Comment by YZF

Trump promised he would end the deal and he ended the deal. Why is that "madman ripped up that deal"?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-kept-his...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-ir...

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/trump-...

Many including Trump have long said the deal was a terrible deal. You can disagree with that (and you'd be wrong) but I'm not sure how we get from that to your statements.

Enough evidence? What sort of evidence are you looking for? Can you provide evidence for your claims?

EDIT: Also can you prove that we are looking to get the "same deal" we used to have?

The JCPOA was set to expire on 18 October 2025 after which Iran would not have any limits on pursuing their nuclear program. Are you suggesting the US is seeking a deal now that Iran would pause their nuclear program until 2025? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal#Expiration

EDIT2: The JCPOA:

- Kept the Iranian regime in power with massive capital influx resulting in horrendous human rights abuse and 10's of thousands of deaths.

- Was being violate by the Iranians. Iran had nuclear sites at Turquzabad, Varamin, and Marivan, which they hid from the IAEA (something that was discovered after Israel stole documents about the Iranian nuclear program). Iran hasn't declared those sites and generally refused access to them for years after the fact. When the sites were eventually inspected years later (in 2020) there was evidence of undeclared nuclear material. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291#:~:text=Iran%20...

- Was time bound and didn't address many other issues.

- Trump said he would withdraw from the agreement. That was his election promise. Trump also said on multiple occasions (and in fact it had been US policy forever) that Iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Any rational person adding would agree that the US attack on Iran is in line with its long standing policy. They would also agree that Iran had no other reason for the amount of highly enriched Uranium they amassed other than the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. So I'm not seeing the irrationality here. Ofcourse if your position is that Iran should have nuclear weapons, should oppress their people, and should use proxies to attack others then from your perspective this is an unwelcome development. It's still rational though.