IIUC, there were expiration/sunset provisions built in, but those served more as signals for renegotiation than turning Iran loose.
And for what it's worth, I think bombing the crap out of them and killing a bunch of Iranian citizens including an entire school of young girls probably puts us at more of a disadvantage at the negotiating table. Trump's public rants on Truth Social threatening to bomb them to kingdom come and calling them dumb bastards probably doesn't help either.
I don't know the answer the original question, but I do wonder if the actions Trump has taken has made it more or less likely Iran is able to build a nuclear weapon to potentially use it. If the JCPOA had remained in tact would we have been better off long term?
The JCPOA was never a long-term solution. Under the terms at the time, Iran would have eventually been back to building a nuke, anyway. The purpose of the JCPOA was just to buy time.
IIUC, there were expiration/sunset provisions built in, but those served more as signals for renegotiation than turning Iran loose.
I think the strategy on Iran has always been kicking the can down the road (whether with bribes or bombs), all the while hoping that regime change will somehow happen.
I don't know the answer the original question, but I do wonder if the actions Trump has taken has made it more or less likely Iran is able to build a nuclear weapon to potentially use it. If the JCPOA had remained in tact would we have been better off long term?
JCPOA simply legitimized Iran's nuclear intentions with supposed limitations and guardrails. Limitations began expiring in 2025 and were legally going to sunset significantly in 2030, after Iran was allowed to develop nuclear capabilities.
The bigger problem was Iran's transparency with IAEA inspectors. That's been a long-time problem and one that frankly, isn't unique to Iran.
I don't know the answer the original question, but I do wonder if the actions Trump has taken has made it more or less likely Iran is able to build a nuclear weapon to potentially use it. If the JCPOA had remained in tact would we have been better off long term?
The JCPOA was never a long-term solution. Under the terms at the time, Iran would have eventually been back to building a nuke, anyway. The purpose of the JCPOA was just to buy time.
IIUC, there were expiration/sunset provisions built in, but those served more as signals for renegotiation than turning Iran loose.
Renegotiation? As you get closer to those dates, Iran has all of the leverage. Reasonable negotiations were never a realistic expectation.
I don’t. I think they’d use it fully knowing they’d be nuked in return.gets a nuke that they won’t use it?
I don't know the answer the original question, but I do wonder if the actions Trump has taken has made it more or less likely Iran is able to build a nuclear weapon to potentially use it. If the JCPOA had remained in tact would we have been better off long term?
The JCPOA was never a long-term solution. Under the terms at the time, Iran would have eventually been back to building a nuke, anyway. The purpose of the JCPOA was just to buy time.
IIUC, there were expiration/sunset provisions built in, but those served more as signals for renegotiation than turning Iran loose.
Renegotiation? As you get closer to those dates, Iran has all of the leverage. Reasonable negotiations were never a realistic expectation.
The dates were meaningless. Nobody is ever going to allow this regime to have a nuke. Once the time came around, either they'd renegotiate, or we'd do what we did this year, and bomb them to hell.
lol. I thought I had seen all the language slight-of-hand there was after 55 years of lawyering but I have never seen “signal for renegotiation” as a substitute for a sunset clause or end of a contract.
A for creativity. F for effectiveness.
The dates were meaningless. Nobody is ever going to allow this regime to have a nuke. Once the time came around, either they'd renegotiate, or we'd do what we did this year, and bomb them to hell.
While probable, you could argue that this tactic became more difficult the longer we waited. Iran was arming themselves and their regional proxies for a long time and had we chosen to do this strike a decade ago, it likely would have been a quicker and less expensive similar, or even superior, result.
If we had waited another five years, it certainly wouldn't have gotten better.
gets a nuke that they won’t use it?
Maybe, maybe not. The probability of a nuclear war would increase though. That's undeniable.
However, whether they use or not the entire equation in the region would change. Iran would further develop their military and weapon capabilities and have control over 20% of the world oil. And at that point there isn't a damn thing the U.S. or anyone could do about it. Whining about Trump trying to stop Iran's from getting nuclear weapons has been one of the dumber criticisms of him.
Getting rid of the JCPOA was just 1 of a long line of dumb decisions by Trump.
Him trying and failing to get us back to where we were isn't a win.
I don't know the answer the original question, but I do wonder if the actions Trump has taken has made it more or less likely Iran is able to build a nuclear weapon to potentially use it. If the JCPOA had remained in tact would we have been better off long term?
The JCPOA was never a long-term solution. Under the terms at the time, Iran would have eventually been back to building a nuke, anyway. The purpose of the JCPOA was just to buy time.
IIUC, there were expiration/sunset provisions built in, but those served more as signals for renegotiation than turning Iran loose.
Renegotiation? As you get closer to those dates, Iran has all of the leverage. Reasonable negotiations were never a realistic expectation.
Especially given the clown we have in white house who thinks negotiating is making threats on social media
lol. I thought I had seen all the language slight-of-hand there was after 55 years of lawyering but I have never seen “signal for renegotiation” as a substitute for a sunset clause or end of a contract.
A for creativity. F for effectiveness.
Except that I didn't do any such substitution.
You need to adjust your Prevagen dosage.
lol. I thought I had seen all the language slight-of-hand there was after 55 years of lawyering but I have never seen “signal for renegotiation” as a substitute for a sunset clause or end of a contract.
A for creativity. F for effectiveness.
You obviously haven't spent much time around a sales team.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
lol. I thought I had seen all the language slight-of-hand there was after 55 years of lawyering but I have never seen “signal for renegotiation” as a substitute for a sunset clause or end of a contract.
A for creativity. F for effectiveness.
You obviously haven't spent much time around a sales team.
I have. Half the time they aren't even speaking English. Some kind of business school gobbledygook.