others fear that the United States would lose international credibility and alienate European allies if it renounced or undermined the deal.
They also point out that despite Mr. Trump’s denunciations, the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly found that Iran is complying.
All the other parties to the agreement contend that it is working, and some of Mr. Trump’s own advisers have counseled him that it is in the interest of national security.
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
Why does Mr. Trump remain so hostile toward the agreement?
He pledged during the 2016 election campaign to scrap or renegotiate the agreement, which he said had weakened American security and appeased a longtime enemy of the United States and Israel. Moreover, under an American law, he must certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying, creating for Mr. Trump a politically uncomfortable quandary four times a year.
When he last certified Iran’s compliance, Mr. Trump suggested it would be the final time.
Assuming he concludes that Iran is not complying with the agreement, he can take the formal step of decertifying Iran. That step would give lawmakers 60 days to decide whether to reimpose nuclear sanctions — effectively throwing responsibility for the agreement’s fate to Congress.
Does that mean decertification kills the deal?
No — or at least not necessarily. Iranian officials have suggested that they regard decertification to be an internal American political matter, as long as it does not lead to reimposed sanctions. And Congress might not reimpose them.
Would reimposed sanctions kill it?
Iranian officials have strongly suggested that they would abandon the agreement or at least no longer feel bound by its nuclear limitations.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
At the same time, the Iranian government remains extremely reluctant to take such a step because it could jeopardize the economic relationships it has developed or revived with other parties to the accord, most notably in France and Germany.
Preservation of the agreement also keeps alive the prospect that Iran can purchase billions of dollars worth of Boeing and Airbus aircraft it has ordered under a provision of the accord that permitted such transactions.
Why can’t the agreement be renegotiated?
It may be possible, but Iran’s leaders have ridiculed the idea. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif of Iran, who led the Iranian team that reached the deal in 2015, told The New York Times in an interview last month that the United States only wanted to renegotiate provisions it disliked. And if the United States withdrew from the agreement, he said, “Who would come and listen to you anymore?”
Continue reading the main story
Share and Enjoy
US and Niger soldiers ‘killed in ambush’
October 5, 2017 by admin
Filed under Lingerie Events
Comments Off
Three US soldiers have been killed and two others wounded in an ambush in Niger near the border with Mali, reports say.
Several Nigerien soldiers are also said to have died in the attack.
US Africa Command said the patrol had come under “hostile fire” and was working to confirm the details.
The US army has been providing training to Niger’s army to help combat Islamist militants in the region, including the North African branch of al-Qaeda.
The militants are most active in neighbouring Mali, where French troops intervened in 2013 to prevent them advancing on the capital.
The Boko Haram group, based in Nigeria to the south, has also staged several attacks in Niger.
- Africa Live: Updates on this and other stories
- Niger surrounded by jihadi groups
- Find out more about Niger
US President Donald Trump has been briefed by his chief-of-staff, John Kelly, about the attack, White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders said.
According to the New York Times, quoting a military official, three Army Green Berets – US army special forces – were killed in the ambush which took place 120 miles (193km) north of Niamey, the capital of Niger.
The paper said they were the first American casualties to die from hostile fire since the US Africa Command deployed in Niger.
Two wounded US soldiers are in stable condition and will be flown to Germany for treatment, CNN reports.
An official from Niger’s Tillaberi region told Reuters that five Nigerien soldiers were among the dead.
Officials were unable to say who fired on the soldiers.
Militants belonging to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) – an affiliate of al-Qaeda – are active in the region and are known to have conducted cross-border raids.
Scale of jihadist threat
By Tommy Oladipo, BBC Africa security correspondent
This attack will draw attention to the presence of US troops, not just in Niger but in other countries too. In a letter to Congress in June, President Trump confirmed there were 645 military personnel deployed to Niger to support counterterrorism missions there.
The US has long maintained that its troops play a “train, advise and assist” role with its partners, whether in the Sahel or the Horn of Africa. Its acknowledgement that the troops in south-west Niger were carrying out a “joint patrol” with local forces is being explained as the US providing “security assistance” but it is not clear how broadly this assistance is defined.
The attack also highlights the scale of the jihadist threat in Niger, a vast nation with a varied jihadist presence – Boko Haram in Nigeria, militants linked to both al-Qaeda and so-called Islamic State in Mali, and uncertainty from unstable Libya in the north.
For as long as the regional jihadist threat remains, the US and other Western powers will continue to strengthen their presence on the ground. Their target, the jihadists, will also be motivated to take them on.