Last Saturday in an interview on the "John Fredericks Show" Trump made a statement about the Iran deal: "If Israel attacks Iran, I think -- of course this wouldn’t happen, it wouldn’t happen with me, with Obama you never know -- but we’re supposed to be on Iran’s side if this happens. OK? And nobody knows this and even talks about that point but, basically, we’re supposed to protect them."
Earlier that day in an interview with CNN he made similar comments on the topic: "You know, there is something in the Iran deal that people I don't think really understand or know about," he said. "And nobody is able it to explain it, that if somebody attacks Iran, we have to come to their defense."
So I wondered, is it true that the U.S. has to support Iran if they enter into armed conflict with Israel? Let's dig into the facts. According to Politifact:
"At the heart of the claim is Article 10, Annex III, of the accord which states:
"E3/EU+3 parties, and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices."
That includes the following:
• "Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems;
• "Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems."
This article has been criticized in the Israeli media.
"One of the clauses in the nuclear deal reached between world powers and Iran last week guarantees that the world powers will assist Iran in thwarting attempts to undermine its nuclear program," Israel Hayom, a newsletter, said July 20.
But experts told PolitiFact Florida in late July that such interpretations are, at best, exaggerated. The aim of the provision, they said, is to protect nuclear materials from theft (say, if terrorists tried to steal Iranian assets) or from sabotage (with the intent of causing a hazardous-materials threat to health)."
It is also important to note that this deal is not being presented as a treaty; it is considered an "executive agreement" and therefore doesn't have much hold on the U.S. When a new president is sworn into office in 2017, he or she will have to decide what to do with the agreement and whether or not they will continue to follow it.
Earlier this year during a committee hearing, Senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio questioned Secretary Ernest Moniz and Secretary John Kerry about this provision:
Rubio: "If Israel decides it does not like this deal and decides it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuclear program or facility. Does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to defend Iran against Israeli sabotage or for that matter the sabotage of any other country in the world
Moniz: "I believe that applies to physical security and safeguards all of our options and those of our allies would remain in place."
Rubio:If Israel conducts an airstrike against a physical facility, does this deal, the way I read it, does it require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat?"
Kerry: "No. The purpose of that is to have longer term guarantees as we enter the world in which cyber warfare that when you are going to have nuclear capacities we want to make sure you are properly protected. But I can assure you we are going to coordinate in every possible way with Israel."
Rubio: "If Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program, are we obligated to help them defend themselves against the Israeli cyberattack?"
Kerry: "No, I assure you, that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel’s security."
It seems pretty clear that while there are some security features in here, that we will not be required under the deal to protect Iran against Israel. This claim is rated false.
Going along with this I also came across another claim on facebook, that several Republican senators had supported the Iran deal.
The claim is simply that these senators supported the Iran deal. We took a look at each of these senators press releases and statements to the media.
Senator John McCain is one of the leading opponents of the deal and has even gone so far as to call Secretary Kerry "delusional."
Senator Lindsey Graham has made opposing the Iran deal a central part of his presidential campaign message.
Senator Hatch stated: “For decades, the Iranian regime has been dangerous in its aims and duplicitous in its quest for nuclear weapons. Any deal that removes sanctions without robust means of ensuring the regime's disarmament and compliance with its international obligations is worse than no deal at all. Empowered by the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that we passed into law earlier this year, Congress must fully scrutinize this agreement and must not hesitate to oppose the deal if it endangers the security of the United States or our allies in the region.” He has been a major opponent of the bill.
Senator Alexander opposes the deal stating that it "does not sufficiently restrict Iran's nuclear program and makes no effort to put a brake on its other conduct as the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism." He continued,"The agreement puts some limits on Iran's nuclear program, but it also legitimizes it, thereby encouraging a nuclear arms race in the most unstable area of the world," Alexander said. "The agreement takes the pressure off Iran at a time when pressure is likely to succeed."
Senator Coats' statement on the deal explains:
"Members of Congress now have the opportunity to review the pending deal, and every member must determine what this deal buys us and at what cost. We must ignore the coming public relations campaign that will trumpet this deal as a victory for diplomacy and the false premise that the deal is a choice between peace and war."
President Obama has defended his deal by challenging critics to put forth an alternative. How about exercising American leadership and enacting more vigorous sanctions to persuade the Iranian leaders to reconsider their positions or persuade the Iranian people to reconsider their leaders?
Congress should reject this bad deal."
Senator Corker stated that “Rather than end Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, over time this deal industrializes the program of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president.”
Senator Flake said he opposes the deal because “While Congress has received assurances from the administration that it does not forfeit its ability to impose sanctions on Iran for behavior on the non-nuclear side, these assurances do not square with the text of the [agreement],"
Senator Perdue plainly stated that the senate should "reject the deal"
To put it simply, this post is flat out false on all counts. There isn't a shred of truth to the statement. If you see a friend post this meme or the above quote please feel free to refer them to this article.
