Pompeo Informed Europeans Of Trump's Iran Deal Withdrawal

Eliminating any doubt as to what Trump will do at 2pm today (if not the language he will use and what the implications will be), Barak Ravid from Israel's Channel 10 reported this morning that following last week's pilgrimage by Macron and Merkel, both hoping to prevent Trump from withdrawing from the Iran deal, on Friday the new US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, told his colleagues from the E3 - France, Germany and the United Kingdom - that President Trump has rejected the understandings that were drafted with American negotiators over the last four months regarding a possible fix of the Iran nuclear deal, a "de-facto U.S. announcement that it was walking away from negotiations with the Europeans over the Iran deal."

According to the report, on Friday Pompeo organized a conference call with his three European counterparts, at which point Pompeo thanked the E3 for the efforts they had made since January to come up with a formula that will convince Trump not to pull out of the nuclear deal — but made it clear the President wants to take a different direction.

According to the sources, Pompeo told his European counterparts that — after he showed the document to Trump — the president told him it would not change his thinking about the nuclear deal. He then told the E3 foreign ministers to prepare themselves for an announcement by Trump within the coming days.

Not surprisingly, the report notes that European negotiators felt the American team, led by State Department policy planning chief Brian Hook, was passive and unwilling to try to make progress, perhaps due to an assessment that Trump didn’t really want a deal with the E3.

France, Germany and the U.K. felt the parties were close to a deal but that the U.S. walked out 300 feet before the finish line.

Pompeo then reportedly briefed Trump on the main stumbling block left surrounding the deal, which according to Channel 10 was the so-called "sunset clause," which starts lifting limitations from the Iran nuclear program after 10 years from the day it came into force.

As Axios adds, a senior Trump administration official didn't dispute the account of the call:

"The reality is that the E3 could not agree to end the sunset clauses. That provision is critical to fixing the flawed deal." They added, "I don’t want to get ahead of the president, but I can say that the administration’s position on the importance of fixing sunset clauses of the Iran deal is well known."

Still, there is some hope that a deal is still possible as Pompeo also said that it might be possible to return to the negotiating table at a later stage after Trump's announcement. That however is not too realistic, because according  to newswires, Iran's senior hardline official says it would be wrong to remain in the nuclear deal should the US drop it.

What are next steps?

According to Axios, "senior officials from the EU, France, Germany and the U.K. will meet today in Brussels to prepare for Trump's announcement — both politically and economically.

After Trump's statement, the European powers want to issue a joint statement which will make it clear they are staying in the Iran deal in an attempt to prevent its collapse.

If that is indeed the case, and if Europe continue to absorb Iranian oil exports, it may very well be the case that as Barclays said last night, Iran's outbound oil production will not be impacted, and the recent surge in the price of oil, most of due to concerns about the collapse of the Iran deal, will have been for nothing.

Oil was last trading a fraction over $70, after hitting a 4 year high of $70.84 yesterday.



lester1 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 08:47 Permalink

There never was any deal. Nothing was signed by Obama, Congress, or the Ayatollah in Iran!!

It's fucking sad the liberal media never mentions that little missing piece of this so called "deal".


Vote me down if you support Iran getting a nuke.

Slack Jack lester1 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 08:54 Permalink


There are no ancient Jewish cities in Israel,...
but there are lots of ancient Greek cities.

What is weird is this; that 2000 years ago, it seems that there were no people even resembling Jews, in Israel.

It turns out that there is not a single ancient Jewish city in what is now called Israel. There is not a single ancient city where Hebrew characters are used on the statues and buildings. There is not a single ancient city where the buildings are in the ancient Jewish architectural style. In fact, there is not even a category of "ancient Jewish architectural style".

Of course, the Hebrew characters that are desired, are those of the Dead Sea scrolls (supposedly from 2000 years ago), which are essentially the modern Hebrew characters without points.

If you check out all the ancient cities in Israel from 2000 years ago, they are all Greek, and their ruins are still there for you to visit. Their inscriptions are in the Greek script and the buildings are in the ancient Greek architectural styles.

Here is a list of some of the known ancient Greek cities in (and near) Israel; Ecdippa, Seleucia, Ptolemais, Taricheia Arbela, Asochis, Sepphoris, Hippos, Dion, Sycaminum, Bucolon Polis, Itabyrium, Gadara, Abila, Dora, Comus, Gephrus, Crocodilion Polis, Caesarea, Straton's Tower, Narbata, Scythopolis, Pella, Samaria, Amathus, Ragaba, Gerasa, Apollonia, Sicima, Pegae, Joppa, Arimathea, Jamnia, Port of Jamnia, Lydda, Modiin, Aphaerema, Philadelphia, Birtha, Gazara, Beth Horon, Dok, Jericho, Samaga, Esbus, Medaba, Ladder of Tyre, Azotus, Port of Azotus, Accaron, Jerusalem, Ascalon, Anthedon, Gaza, Marissa, Beth Zur, Hebron, Adora, Engeddi.

