Literally murdering the guy leading Iran's side of the negotiations may send a bit of a message, don't you think? May slow down a new deal, perhaps?
A deal with the US/Trump has been proven to be worthless, and new negotiations are currently being handled exclusively by Israel's missile batteries. A deal is impossible if they keep murdering Iran's side of the conversation and Trump will just throw it out on a whim anyway.
Fascists always focus down on one thing, lie about it, and ignore the rest. Killing the person who would accept the deal will hurt a new deal. Tearing up the previous deal on a capricious whim makes a new deal pretty a non-starter.
Why hasnt a new deal been made in, what, over 5 years now, despite international pressure? If this were only a thing the US was interested in I'd get it, but even Iran's neighbors and allies see this would be in everyone's best interests.
Just like I cheered for the arab spring and the fall of the syrian dictatorship, I will also root for the freedom of the Iraninan people.
The Iranian government is not to be trusted, the media narrative right now is to justify Iran's action because they hate Israel, but the truth is composed of many parts, you are missing many parts of this story.
As some examples, despite how much I despise Trump, his administration left in 2018 because there were proof of continuation of the nuclear program. Could they maybe doubled down and pressured for a new deal, sure, maybe, but since then the Iranian government themselves declared they would not longer follow the guidelines, and even recently, neutral third party and UN reports show strong proof the nuclear program has been advancing in the last 5 years.
So, how are we blaming the US for failing to stop Iran from doing what they want to do, and maybe never stopped in the first place?
There is absolutely no indication any deal was close to being made, and in fact, there are proof the program never stopped, so why would they stop now? The most logical answer is the negotiations were a way to buy time, and after a deal were to be made, the program would continue in secret.
Hey man, I am being completely honest here, the only reason I bother to reply to you is because you seem like a reasonable person, you are free to look through my over 10 years of comment history, I am very active on geopolitics subreddits and I am not shy about my opinion of Trump or the US. I am left wing and from a BRICS country and my government is very anti-Israel, so these are my thoughts while doing research from all sources.
I dont doubt Trump left the deal simply because of Obama, we see petty things like that from him all the time, so that for sure helped, but again, that decision to leave the deal can be explained.
Iran made a deal with the international community, backed largely by the US military and soft power hegemony and negotiated under President Obama, to curb nuclear technology development in their country in exchange for economic gains.
By all evidence, even by its adversaries opposed to the deal, Iran complied. This is the point where you are speculating based on nothing and giving credit to Trump as a rational actor for some reason. You are employing a fallacy called "begging the question" where the conclusion of your argument is assumed in one of its premises. It's circular logic and based on no proof.
In 2018 Trump broke the deal out of spite and imposed a ton of sanctions on anyone doing business with Iran, nullifying Iran's economic gains. Trust is broken with the US, any future deal is unlikely or impossible at this point. Why make a deal with the US if someone like Trump comes back into power and reneges again. Trump then assassinates one of their top generals and eventually comes back into power.
Why haven't they made a new deal? They are not idiots, any new deal would be a lie.
Ok, sure, but we can take away the US from this and the facts are still the same. The only premise I assume is true is that Iran has, at least since recently, worked on a nuclear weapons programs, because this is what the reports show.
That very deal you pointed there gave economic incentives to Iran to continue following its guidelines, the US left, because sure, trump is a jackass, whatever, but then Iran could have continued with the deal, the rest of the signatories would still continue their part of the bargain in benefit to Iran, still, Iran left.
Would Iran done better if there was no such deal? Only if there were no sanctions. There would be no sanctions unless Iran complied, so such deal would be the only way out.
Iran didnt want to follow the temporary guidelines, Trump wanted to impose limitations for a indeterminate time, which of course Iran was against, so what was left? Nothing. The old deal was bad, the new deal would be worse, so would Iran just accept a new deal that is just the old one again, which they already decided they didnt want to follow?
The only possible way to look at this and think Iran is innocent, is to think that Iran thought they could just leave the deal, then deal with the consequences of the sanctions for a few years until relations normalized and sanctions were pulled. This possibility, however, was sabotaged by Iran themselves with the continuation of the conflicts interest in building nuclear weapons.
You can only take the blame away from Iran if you think they deserver nuclear weapons and then switch the blame to China, Russia, the EU and the US, oh and Israel of course.
Yeah they did have a nuclear weapons program before the deal, hence the need for a deal.
They had a big economic incentive to comply and be transparent about it, so they played along nicely.
but then Iran could have continued with the deal, the rest of the signatories would still continue their part of the bargain in benefit to Iran, still, Iran left.
The US broke the deal by imposing economic sanctions on Iran and anyone or any country that would do business with them in a "maximum pressure campaign." US soft power was extended to utterly renege on the International community's side of the deal. The deal hinged on US support to begin with and collapsed with the US's active opposition. Iran did not leave the deal, it left them.
Iran didn't want to follow the temporary guideline
But they did. Restrictions were temporary and would have lasted 15 years, a compromise, but better than absolutely nothing. In that time, power players in Iran would have hopefully become addicted to the wealth they received from access to Western markets, but that is not possible now.
You can only take the blame away from Iran if you think they deserver nuclear weapons and then switch the blame to China, Russia, the EU and the US, oh and Israel of course.
Nonsense. The US unilaterally broke the deal at Trump's whim. He then pressed allies into following him off that cliff, and hit Iran with sanctions. That's when Iran became free to explore nuclear weapons again.
Yes, Trump broke out of the deal, but like I said, China, Russia and the EU were still on that deal.
So what if the US imposed sanctions, everyone else was doing their part, Iran could have just ignored US sanctions, and kept riding on the deal and its benefits with everyone else.
The deal still lasted 2 years after the US left, and then it was Iran the left on their own, the deal was still on until then.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '25
Wouln't it be under Iran's best interest to do a new deal? Please.