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?
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.