Posted on 09/02/2015 9:21:32 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump unleashed on Tuesday another line of attack against the Iran nuclear deal, suggesting that the Iran deal would require the United States to fight Israel on Iran’s behalf if the Jewish State strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities.
In a phone interview with CNN Tuesday evening, Trump claimed that there’s “something in the Iran deal” that “people don’t understand” saying if someone attacks Iran, “we have to come to their defense.”
“Does that include Israel?” Trump asked. “And most people say yes, they don’t have an exclusion for Israel. So if Israel attacks Iran, according to that deal, I believe, the way it reads, unless they have a codicil or they have something to it, that we have to fight with Iran against Israel.”
(Excerpt) Read more at jpupdates.com ...
Doesn't that require a treaty?
And they won’t parole Charles Manson?
Our president is a much larger and expensive risk to every person on the globe. He has the potential to beat the body counts of Hitler, Mao, Stalin , and the bubonic plague with this suicide pact. I mean agreement.
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?
If we had a real congress he would have been impeached a long time ago. If we had a real senate he'd be in jail for this one, him and everyone of his co-conspirators.
God is going to protect what He wants to protect.
Trump is just discovering this?
break the GOPe at the polls, save the country.
So maybe you’d be happier if the headline read “Iran deal requires US to protect Iran from a strike”...
I have just stumble across this. I am going to dig into it and will get back to you with what I find.
It would be if true. The text of the agreement is available online.
I’ve been blasted for saying this here before but,
Doesn’t this potentially put us at war AGAINST Israel in the right circumstance???
Sure looks like it to me.
What the muslim brotherhood does not realize, when iran is attacked by israel, the people of america will support the israelies... Those who side with the enemy, are the enemy.
What we suspected all along...Obama is pushing this treaty to destroy Israel. Predictable from the man that says publicly he will stand with Islam...
“The defense obligation is expressly in the document.”
Yes it is, but that won’t stop Israel from protecting itself.
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.
I’d be happier if the headline told the whole truth and didn’t take something in the article out of context, which it did.
I’m not in favor of helping Iran at all.
I am in favor of knowing what things actually say before getting all ticked off about them.
Link to the source text? I’d like to read it for myself.
I can just see Obama leading those state parades in Tehran where they drive the missiles in public events. Obama will be the celebrated grand marshal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.