Hillary Clinton was interviewed recently and she was refreshingly candid about the glaring problems with the “Obama deal” which most notably was that it did nothing to prevent Iran from amassing a large stockpile of ballistic missiles and giving support to violent factions like the Yemeni’s who you may recall used such to disrupt global trade. It was better than nothing, and maybe good, but it’s worth adding context when someone describes it as “really good.” Hillary Clinton wouldn’t use that phrase.

▲

comrade1234 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Where is this interview? I Haven't heard of this. So now you're trying to equate missiles with a nuke program?

▲

zzgo 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The Iraq War was pushed through under the claim of preventing Iraq from obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction, which presumably could have included nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration sold the claim in part because of aluminum tubes which they claimed could be used to create ballistic missiles. Clinton, who herself voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, is aware that parts that could be used to build ballistic missiles is pretty much fungible with nukes in a lot of American's minds.

It's not the commenter who is trying to equate missiles with nukes, it's the American political discourse that posited and accepted this claim nearly 25 years ago.

	▲	warshinder 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No the point, as I understand it, is that with enough missiles, enforcing the JCPOA becomes impossible. Iran can dominate other regional powers, cause global suffering, decide they want to build nuclear weapons after all and not much can be done to stop them. As we are seeing, they are powerful enough now that Trump isn’t having an easy time winning, and it may even impact the midterms it’s that bad.

▲

warshinder 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I just saw a clip, from the recent 92nd street y interview. I’m not saying missiles are nuclear weapons. I’m simply saying the JCPOA was flawed according to her. Not that she thinks it should have been repealed entirely. She argues Trump could have extended or expanded it, but of course she would say that because she wasn’t the one tasked with renegotiating it with them.

	▲	defrost 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It was a good deal that constrained enrichment, allowed human inspectors to roam and legitimately raise complaint if kept from chasing leads, permitted installation of tamper resistant / tamper revealing fixed monitoring instruments. It addressed neither missiles, late library fees, digital piracy, etc. It was flawed in the same sense a car is flawed for not being able to pull a 820 Flexi-Coil 18 metre bar, with a 2320 tow behind Flexi-Coil airseeder across a muddy field. ( eg: outside of design scope ) Worth noting also - not just a US deal - a number of other countries had input on the deal and on inspections.