Clinton Overstates Nuclear Achievement

[Professor Peabody]

Clinton Overstates Nuclear Achievement

By Eugene Kiely | Posted on April 27, 2016

Hillary Clinton overstates the impact of a 2011 nuclear agreement with Russia in a TV ad that says she was responsible for “securing a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.”

The agreement, known as New START, limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads — that is, nuclear weapons that are deployed on long-range (or strategic) launchers. But it does not require either side to destroy nuclear weapons or reduce their nuclear stockpile, and it doesn’t place limits on shorter-range nuclear weapons.

Also, Russia was below the limit for deployed strategic nuclear warheads when the treaty took effect in 2011, and it has increased them since then. So there hasn’t even been a reduction in Russia’s deployed strategic nuclear warheads under the agreement.

The ad starts by showing images of world events as the narrator says, “The world a president has to grapple with. Sometimes you can’t even imagine. That’s the job and she’s the one who’s proving she can get it done.” The narrator then credits Clinton with “securing a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.”

But has New START resulted in “a massive reduction in nuclear weapons”? Not according to the data we reviewed and the experts we interviewed.



http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/cli...r-achievement/

Only in Clinton campaigns reversi world does Russia increasing their nuclear warheads equate to...“securing a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.” I guess more equals less to the Clinton campaign. Is it possible for them to ever tell the truth? It could happen, but Unicorns will roam the pastures and we will get power from rainbows. Unfortunately I think Mrs. Clinton and her campaign has a real problem with telling the truth.......



.......and it shows you can't polish a turd.

[Professor Peabody]

[waltky]

Iran already testin' Trump over nuclear deal... Iran violates nuclear pact, marginally, for a second time, hours after Trump won the White House Thursday 10th November, 2016 - A few hours after Donald Trump became the President-elect of the United States of America - an agency of the United Nations, engaged in monitoring the nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, claimed that Iran violated the pact storing a bit more heavy water than it was actually allowed.

The United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had exceeded the heavy water allotment of 130 metric tons by 0.10 metric tons (100 kilograms). Heavy water is used as a coolant for nuclear reactors that can produce substantial amounts of plutonium which can be applied to making the fissile core of nuclear warheads. That is why the concerns have grown in the UN and its permanent members involved in the deal – U.S., United Kingdom, Russia, France, China and the European Union. American President Barack Obama’s nuclear treaty with Iran was considered a landmark achievement but Trump during his election campaign termed it as ‘the worst deal ever negotiated’ and said he would “police that contract so tough they (the Iranians) didn’t have a chance.” However, Wednesday’s report said that Iran had served notice it would resolve the issue by exporting 5 metric tons, which is over the excess amount. A diplomat who requested anonymity said that Iran had told the IAEA that the shipment would be leaving their country within the next few days. The IAEA verified the over storage after IAEA chief Yukiya Amano “expressed concerns” to top Iranian officials. “On November 2, 2016, the director general expressed concerns related to Iran's stock of heavy water to the vice president of Iran and president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi,” the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said. U.S. State Department spokesperson, Mark Toner also confirmed Iran’s intention to export the excess amount of heavy water. He said, “It's important to note that Iran made no effort to hide this, hide what it was doing from the IAEA.” This is the second time that Iran has been found violating the treaty since it signed the deal in exchange of relieving sanctions placed on the country. The last time it overstocked beyond the threshold, Iran invited major criticism from the countries that signed the deal. In light of Trump’s recent ascend to the White House, many are raising questions of how his government will deal with Iran. The comments made by Trump have already brought ties with Iran into stark focus. Iranian Prime Minister Ali Hosseini Khamenei and President, Hassan Rouhani had spoken against Trump after the first Presidential debate. In addition to that, extremists in Iran have already pushed for global isolation which discouraged foreign investors. Officials in the nation have claimed that if Trump continued his hostile attitude towards Iran, it would unite the extremists which will prove costlier for both the countries. One of the officials claiming anonymity said, “If Trump adopts hostile policies towards Iran, this will empower hardliners in Iran.” “Trump's victory will unite Iran's hardliners and their supporters. It means more political pressure at home and an aggressive regional policy,” another official said. Concerns about investments in Iran

See also: Top EU Official Disputes That Trump Could Upend Iran Nuclear Deal November 11, 2016 - Asked Thursday about President-elect Donald Trump's threats to tear up the Iran nuclear deal once in office, the European Union official tasked to oversee its implementation said it was not a bilateral agreement but a multilateral one, enshrined in a U.N. Security Council resolution.

E.U. foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini’s words reinforced those of Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, who said on Iranian television Wednesday that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was “not concluded with one country or government but was approved by a resolution of the U.N. Security Council, and there is no possibility that it can be changed by a single government.” CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked Mogherini whether a U.S. president could unilaterally rip up the JCPOA. “The Iranian deal, the nuclear deal, is not a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Iran,” Mogherini replied. “It’s a multilateral agreement that we have negotiated. I have a personal, direct responsibility as, still, the chair of the joint commission that supervises the implementation of the agreement, so guarantee that it is fully implemented by all sides – all sides – and this is enframed into a U.N. Security Council resolution, actually more than one.” “So it is not a bilateral or unilateral issue. It is a multilateral agreement in the framework of the United Nations.” Throughout the campaign that ended with Tuesday night’s victory, Trump criticized the agreement painstakingly negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 group – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany – and touted by the Obama administration as a major foreign policy achievement. Trump called it the worst deal he had seen and said dismantling it would be a “number on priority.” On other occasions he suggested he would renegotiate it, or “police” it so determinedly that the Iranians would not “have a chance.” One of Trump’s foreign policy advisors, Walid Phares, told British public radio Thursday that Trump would review the JCPOA and demand changes from the Iranians. The administration maintains that the agreement cuts off all routes to a nuclear weapons capability, by placing wide-ranging restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities, with strict monitoring and the ability to “snap back” sanctions in case of violations. Critics, including some leading some non-proliferation experts, say it leaves an unacceptably large proportion of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact, laying the groundwork for Iran to become a nuclear threshold state once sunset provisions expire, after 10-15 years. Moreover, they charge that the deal has both emboldened and enriched Iran. Heritage Foundation senior research fellow James Phillips wrote Thursday that Rouhani’s claim of there being “no possibility” of the deal being overturned was “an outright lie.” MORE

