Monday, November 14, 2016

As expected Trump seems to be walking back promises about moving embassy to Jerusalem and dismantling Iran deal

update CBS News - how says he is not sure he wants to carry out his threat of appointing a special prosecutor to get Hillary Clinton

Times of Israel

Appearing to walk back statements made by president-elect and other advisers, Walid Phares says nuclear pact will be ‘renegotiated,’ US mission will only be moved to Jerusalem under ‘consensus,’ brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace deal will be top priority

A senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump said the new US leader will “review” the Iran nuclear agreement, but will stop short of ripping up the landmark international pact.

Walid Phares, one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers, also signaled that Trump might not move the US Embassy to Jerusalem immediately and indicated he would make negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal a priority right off the bat

The comments appeared to represent a break with some comments made by other Trump advisers and the president-elect himself, and highlighted persisting confusion over what the contours of a Trump administration’s foreign policy may look like.

Speaking to BBC Radio on Thursday, Phares said the nuclear deal, which Trump has railed against and vowed to dismantle, would instead be renegotiated with Tehran.

“Ripping up is maybe a too strong of word, he’s gonna take that agreement, it’s been done before in international context, and then review it,” he said, according to a CNN recording of the interview.

“He will take the agreement, review it, send it to Congress, demand from the Iranians to restore a few issues or change a few issues, and there will be a discussion,” Phares added. “It could be a tense discussion but the agreement as is right now — $750 billion to the Iranian regime without receiving much in return and increasing intervention in four countries — that is not going to be accepted by the Trump administration.”

During the election campaign, Trump described the nuclear deal as “disastrous” and said it would be his “number one priority” to dismantle it.

Yet he also sowed confusion when he said he would demand greater oversight over the deal and enforce it, at a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC in March. In that same speech, he also said he would dismantle the deal.

“We must enforce the terms of the previous deal to hold Iran totally accountable. And we will enforce it like you’ve never seen a contract enforced before, folks, believe me,” he said then.

On Thursday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner warned that nothing was stopping Trump from tearing up the agreement, rebuffing comments from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that the pact was enshrined by the United Nations Security Council and could therefore not be canceled by one party.

The agreement, reached in July 2014 to thwart suspected work toward an atomic weapon, requires Iran to curb its nuclear enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Israel was and remains the world’s leading critic of the deal, calling it a “historic mistake” and arguing that it falls woefully short of preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Toner said if Trump pulls out of the agreement, it could fall apart and lead to Iran restarting work toward a bomb.

It’s not clear if Iran, which remains deeply distrustful of the United States and has complained of receiving a raw deal under the nuclear pact, would be open to renegotiating the agreement, the hard-fought result of years of intensive diplomatic activity.

Will move embassy ‘under consensus’

Phares also told the BBC that while Trump was committed to moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as other presidential candidates have vowed, he would not do so unilaterally.

“Many presidents of the United States have committed to do that, and he said as well that he will do that, but he will do it under consensus,” Phares said.

Phares did not elaborate on what consensus would be sought for such a move, which would break with decades of precedent and put Washington at odds with nearly all United Nations member states.[...]

34 comments:

  1. http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/11/07/stop-hillary-n2242151

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is all part of The Art of the Deal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Did you see claim? http://bshch.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post_913.html How does this make sense?

    On a different note, are you changing your blog to be more oriented on American politics?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The revolution train has left the station and is gathering steam.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-trumps-new-chief-strategist-a-racist-critics-say-so/2016/11/14/b72e2ab0-aa9d-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html
    Seatbelts, everyone. This is going to be a wild ride.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I never thought for a moment that he would actually declare Jerusalem the capital. What was important to me was the expression of support.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree that Trump's aim in life is to win. It's called ambition. So what does he want to win now that he has already won the election? It seems he wants to be a president who accomplishes for the good of the country, the most possible accomplishments he can. He has made many bold statements about his intentions. They are wishful thinking in terms of him being the most highly accomplished president. Some are not quite realistic. Some are partially realistic. He has a learning curve. He will continue to come to know more about what he can actually hope to do and what he can't. That's why he appears to 'walking back' to varying degrees on various issues. It's not that he has given up his ambition to win and accomplish, but it's that in real life he's beginning to work with reality. His ambitions are likely to bring about some good things. It's like. lehavdil, the bachur who is planning to become a baki bekol haTora kula, and eventually becomes a nice talmid chacham, although not quite to the extent he hoped for. It's the original ambition that made him get to the level he did.

    ReplyDelete
  7. and how do you know all of this or are you just expressing wishful thinking that you hope it is true?

    Why not just say he is concerned solely with winning and he said things people wanted to here but he had not idea whether he could accomplish or whether he wants to accomplish them?

    He clearly has given up on gay marriage - it is not even wishful thinking

    ReplyDelete
  8. `yes he knew what you wanted to hear and that good feeling is why you voted for him? It doesn't matter whether in the real world he can accomplish what he promised?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Politicians often do not fulfill campaign promises. The point of the promises is to signal the candidate's general direction. As for knowing what I wanted to hear, are you suggesting that Trump was all things to all people? B/c that's complete nonsense. There are lots of people to whom he did not say what they wanted to hear. The fact that he spoke strongly in support of Israel is meaningful.