The ancient Jewish cities in Israel are,....... well there aren't any. Not even one.

Here's an interesting example of a first century BC Greek inscription (i.e., in Greek letters) from Jerusalem's Temple Mount forbidding the entry of strangers to the Temple precinct.


The pictured stone was found in 1935. It was actually the second such warning-stone to be found, the first being discovered by Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau in 1871. This stone was deemed so dangerous to the "Jews inhabited Israel 2000 years ago" theory, that it completely disappeared for 13 years before resurfacing in Istanbul, where, it was correctly calculated, it would not attract much attention.

From: https://www.timesofisrael.com/ancient-temple-mount-warning-stone-is-clo…

The first Jerusalem Temple Mount warning-stone, now found in the Archaeology Museum, Istanbul, is pictured below:


It says (in Greek): "No stranger is to enter within the balustrade round the temple and enclosure. Whoever is caught will be responsible to himself for his death, which will ensue."

The oldest synagogue in Israel (is a Greek synagogue).

The word synagogue = ΣΥΝΑΓΩΓΗ is a Greek word for a gathering of people, assembly, or meeting place.

It is exceedingly strange that Jews should have chosen a Greek word to name their churches.

Here is a photo of the dedication stone of the oldest (once existing) synagogue in Israel.


Note that the inscription is in Greek letters.

The stone is known as the Theodotus Inscription. The building that the stone was once part of, has not survived. The stone was discovered by Raimond Weill in 1913 at Mount Ophel in Jerusalem. It was found dumped in a cistern. The style of the Greek characters dates it to the first century B.C.

It states: "Theodotus, son of Vettenus, priest and archisynagogue, son of an archisynagogue, grandson of an archisynagogue, built the synagogue for the reading of the Law and the teaching of the commandments, and guest-house and the rooms and the water supplies for the lodging of strangers in need, which his fathers founded and the Elders and Simonides."

Note that Theodotus has a Greek name.

Note that his father Vettanos has a Greek name.

The word archisynagogos means "leader of the synagogue". So, it seems that three generations of Greeks headed the oldest (known) synagogue in Israel.

I wonder why the early "Jews" hated Hebrew and loved Greek.

Slack Jack's CHALLENGE:

Name ONE ancient city (that existed in what is now called Israel) where the building inscriptions are all in Hebrew, and the buildings are constructed in the ancient Hebrew architectural style (whatever that may be).

Then give a summary of "the ancient Hebrew architectural style" (you will have to make this up as it does not yet exist).

Then give links to photos of the ancient building inscriptions which show that they are written in Hebrew.

Then show that the buildings are constructed in the ancient Hebrew architectural style (that you have just invented).


It's been MANY MANY MANY months now and still no one is up to the challenge.

So, no one can provide solid evidence that even ONE ancient city in what is now called Israel, was unequivocally Jewish, 2000 years ago.

In reply to by lester1

Slack Jack TheWholeYearInn Tue, 05/08/2018 - 09:43 Permalink

Trump is a Jew.


He wants Americans to die for the Jews.

The Jews want to destroy Iran (and many other countries) for Israel.

As Wesley Clark reported: (The United States is) going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.

Four Star General, and U.S. Presidential Candidate, Wesley Kanne Clark, said the following:

I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September (2003). I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq."....

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" (meaning the Secretary of Defense's office) "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."


Iraq: check: completely destroyed.

Syria: check: completely destroyed.

Lebanon: check: completely destroyed by the Jews in 2006.

Libya: check: mostly destroyed.

Somalia: provisional check: attacked by Ethiopian troops in 2006.

Sudan: provisional check: country split in two.

Iran: FAIL: other than financially, the country has not been attacked, and is doing better than ever.

In fact, Iran had enough money to spare to rebuild Lebanon after the 2006 attack by the Jews.

Listen to Wesley Clark: http://www.preearth.net/videos/wesley-clark-youtube-Ha1rEhovONU.flv

In reply to by TheWholeYearInn

SocratesSolves peopledontwanttruth Tue, 05/08/2018 - 11:10 Permalink

Anybody who uses the term "conspiracy theorist" is soon going to be stripped of all of their money, as that is what these Satanic Jews have stolen—your money and your blood. Anybody who used the term "anti-semitic" is going to be stripped of all of the money they've stolen. The time has come to take America out of the Satanic possession of the Satanic Zionist Jews. 


Don't let these vile shithead criminal push "anti-semitic" in your faces. Strip their money and kick these murderers out of America. For now the phrase is Anti-American. I said Anti-American. 

