__________
#9 | Posted by Twinpac at 2026-06-07 06:43 AM
In your opinion, what makes the difference if the "deal" needed a few adjustments? In fact, under the current condition, I'd be surprised if it didn't.
You bet it would, and need more than just "few adjustments" - "under current circumstances" it's essentially null and void, given that Russia is also under sanctions.
The main point, with or without, Mr. Putin just put BFF Trump in a most awkward position and a badly bruised ego.
That makes no sense.
This didn't "just" happen, as I explained... and there is no such thing as shameless Trump finding himself in "awkward position"... and if anyone couldn't care less about Trump's ego, it's Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi, for different reasons.
In fact, Trump keeps trying to "normalize" the US relations with Putin's Russia by emulating Nixon's China "ping-pong diplomacy" by sending hockey team to Moscow... Very "original", no?
Both he and Netanyahu left holding the bag, so to speak.
Don't conflate the two - for Trump it's a matter of ego, for Israel it's a matter of existence.
Even if this eventually happens, if it's a nuclear energy reactors agreement there would be at the very least an IAEA observation and monitoring regime.
If not, what difference does it make, except proving that Iran is a client state of Russia and intends to have WMDs, which Saudi Arabia and most of Iran's neighbors do not want but have no ability to stop by themselves?
Was Biden "left holding the bag" when something similar happened in Iraq in 2022-2024?
www.washingtoninstitute.org - Iraq Pledges Nuclear Cooperation with Russia and China - June 11, 2025
|------- ... Iraq is still a governance basket case and a huge U.S. sanctions risk. The ruling coalition that appointed Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani includes several U.S.-designated, Iran-backed terrorist organizations, and nuclear chief Aboudi is a member of one such group, Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH). ...
U.S. and international policymakers have ample reason to view Iraq's nuclear energy ambitions with caution. Although a single small training reactor is unlikely to pose a threat, anything more than that would raise multiple concerns.
First, the militias that essentially run Iraq have a poor record on safety, corruption, and smuggling, so trusting them to responsibly oversee nuclear infrastructure would be unwise. ...
Second, can a government controlled by Iran-backed militias be counted on not to transfer nuclear technology to and from Iran? For example, Iran has vowed to retain its uranium enrichment capabilities and could conceivably become the main and most proximal supplier of nuclear fuel to Iraq... Worse, Iran may try to use militia-run Iraq as a way to circumvent U.S. nuclear sanctions. To give an adjacent example, after the National Iranian Oil Company was hit with heavy sanctions, it established offices inside Iraq's Oil Ministry, which is free from such sanctions. Since then, Iraq's ministry has repeatedly purchased excess oil and gas equipment and transferred it to Iran. Such abuses make clear why it is so important for Washington not to repeat the error it made during Iraq's 2022 government formation process, when U.S. officials raised no objection to a member of a designated terrorist group running key scientific and nuclear research agencies. ...
-------|
www.iina.news - Iraq and Russia Sign Nuclear Energy Agreement at IAEA - Sep. 18, 2024
__________
It's almost like asking men to stay out of women's sports and restrooms.
POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS
Which is not a public health and safety issue. So apples and oranges. Again.
And interestingly we never hear you complain about women in men's bathrooms or men's locker rooms.