by NoLinkToMe | 2026-03-03 01:11:46+00:00
What are you talking about? Completely false and misleading.

> The 'solution' explicitly allowed (by 2031) unlimited enrichment, burying centrifuges, and purchasing unlimited amounts of AD. Then no US admin could have possibly prevented an Iranian nuke.

It was an agreement for 15 years. It doesn't at all 'explicitly allow unlimited enrichment' after the 15 year period. It just means that the JCPOA's limits would drop, and the regular NPT limits would still apply, including monitoring and inspections, which allows civilian but not military enrichment, and allows the US' military options with full transparency as opposed to Iran not letting in any inspections in the almost 8 years since Trump broke the deal.

Plus with this deal you'd have control for 15 years, and a 15 year window to negotiate additional safeguards as you see fit, or resort to military options as they do now. While negotiating this deal you'd have an assurance they aren't and can't build a bomb, and can ramp up pressure, and maintain sincerity to allow the other side of the table to agree to further demands.

Instead Trump threw this control away in 12 years ahead of schedule, removing ALL safeguards for the last 8 years and next 4 years, threw away ALL trust in the US's sincerity to make and keep deals making future deals less likely, and making a military intervention much more likely to be required. It's an absurd idea to have cancelled this deal with the view to control Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, but it makes total sense for a president that wanted to attack Iran later down the line and needed arguments to do so, contrary entirely to what he campaigned on which is that Dems would get into a military conflict with Iran and he wouldn't.

> Once the faction who tried to make an ally of Iran got voted out, JCPOA was going to go.

Absolutely absurd to think Democrats tried to make Iran into an ally. Diplomatic engagement with Iran (which is done by all parties and their enemies, e.g. China, Soviets/Russians etc) is completely different from making a mortal enemy into an ally. Just absurd.

> JCPOA was going to go. Negotiations then failed cuz Iran demanded 20% enrichment which was ridiculous.

Firstly the 20% was prohibited in the JCPOA. I hope I need not spend any further words and the picture is obvious to you now? If it's true that as you claim that, if Iran had accepted 20%, that it would've led to a successful negotiated deal with Trump, how idiotic is Trump then to have thrown away a deal 8 years ago that already capped it at 3.5%?

So if true, your argument makes no sense. But it's not even true. The mediators between US/Iran in the diplomatic talks in the last weeks noted explicitly and clearly that Iran was willing to agree to zero stockpiling and zero accumulation, and converting existing stockpiles into irreversible fuel, and letting in inspectors in full. i.e. zero existential crisis for its neighbours. They weren't willing to give up their drone/missile program, i.e. become a defenseless country ready to be eaten up a few years later with no recourse, i.e. maintain fighting power without being an existential threat to anyone. That's an entirely natural for a sovereign state.

It's entirely reasonable to accept this deal if you want to operate in international law. If you want to rip up an existing deal to prevent a weapon, then refuse another deal to prevent such a weapon, then lie about an imminent threat of nuclear weapons which your own intelligence agencies refute, and then attack illegally under international law with no international support, then yes by all means go for it. But don't think it's not obvious that it's all a big and obvious lie, which you seem to parrot cluelessly.