Related: Iran Deal Endangered if Trump Seeks to Renegotiate Its Terms Nov 11, 2016 | WASHINGTON — Donald Trump isn't going to rip up the Iran nuclear deal on day one as president, but his vows to renegotiate the terms and increase enforcement could imperil an agreement that has put off the threat of Tehran developing atomic weapons. Emboldened Republican lawmakers are already considering ways to test Iran's resolve to live up to the deal.

As a candidate, Trump issued a variety of statements about last year's pact. He called it "stupid," a "lopsided disgrace" and the "worst deal ever negotiated," railing against its time-limited restrictions on Iran's enrichment of uranium and other nuclear activity, and exaggerating the scale of U.S. concessions. Trump said that he doesn't want to simply tear up the agreement. Instead, he spoke of reopening the diplomacy and declared that unlike President Barack Obama's diplomats, he would have been prepared to walk away from talks. Trump's exact plans are vague, however, and a renegotiation would be difficult. Iran has little incentive to open talks over a deal it is satisfied with. And none of the other countries in the seven-nation accord has expressed interest in picking apart an understanding that took more than a decade of stop-and-go diplomacy and almost two full years of negotiation to complete. As Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said: If the U.S. tears up the agreement, "we will light it on fire." President Hassan Rouhani said this week no country could simply change what was agreed, pointing to a U.N. Security Council resolution that endorsed the package. The deal, which went into effect in January, forced Iran to pull back from the brink of nuclear weapons capacity in exchange for an end to many of the U.S. and European sanctions that devastated Iran's economy. It has been largely respected despite undiminished U.S.-Iranian tensions throughout the Middle East, including their support for rival sides in Syria and Yemen's civil wars. Each side has leverage: Iran doesn't want a new onslaught of U.S.-led economic pressure and America would be alarmed by any Iranian escalation of its nuclear program. But the accord rests on fragile ground, with powerful contingencies in Washington and Tehran vehemently opposed and looking for any excuse to break it apart. In such a climate, it's unclear what Trump's demands for a renegotiation might mean. "The agreement is valid only as long as all parties uphold it," State Department spokesman Mark Toner acknowledged Wednesday in the agency's first briefing since Trump's stunning election victory over Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president. Last summer, Walid Phares, a Trump adviser on the Middle East, said Trump wouldn't pull out of an agreement with America's "institutional signature," but rather revise elements through one-on-one negotiations with Iran or with a larger grouping of allies. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the pro-deal Arms Control Association, said that re-litigating the deal would unsettle American allies, with no clear picture of what Trump would be trying to accomplish. Trump could also send the deal to Congress, whose Republican majority has opposed it. MORE

See also: With Trump, a Major US Shift in Mideast Nov 11, 2016 | President-elect Donald Trump's positions on Middle East issues, if carried out, could bring yet more volatility to the world's most combustible region.

Besides vowing to rip up the international nuclear deal with Iran, Trump says he will ramp up the war on Islamic State militants; he could make the Palestinians more desperate by siding with Israel's hard-line right wing. He also seems set to end the Obama administration's cold shoulder toward authoritarians like Egypt's Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. Trump has most often been vague and sometimes outright contradictory about plans in the Mideast. And his stances could change. His call for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. worried many in the region, but he has since watered down that stance, and many opinion-makers in the Gulf at least call it simply campaign rhetoric.

U.S.-backed fighters deployed during fighting with the Islamic State group in the village of Laqtah, north of Raqqa, Syria.

Overall, Trump has shown a focus on fighting Islamic militants and favoring strongmen who do so. He's shown less concern with human rights or the complicated minutiae of the Mideast's many factions and interests. That is a simpler, black-and-white stance in the eyes of some, but it can also bring a backlash. Islamic State, Iraq and Syria Trump pledged repeatedly to intensify the war against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, saying crushing the group is his main priority. What is less clear is how — and what impact it would have on the conflicts in both countries and the complex alliances that the Obama administration has tried to balance. Trump has given little policy or vision on the wars beyond the vows to defeat IS. In Syria, the rebels may be the biggest losers. In contrast to the Obama administration's support for the opposition — equivocal as it may have been — Trump said the rebels may be "worse" than President Bashar Assad and that defeating the Islamic State group is more important than removing the Syrian leader. That suggests he could drop any backing. Moreover, he says he wants more and better cooperation against IS with Russia, Assad's main ally. Trump says he will step up airstrikes, vowing to "bomb the hell" out of the militants. He has criticized the slow pace of the fight and at one point called for up to 30,000 U.S. troops to be deployed in Iraq — six times the current level. He later seemed to back down, saying "few troops" would be needed. MORE

[exotix]

Is Hillary running for Prez ? ... LOL