The details of the 2016 agreement that the Obama administration and European allies made with Iran show why President Donald Trump should be indicted for the war crime of waging an aggressive war.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

That agreement, the joint comprehensive plan of action between the nuclear-armed US, UK, France, China, and Russia, and Germany and Iran, which Iran abided by for two years until Trump tore it up, made it impossible for Iran to make a nuclear bomb.

Last week, the US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent denied that the Obama-era agreement ever happened.

"This administration, President Trump, has done something that no other administration was able to do," he said. "We have gotten the Iranians to talk about their nuclear program and perhaps commit to not having one. That has never happened before. It had been off the table."

This is utterly untrue. Obama not only got Iranians to talk about their nuclear program but to agree to detailed restrictions on uranium and plutonium enrichment with verifiable inspections that would make construction of a bomb impossible.

In January 2016, under the headline, "The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon", the White House stated: "On January 16, 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency verified that Iran has completed the necessary steps under the Iran deal that will ensure Iran's nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful."

This is the verification of the International Atomic Energy Agency - the independent international body that has been doing nuclear verification since 1957.

Trump and his cabinet toadies are in complete denial that it ever happened.

Defense secretary Pete Hegseth said, "Only one president was willing to lay it out on the line and ensure after 47 years that Iran is not capable of having a nuclear weapon."

There are a couple of reasons for the denial. One, they work on the basis that anything Obama did must be bad or if good, deny it happened. And, secondly, that if in the past........

© The Examiner