Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
What gets me annoyed about this is the hard reality of history: as evidenced by both Pakistan and North Korea, a nation will (if they've a mind to) develop their nuclear capability with a treaty or without one. (Two exceptions being Iraq and Syria, whose plants got bombed by the Israelis in 1981 and 2007).
This decision seems to me a way to cut off one's own nose to spite one's face; it harms harms high tech jobs, and overall national trade/commerce both at home, and among our allies.
The only silver lining I see is that any number of observers have opined that "a new deal" being reworked turns all of this back on. OK, if a "new deal" is worked out, and the orders turned back on, all to the good. But I wonder at the timeline on that.
I am not keen to see the aircraft building industry take a hit, on either side of the pond.
And here's the other thing: the opportunity to increase a variety of low level contacts and influence. For example, you've got simulator / training set ups that can establish the kinds of contacts benefit in a variety of multinational efforts ... OK. Nuff said.
You are making the assumption that there will be no replacement deal; in the same way that there is now a replacement deal in the works for North Korea. I suspect that before the larger contracts are unwound (it takes time) that there may well be another deal in place better for both the Iranian people and the rest of the world. It will not be easy, but there was no verification in this deal and with the probable/possible " taqiyyah " approach of the Iranians and their apparent actions, then verification of compliance with an agreement will be necessary.