    Is this your first political campaign? You come across as naive.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Indeed he seems to be going back on everything. His pretense was tough talk and now it's all going out the window.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's the way it seems to me. There's no point in arguing about it. I'm just presenting an opinion and time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ah yes, if you are truly sophisticated you know they are lying to you but you figure that at least he is saying the right things so his heart must be in the right place. Who is naive?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lying? The first mark of political savvy is to know the difference between lying and BSing. They are not the same thing.

    And sorry, but only a naif takes everything a candidate says literally. I'm far more interested in the tone.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here's an opinion on why Trump is walking some thngs back:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153172272041/how-to-break-an-illusion

    He predicted Trump's landslide a year and a half ago, so I'm inclined to give his thoughts some weight.

    ReplyDelete
  15. please explain the first mark of political savvy

    so we look for the tone and general direction and ignore the fact that he isn't doing most of what he repeatedly said he will do even though these things which he isn't doing are largely what differentiated him from his opponent? that is called being sophisticated?!

    How much can Trump deviate from his clearly stated agenda before you will admit you were suckered? Are you saying you there is no problem for Trump to not do what he said just shows he is being pragmatic and realistic - but that if Clinton did the same thing it is because she is a liar and hypocrite

    ReplyDelete
  16. It may be that he assumed that most of his potential supporters either lack the knowledge or would be ideologically unwilling to accept "realistic" policies. So he "lied" to them for their own good. And now he is going to follow through with "realistic" policies, which most of his supporters voted against.

    I will be highly impressed with him, if his voters go on to thank him for "deceiving them for their own good". That would be brilliant!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes it is truly brilliant. He lied to them because in fact his programs will not be substantially different than Clinton or Obama. But the main thing in his eyes is that he win and not those evil left wingers who have no right to lie and besides they lie for the wrong reasons.

    Wow a true condescending attitude. The masses don't really know what is good for them so the only way to get them to do the right thing is to lie to them. What kind of democracy is that? Sounds like Plato's Noble Lie. http://www.bu.edu/av/core/journal/xxiii/Aruffo.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gee, sounds just like every single other politician since the dawn of time! What a surprise! Hillary would have been no different, just that she wasn't willing to even pretend to have decent policies. You still would not be able to trust a word she said. You have to be a fool to trust anyone in a political race. there is no way anyone can guarantee anything from the outside.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If Trump is not telling the truth about his true policies and Clinton was not telling the truth - please tell me why you consider one of them more honest? Why should I trust a word Trump says if he consistently lies to me? Or why should I trust any politician since you say I would be a fool to trust anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  20. You are right, don't trust any politician. But, to use trump as an example, I may vote for him if he says what i want to hear. This is because he is at least concerned for MY vote, and not the arab vote(if Israel is a concern for me). Hillary does not respect me enough to even lie to get my vote. It is more of a candidates mindset issue than the specific point. We see this all the time with candidates from both sides of the aisle. ( As I said in one of my earlier comments, I am not a Trump supporter. There was no one in this election worth voting for.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not sure there's any point in continuing, since you don't seem to be getting my point. Maybe it is your first rodeo.

    First thing is, Trump hasn't deviated yet, since he's not yet president. As I said above, this might all be testing the waters. Second, there's lying and there's BSing, and if you don't get the difference, there's no going further. Third, deviating from the agenda doesn't make me a sucker b/c, as I said a few times now, I never expected him to be true in the details, but only in the overarching view, which is what's important to me. Fourth, not sure what Clinton has to do with this or why you're still talking about her, but I expect this kind of thing from every politician and do not fault them for it. Specific policies need agreement from various players, most importantly Congress, and they don't always agree on the details of the policies. So the president starts horsetrading, which is what politics is all about.

    Amazing to me that you don't understand any of this, but whatever. I'm done explaining.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I find it amazing you don't understand my point and keep blaming that this is maybe my first election!

    ReplyDelete
  23. The first you've paid much attention to. Obviously, not literally your first. :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gee#Etymology_1

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cute. Reminds me of R' Blumenkrantz railing against birthday cakes with candles because it has pagan origins.

    ReplyDelete
  26. He should not sin and use that term but instead use 'Golly'.

    ReplyDelete
  27. please explain how it is a sin? If the term G-d is used in the Western world to refers also to Jesus - that makes is prohibited for a Jew to use the term?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I was just making a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Please forgive my exegesis.

    ReplyDelete
  30. forgive what? - either it is a sin or it isn't

    ReplyDelete
  31. please indicate it as such next time - the written media doesn't convey nuance

    ReplyDelete
  32. Another joke. I wanted to use the word exegesis.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Trump's statements are also being misrepresented. The audio and video media also apparently doesn't recognize nuance.

    ReplyDelete
  34. would you like to right a guest post on the subject?

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.