Derec
Contributor
It left them with the technical capability to enrich uranium to much higher levels, 60% as of now.Yes, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (the JCPOA) did allow Iran to enrich uranium on its own soil. But the point of the deal wasn’t to stop enrichment entirely; it was to limit it to safe levels (3.67%, below weapons-grade) and impose tight restrictions on how much uranium Iran could stockpile and what kinds of centrifuges they could use. On top of that, the deal put in place the most intrusive inspections regime the IAEA has ever implemented. So no, it wasn’t Obama “giving in”, it was a calculated diplomatic trade-off to stop a nuclear bomb without starting another war.
It also did not address Iran's ballistic missile capabilities nor their funding of terrorist proxies, something that directly led to the 10/7 aggression against Israel, as well as the Houthi takeover of Yemen.
Moreover, it removed sanctions from Iran while only imposing restrictions on its nuclear program for 10 years.
It was a bad deal, and if it really was the best deal Obama could have achieved, then a strike against Iranian nuclear sites then would have probably a better option than a rotten deal like this.
Was it?As for the deal “only lasting 10 years,” that’s not the full story. Different parts of the deal had different expiration dates. Some restrictions were set to expire after 10–15 years, but others, like the IAEA inspections and Iran’s obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, were permanent. Plus, the deal included a “snapback” mechanism to reimpose sanctions if Iran broke the terms. That structure was working, until the U.S. unilaterally pulled out in 2018, breaking the agreement and setting everything on fire.
From 2016, an article discussing how the regime was granted secret exemptions and loopholes.
U.S., others agreed 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal: think tank
In any case, the deal should never have allowed them to have hardened enrichment facilities.
And regardless of any "snapback", the regime got sanction relief and pellets of cash right away in return for a mere promise of not continuing with their nuclear program.
And again, that made it a very bad deal. It was an exercise in appeasement. Had US been more forceful with the regime then, then maybe 10/7 would have been avoided.It’s also true that the JCPOA didn’t cover Iran’s ballistic missile program or its support for militant groups like Hezbollah. That’s because it was intentionally a nuclear-only deal. Critics at the time said it should’ve been broader, but diplomats kept the scope narrow on purpose to make a deal even possible, with the idea that other issues would be addressed separately.
I disagree. The deal was with the legitimate government of Iran, not with the Ayatollah regime that usurped power.Iran wasn’t gifted anything, they got what they were already owed.
The nuance is that it was a bad deal that led us to where we are today.Bottom line: Most of what you said is true, but it’s framed in a way that leaves out all the nuance.
Bought time for what exactly? For the regime to harden the enrichment facilities more? To bury them deeper into mountainsides?The JCPOA was far from perfect, but it effectively curbed Iran’s nuclear weapons development while it was in place. According to every IAEA report, Iran complied with the deal until the U.S. unilaterally pulled out (to own the libs). It didn’t solve every issue, but it bought time, reduced tensions, and kept the nuclear threat in check, which is more than we can say for whatever passes as diplomacy now.
If their nuclear facilities are destroyed, i.e. if Trump doesn't chicken out again, they will not have the capability to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.Israel’s attack on Iran is like kicking a beehive. Sure, for now it might look like things are under control, but what’s the long-term plan? Do you really think Iran will just roll over and accept it? Or is it more likely they’ll double down and accelerate their nuclear weapons development in response? And if they do the latter what's next?
A more limited conflict than a war. I am not proposing boots on the ground. Just B2s dropping a few GBU-57s on Fordow.Draw the USA into direct war with Iran? That's inevitable under Trump, guys not bright at all. Predicable in fact.
Their proxies do a lot of destroying of infidels. More than 1000 were destroyed on 10/7.I have no sympathy for Iran’s leadership, it’s a repressive and aggressive regime. But it’s not suicidal. Iran has consistently avoided direct war with more powerful nations, and contrary to some fear-driven narratives, it doesn’t have a religious mission to destroy infidels. They just use groups that do as a proxy for their agendas.
First step should be to destroy the nuclear enrichment facilities. 60% is way too close for comfort. That would leave US in a much better position to negotiate a more beneficial deal going forward, one that includes funding of terrorists and ballistic missiles.What kind of policies could make groups like Hamas or Hezbollah obsolete? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. and there may well not be one. But if we don’t at least discuss alternatives, we’re left with only one option: “Kill them all.” (again this is not in response to Derec) If that’s your position, just admit it and step aside so that other people can explore other ideas.
Third, long term regime change should be pursued.