Here’s What Happens if Trump Really Decides to Decertify the Iran Deal
"The Real Test of the Iran Deal"
It seems that the ball is now in Congress' court.
By Elena Chachko October 6, 2017 - 6:24 pm
[...]
However, the Washington Post report makes it clear that no final decisions have been made at this point. It also indicates that even if Trump decertified the agreement, he would “hold off on recommending that Congress reimpose sanctions.” This caveat suggests that decertification might not immediately lead to the reinstatement of U.S. nuclear sanctions against Iran. Additional measures, either congressional or executive, would be necessary to actually reimpose sanctions.
[...]
What happens if Trump decertifies?
If President Trump really does decertify the JCPOA, he would probably trigger major political and diplomatic blowback from the other parties to the agreement and perhaps more importantly, from Iran. The mere prospect of decertification has already provoked statements from multiple parties to the JCPOA urging the U.S. to continue implementing the agreement.
However, decertification would have no automatic consequences in terms of U.S. implementation of the agreement with respect to the continued suspension of sanctions that had been waived or rescinded under the JCPOA. In order to have such an effect, decertification must be accompanied by measures to reimpose sanctions.
[...]
Decertification without reintroducing sanctions would allow the administration to express its dissatisfaction with the terms of the JCPOA for political gain while preserving the core of the agreement and providing an incentive for Iran to continue meeting its nuclear obligations. (Unless, of course, Congress moves to reinstate sanctions in response to the president’s decertification of the JCPOA.) The move might also intend to create leverage for potential renegotiation of the JCPOA, although there seems to be no appetite for that among the other parties to the agreement. In any event, it seems that the ball is now in Congress’ court.
Bottom line (the first two are from the post this one replies to):
“What’s your better idea?” is a challenge any honest opponent must accept. If this deal fails—which means, if the U.S. Congress rejects an agreement that the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran have accepted—then something else will happen, and all known “somethings” involve faster Iranian progress toward a bomb.
On historical judgment, I said that for two reasons the supporters of the deal should get the benefit of the doubt. The short-term reason is that nearly everyone who in 2015 is alarmist about Iran was in 2002 alarmist about Iraq. You can find exceptions, but only a few. That doesn’t prove that today’s alarmists are wrong, but in any other realm it would count. The longer-term reason is that the history of controversial diplomatic agreements through the past century shows that those recommending “risks for peace” have more often proven right than their opponents. (Don’t believe me? Go back .. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/history-obama-iran-deal-success/398915/ .. and consider the past examples.) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/
So there is Obamacare, which Trump has described as a disaster from the start without mentioning the fact that Republicans had sabotaged it from it's first day,
fixing. After some 7 years they have no better alternative.
And we have the Iran deal which which Trump has described as the worst deal ever, yet he and the Republicans have no better alternative for that one either.
Some build on positives of past administrations. Today it's basically seek out and destroy.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
