A Treaty Not to Be Trusted
The Democratic president signs a treaty with the leader of America’s greatest geopolitical rival. The two countries had once been allies, but they have stopped trusting each other. Still, the U.S. president thinks that he can strike a deal on one particular issue an issue that many of his supporters deem to be a matter of life and death. Indeed, this presidential deal-making is controversial, because critics say that the other country simply can’t be trusted.
Yet the American president persists in his deal-quest, saying that not only is this agreement a good idea, but that further agreements should be made as well. He says that his diplomatic dealing “allows us to continue on course toward a safer world with even more substantial limitations” in the future.
DIVE! The Five Best Submarines to Ever Hit the Seas
Many of the technologies and practices of advanced submarine warfare were never employed in anger. However, every country in the world that pretends to serious maritime power is building or acquiring advanced submarines.
Here s What You Need to Remember: We take for granted the most common form of today’s nuclear deterrent; a nuclear submarine, bristling with missiles, capable of destroying a dozen cities a continent away. These submarines provide the most secure leg of the deterrent triad, as no foe could reasonably expect to destroy the entire submarine fleet before the missiles fly.
but salt i made the world a safer place, but it did not stop president reagan from referring to the soviet union as the evil empire. so i hope very much we stay in this agreement, because we are not going to get a better negotiated deal, and we could back ourselves into a corner where the options could be pretty severe like use sorry to interrupt, but i want to ask you more about that, because my understanding of the way that the deal came can together, iran was interested in putting more on the table, but the u.s. and the allies wanted to keep it narrowly tailored deal focused on the issues in particular, and just picking on what you said there, and if the u.s. were to remove itself from the deal, and as a result of that if the whole deal were to be diminished or the fall apart, how much more difficult would bit to establish some sort of better relationship with the republican of ra iran? well, a better overall relationship with the islamic republic is simply not in the
and am bbassador crocker, thank you for being with us, and you have written a letter of support of the iran nuclear deal, and lay out the case as we are preaching this self-imposed deadline and why should the u.s. not remove itself from the deal. thank you for having me, david. laok, a perfect agreement? no. no ne fwoesh yated ing ee eed -d agreement is perfect for all of the parties m. this case, i don t know about the nuclear physic, but people i know who are expert in the field say it is a pretty good arms control agreement. but it is not a treaty of peace and friendship which is some in the obama administration attempted to portray it as. it reminds me of the reagan years, and president reagan negotiated salt i and salt ii with the soviets and those were pretty good arms control agreement as well. salt ii never went into effect,
we seems to as is the case with our president-elect seems to identify his national manhood with the number of war heads he has. boy, there s freudian levels of that i don t want to get into. but in any event, as you said right at the top, this is back on the front burner again. yeah. and anybody who i ve lived long enough to have lived through it being on the front burner a couple of times. and like i said, it concentrates your mind wonderfully on what can happen if things spiral badly out of control. we should note that the president did negotiate s.a.l.t. ii. happy holidays and happy birthday. thank you, sir. all right. coming up, trump claims credit for the economy.