Trump calls current peace deal with Iran ‘THE EXACT OPPOSITE’ of Obama-era Iran Nuclear Deal
President Trump stated that his administration is nearing a peace agreement with Iran, emphasizing that the Islamic regime must not develop nuclear weapons. He criticized the previous Iran Nuclear Deal as a pathway for Iran to obtain such weapons and asserted that the current negotiations are fundamentally different. Trump also highlighted the importance of eliminating Iran's nuclear program as a key element of the new deal.
- ▪Trump emphasized that the U.S. will not rush into a deal with Iran and that time is on their side.
- ▪He described the current negotiations as orderly and constructive, with a commitment to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
- ▪Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu supported Trump's stance, stating that any final agreement must eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran.
3 outlets in our directory ran this story, first to last over 17 hours. Coverage spans 2 points on the political spectrum — 1 centre, 1 lean right.
- ▪ Obama-era nuclear deal may be best case scenario for US, Iran peace talks, Israeli expert warns — The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com
- ▪ 'Not like the one made by Obama': Donald Trump says their Iran deal is 'exact opposite' — Times of India — Top
Washington Examiner files mainly under politics. We currently carry 2,026 of its stories.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
President Donald Trump said his administration will “not to rush into a deal” with Iran as the two nations near a peace agreement, emphasizing that the Islamic regime “cannot develop or procure a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb.” “The negotiations are proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner, and I have informed my representatives not to rush into a deal in that time is on our side. The Blockade will remain in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Washington Examiner.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Washington Examiner