In reply to by peopledontwanttruth

Déjà view Yellow_Snow Tue, 05/08/2018 - 09:17 Permalink

Iran's George Washington: Remembering and Preserving the Legacy of 1953

By Sam Sasan Shoamanesh

To trace the roots of Tehran’s animosity towards Washington and the West in general, one must turn the pages of history not only to the Cold-War dynamics often cited by academics; but to the cause of oil politics as well.

...at the time, the heart of British power – but also the success of its entire economy at large. From the 1920s through the ‘40s, Britain received all of its oil from Iran, and enjoyed a reasonably high standard of living at least in part as a result.

What's more, APOC increasingly engaged in unfair practices and failed to honor even the marginal royalties that it had contracted to pay Iran. In 1948, for example, while APOC reported profits of ₤62 million and paid the British government ₤28 million in income taxes, Iran received a meager ₤1.4 million on its oil resources. The company also regularly reneged on obligations and withheld payments when its demands on the Iranian government were not met.

On behalf of Iran, Teymourtash requested, inter alia, a 25-percent share in the company. If a new concession was to be drawn, he stressed, only a 50-50 split would be acceptable. His “bold” demands placed Teymourtash on a fast collision course with the British government.

Teymourtash died in solitary confinement (1933) under suspicious circumstances having endured regular torture.

Dr. Mossadegh had supported the constitutionalists in the Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1911, restricting the absolute powers of the traditional Iranian monarch, notwithstanding ties with the royal court through his mother. As a politician, he called for political and economic independence; the strengthening of civil society, and competent, corruption-free government. He further advocated for an independent judiciary, free elections, freedom of religion and political associations, women’s and worker’s rights, and projects aimed at supporting the country’s large agricultural sector. For all intents and purposes, he was to the majority of Iranians, the figure of a national hero, the new founding father of Iran in the modern age, who carried on his aging shoulders the promise for democracy and true independence – he was to many the “Iranian George Washington."

After taking office in 1951 as Prime Minister, Mossadegh led the National Front’s campaign to nationalize Iran’s oil industry by sponsoring nationalization bills passed by Parliament in March 1951. The Oil Nationalization Act received Imperial assent on 1 May 1951. This act of “hostility” as perceived through the British lens quickly resulted in mayhem. Oil production came to a standstill as British technicians left the country en masse, damaging refineries on departure. Britain moved aggressively and took a series of steps to penalize Iran. An embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil as well as a ban on exporting goods to Iran were soon put in place, as were measures to freeze Iranian sterling assets. Britain mobilized its navy and paratroopers as a show of military might and Iran was placed under increased pressure to abandon its nationalization plans 

1.3. Showcase Before the World: Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (United Kingdom v. Iran)

In Autumn 1951 with the case before the ICJ being litigated, the British government attempted to increase the mounting international pressure on Iran by concurrently bringing the case before the Security Council

The Iranians found the Security Council referral most peculiar, questioning if a dispute between a private oil company and Iran – what should have been a purely domestic matter

Finally on July 22, 1952 by a 9-5 vote, the ICJ declared that the 1933 agreement could not constitute a treaty between the two states as the UK claimed, but merely a concessionary contract between a private company and the government of Iran to which the UK was not a party. The court declared it lacked jurisdiction – as contended by Iran – to rule on the merits of the case.

As a clearly visible exhausted Prime Minister Mossadegh walked through the halls of the Peace Palace, having just successfully defended Iran’s position, there was little room for celebrations. Perhaps he intuitively knew Iran’s difficulties were far from over. History was to prove such intuitions well founded.

Apart from growing British discontentment with the turn of events, the embargoes and the drastic reduction in oil output had placed extreme pressure on Iran’s economy, thereby triggering domestic divisions. Furthermore, frustrated by Iranian resilience, Westminister Palace became convinced that Mossadegh posed a direct threat to British interests and had to be removed. As with Teymourtash decades earlier, Mossadegh presented as an obstacle to British interests and ‘had’ to be neutralized. A resort to the British Intelligence Service was made, yet an attempted coup was uncovered and bore no fruit. In retaliation, the Iranian government severed diplomatic ties (November 1, 1952). Anxious about what losing Iranian oil would mean for the British navy and economy, Winston Churchill, by then prime minister, lobbied the Americans to commit the deed. 


In reply to by Yellow_Snow

merlinfire Slack Jack Tue, 05/08/2018 - 14:01 Permalink

There's tons of ruins and ancient locations in Israel.  You can see part of the old walls in Jerusalem.  There's also places from ancient Israel that the Crusader States restored or further enshrined.  And there are some old locations that, because they were equally revered by Jew and Muslim, have survived to modern day.  Joseph's Tomb.  Also the Tomb of the Patriarchs.  Yours is one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories I have ever seen online, bar none.

