On page 142, the deal includes a clause that states, “Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.”Washington-based Center for Security Policy asserted that Annex III appears “to commit the United States and other world powers to the defense of Iran’s nuclear program.”
Headline: “Iran deal requires US to protect Iran in event of strike”
Text you posted: Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats including sabotage”
The headline implies that if Israel attacks Iran, the US would send troops to protect Iran and fight Israel. Ships, bombs, air defense, army etc...
The truth is (if the part you posted is the what the headline refers to) that we agreed to:
- help Iran prevent Israel from going after Iran’s nuclear programs (i.e. we’d teach them how to defend against a Stuxnet kind of attack),
- teach Iran how to protect its nuclear assets both electronically and physically.
This is bad enough - we should be working with Israel to demolish Iran’s nuclear programs, not teaching Iran how to defend them. However, I do not see the logical jump from what you posted to “we will put boots on the ground” defending Iran against an Israeli attack. Can you help me understand how we got from the text you posted, securing Iran’s nuclear assets, to the headline’s belief that we’d defend Iran from physical attack?
Here’s the piece that’s causing the confusion:
Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage
The newspaper in your link highlights: “...and respond to nuclear security threats” and implies that’s what we’ve agreed to do.
That’s just a sentence fragment though. When you look at the whole sentence it says “We will help Iran, using training and workshops, learn how to respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage...”
While that’s bad enough, the out-of-context quote is simply not the meaning of the full sentence.
Thank you, kind Sir,
Yes, do remember this being mentioned when the horse’s face was speaking with the horses’ a** just what they had in this treaty. US against Israel This seems to have been o-dark one’s mission all along. The creature will do anything to bring that country to his knees. Even if it means killing AMERICA to do so. What the hell does it care... And that legacy crap.....total pitch.