"No, we're not talking about any easing of sanctions or giving money."
So said Trump today.
If that is true, then we are nowhere near a deal. Or he is just lying,
He couldn't be lying, could he?
Replies to: “"No, we're not talking about any easing of sanctions or giving money."”
If we are not clandestinely supplying weapons to Iranian rebels we have wasted our time.
(no message)
What? Does this have to do with invading Venezuela or Greenland?
(no message)
When reading Trump (his posts, interviews, talks & trolling), you always act like a high school kid.
11 years since 2015, you never grow up in reading Trump.
What Trump meant by answering the question is before Iran agree to hand over those 440 kg enriched uranium, Trump won’t offer anything in exchange for Iran’s handing over 440 kg uranium. In another word, handing over the enriched uranium is not for bargaining. Iran has to do that. Then Iran can bargain with US on a new nuclear deal by asking sanctions relief, money back and even compensation in some kind of form.
The 440 kg 60% enrich uranium happened after Trump withdrew from JCPOA. Iran started to enrich uranium from 3.67% level to 60% level. If Iran handover those 440 kg uranium and US give Iran money back and sanctions relief, that would be back to JCPOA era without JCPOA. What a stupid deal for US and a smart deal for Iran that would be. Trump is businessman. Of course he answered no. Iran can not bargain for anything by using those 440 kg uranium. But it does NOT mean no new deal between US and Iran. After Iran agree to hand over those 440 kg enriched uranium, Iran can bargain for sanctions relief and money back with US on a new nuclear deal. That is what Trump meant and what Trump wants. Trump didn’t lie on this one.
I thought you guys all knew what was in the final deal.
All the criticisms were on a deal that Trump had not signed up to? Go figure.
Never said I did. I support a deal.
Better end the stupid, pointless war sooner rather than later.
This would be my proposal to Iran:
1. You have fair and free elections.
2. You stop with the Gender Apartheid bullshit.
3. You stop funding terrorism.
4. You stop your pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
5. Ships will flow freely through the Strait.
In return, we will not kill you.
And they would tell you “no.”
(no message)
It isn't a yes/no proposal. It is either/or: "1-5, or death. Choose."
(no message)
Correct, it wasn't that complicated.
(no message)
Complicated, no. Infantile, yes.
(no message)
Which of the 5 conditions do you object to?
(no message)
Iran knows that Trump wants a deal more than they do.
So they will demand more, not less.
Ooops. Maybe our Commander in Chief didn’t think it through?
So, you were just acting like you knew what was in the deal. Got it.
(no message)
He’s cheering for Iran.
(no message)
Or simply a taxpayer hoping for an end to a colossal unforced error.
(no message)
Link: https://iran-cost-ticker.com/
Suddenly you are worried about cost.
(no message)
The Dem left are waiting for their marching orders from the IRGC. They're getting mixed messages.
(no message)
Can you help us understand this?
We need to ask the cult Orange Whisperers here to interpret his message.
(no message)
Not to mention, this is "soo different" than JCPOA and unfreezing Iranian money under Obama.
(no message)
Trump paying for terrorism.
(no message)
Says the guy who supports a president who sent a pallet of cash to Iran.
If Trump is funding terror, you must really support Trump.
Again, you’re perpetuating falsehoods. - “ the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement
resolving claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over a failed arms deal under the time of the Shah.”
But then, you’re stuck with bullshit seeing you are against that transfer of cash but now have no issue with djt giving Iran a nuclear weapon, cash and entry back into the global oil industry.
Consent Management