In reply to by Slack Jack

Muh Raf Hugh_Jorgan Tue, 05/08/2018 - 12:42 Permalink

The majority of world leaders don't oppress other nations, just their own. The zionist owned US is fairly unique in modern world history in this regard, especially given the fact that Jooz orchestrated both WW1 and WW2, not to mention the Russian Revolution (check out Jacob Schiff's death bed confession of putting up USD17m to finance the overthrow of the Christian Russian Czarist regime), the overthrow of the Ottoman regime etc etc etc ad nauseum

In reply to by Hugh_Jorgan

Conscious Reviver Bill of Rights Tue, 05/08/2018 - 10:02 Permalink

"LMAO!...his wife owned Heinz, or at least inherited it...Kerry is just sleeping n the same bed is all, dumb ass."

Yeah right arrogant, stupid, zionist? Dumb ass. Look into what happened to the guy who was sleeping there before HorseFace moved in. You know, the patriot? Sen. John Heinz? The guy the whole thing belonged to? He could of had a cushy existance, but he took his job too seriously for some. In ancient times, when an army subdued a wealthy province, the winners would place one of their own in charge and force the dead rulers widow and wealth to go to the new boss. It's a mafia maneuver. Sound familiar? 

In reply to by Bill of Rights

lucitanian GlassHouse101 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 11:18 Permalink

It won't happen so fast, but it will happen, parallel is the loss of credibility in US in any negotiations. The Paris accord, spent months bending over backwards to compromise with US demands, to be thrown out a few years later by the US, yet again, the 5+! GCPOA agreement was also held back by complications submitted by the US, which again breaks the agreement reached, soon after. It is not important if you agree or disagree with the terms of these agreements, or feel that a better agreement could have been reached, etc.. What matters is that they both categorically prove that agreements reached with the US government authorities are of no value to the international community, and therefore their promises on debt, trade, or anything are useless. This is disastrous for a government that pretends to be a global leader; disastrous for their foreign policy, their trade, and therefore eventually for their economy, and thus their internal political and social structure.

The demise of the dollar and eclipse of the US as a leading global power is clear. 

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov - And it is obviously not far off, given the degree of incompetence shown recently not only on the part of the US but also by all the major western powers, most of whom have to a great extent been acting as vassals of Washington up till now (especially Germany and the UK).

In reply to by GlassHouse101

Hugh_Jorgan Yellow_Snow Tue, 05/08/2018 - 11:24 Permalink

Now or later, it makes no difference. Iran will not accept the status quo in the Middle East (and they have a point in many areas). All they lacked was funding, some technology and a big backer. Technology was already there and allowed to be so by the West. Once 0Bama and Lurch bent over, the sanctions were lifted-> everything gained back has gone into rapid missile and covert nuclear development, proven. They have their backer: Russia.

It's a bad situation all around, both sides are to blame for the current state of things; but sit by and wait for it to happen on Iran's terms? Not going to happen.

In reply to by Yellow_Snow

lucitanian Hugh_Jorgan Tue, 05/08/2018 - 11:44 Permalink

" everything gained back has gone into rapid missile and covert nuclear development, proven. "

Are you really pretending Iran has no right to missile defence, or that the Netenyahu show and tell was some kind of "proof".

As far as nuclear developments are concerned the IAEA is the single global authority, if you are interested in proof, and they are categorical that Iran, which is under the strictest inspections, probably in the world, is in compliance with NPT, and their agreements beyond. And Iran has every right to develop missiles or procure defence systems especially being threatened by a proven nuclear armed proliferator like Israel.

" both sides are to blame " - balls!

In reply to by Hugh_Jorgan

I Am Jack's Ma… lester1 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 09:43 Permalink

Israel has hundreds of nukes and refuses to sign the NPT.  

Iran has none

Iranians are in Syria at the invitation of its government to defend Syrians from the mostly foreign terror proxies supported by the US, Saudis, and Israelis.


When I give up the right to do something that it is my right to do, and the quid pro quo is you agree to give me money YOU ALREADY OWED ME, I’d say you got the better deal.


Meanwhile, it wasn’t Iran that tried for 2.5 hours to sink an American ship to lie us into a war they had started.


Israel did.


And it wasn’t Iranians caught celebrating 9/11 and arrested in vans with boxcutters, fake passports and trace explosives:


That was Israeli Jews.



It isn’t Iran that has REPEATEDLY bombed schools, hospitals, power stations, water treatment facilities - again, that’s Israel.


And it wasn’t Iran that stole nuclear material from the United States...



How many nukes does Israel have? 

And are any prepositioned in the US to blame on Iran?



Will Israel pull another false flag to lie us into another war?


From the King David Hotel bombing, to Lavon Affair, to USS Liberty, to 9/11...


it’s Israel that’s murdered people and tried to pin it on Arabs/Muslims.



In reply to by lester1