So basically the Obama agreement that Trump trashed. Only now people had to die to get to this point.
which is of course the real kicker, The Gulf states are going to pay for the adventure and deal with an emboldened Iran and their damaged economies and infrastructure. Having US bases in the region has turned from a security guarantee into a disaster, the implications of this are pretty obvious.
The US' limitations in its ability to project power have been exposed. Having American bases in the middle east has been shown to be nothing but a liability for host countries. And Iran has proven that it can withstand anything the US is willing to throw at it, and hit back hard, over a relatively prolonged period.
And Iran has shown that its constitution is strong and power succession is effective even after a massive decapitation strike. There was seemingly zero turmoil, control appears to have been maintained without issue.
And Iran's non nuclear option of controlling the strait has been tested andd shown to be highly effective.
And Iran has gained significant operational experience with its massive stores of drones and missles.
And the US has lost multiple billion dollar intelligence installations in the region.
And Americans have been made aware of the Israel lobby like never before, and Trump is in a very difficult position heading into the midterms.
Also, the idiot in the WH, single handedly turned Iran's many anti-regime citizens to pro-regime and patriotic.
Before the war it felt like the regime was about to collapse, just a matter of time.
Absolutely not. But Trump made two huge mistakes: 1) not imposing the naval blockade from the very start, 2) stopping the military offensive after only roughly a month, when about 50% of the Iranian missile stockpile was still intact. We must resume combat operations, bomb Iran until they are unable to fire back, and use their frozen funds to pay for damages to neighboring countries. It is absurd to offer Iran sanctions relief or "reparations," and makes Trump look incredibly weak.
Other things should also be done in parallel, such as actively hunting down and sinking Iran's "shadow fleet" of vessels, around the world and relentlessly until they are unable to export a single drop of oil by sea. We could also take their bridges and railroads and further deal a huge blow to trade with other nations by land. An invading force isn't needed for any of this.
But hey, at least gasoline prices will go down before the midterms. That's what really matters to the American electorate, right?
(I wish I was joking.)
The current crisis is entirely because Trump trashed that agreement in the first place.
JCPOA was never a permanent solution. Under JCPOA, Iran agreed to temporarily cap enrichment for 15 years until 2030. After which, Iran could enrich freely.
JCPOA had no extension framework, the deal could not be extended without being renegotiated. And Iranian officials refused to agree to permanent enrichment caps, they said the 15-year sunset on enrichment was a non-negotiable.
According to whom? I know there's one country who says Iran is two weeks away from nuclear weapons, but who else?
Former Iranian Majles member Ali Motahari said in an April 24, 2022 interview on ISCA News (Iran) that when Iran began developing its nuclear program, the goal was to build a nuclear bomb. He said that there is no need to beat around the bush, and that the bomb would have been used as a "means of intimidation" in accordance with a Quranic verse about striking "fear in the hearts of the enemies of Allah."
"When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb,” former Iranian politician Ali Motahari told ISCA News. “There is no need to beat around the bush,” he said.
When asked if saying this publicly will negatively affect the ongoing JCPOA negotiations, Motahari answered: "Nobody notices what I am saying."
https://www.memri.org/tv/former-iranian-majles-member-motaha...
Well that's convenient, isn't it.
He wasn't a member at the time of those statements nor did he have any involvement in their nuclear program. That's misleading to say the least.
Ali Motahari—former member of Iran’s Parliament—clarified that the interview dates back to May 2022, when he neither held a parliamentary seat nor any official role in nuclear affairs.[0]
So besides a single guy in Iran, are there official delegations that have concluded Iran was developing nuclear weapons? The US has had two National Intelligence Estimates, which consists of all 18 agencies in the intelligence community, conclude that they were not developing nukes.
0: https://wanaen.com/trump-shares-old-ali-motahari-interview-o...
That said, this:
The US has had two National Intelligence Estimates, which consists of all 18 agencies in the intelligence community, conclude that they were not developing nukes.
You're misreading your own sources. The 2007 NIE and Gabbard's 2025 testimony both describe a nuclear weapons program that Iran "suspended in 2003". They confirm a nuclear weapons program existed, the opposite of what you're claiming.
And you want an official source: the IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s using undeclared material. Then it found Iran in formal non-compliance in June of last year.
"Not building a warhead today" and "never pursued weapons" are different claims, and you swapped one for the other.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-gen...
> IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s
"nuclear program" is not the same as a weapons program and the IAEA sounding alarm bells over policy violations is not a conclusion that Iran is/was on a nuclear warpath.
Even your own source, the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment report, states: "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons."
What's your justification for Iran producing this material, if not for a nuclear weapons program?
Iran has greatly expanded its nuclear program, reduced IAEA monitoring, and undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.
Also, that 2025 unclassified report was released before the June 2025 enrichment numbers I shared; these numbers would have influenced the report, and you dodged the question:
What's your justification for Iran producing 440kg of highly enriched 60% material, in secret deep under a mountain in violation of IAEA agreements, if not for a nuclear weapons program?
The US's own intelligence agencies said they weren't, though.
The U.S. intelligence community said for more than a year that Iran was weeks away from enriching uranium further to bomb grade, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
"That is extremely worrisome but that is not weeks away from having a nuclear weapon and not weeks away from having a nuclear weapon that can be loaded on a nuclear missile," Kimball said.
"My understanding from non-governmental sources and the internal assessment of the (intelligence community) is that they believe it would take several months or more to fashion the highly enriched uranium bomb grade into a nuclear device, and one to two years to manufacture a small light nuclear device," Kimball said.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/23/Tulsi-Gabbard...
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-...
During the time of JCPOA (original, between Iran and the P5+1) inspectors had access to where they wanted to go (sometimes with friction, sure) and were able to place tamper resistant / tamper revealing instrumentation, air filters, and spectrometers - effectively creating a data record that could place a stochastic cap on {enrichment level, volume}.
After Trump ripped up that agreement during his first term, withdrawing from the pact in 2018, that was no longer the case - leading to your linked 2023 statement.
It did.
> at the same time it enriched the nation
It returned some of that nations own money.
> allowed Iran to finance terrorism and ballistic missiles.
Like Russia, Israel, the UsofA, North Korea, et al ?
Balance of Power is a tricky game.
And this fiasco proves that the US can't really do enough militarily if Iran just decides they don't want to abide by a deal/demand. Sure, this war was costly and painful for Iran, but they're coming out of it with better terms than they had before the war.
That is precisely the problem. We have not done enough militarily when we clearly had the upper hand in the first few weeks of the war. We sank their boats, destroyed their planes and anti-aircraft batteries and could freely fly all over the country destroying targets at will. The Trump administration has clearly failed to finish what it started and has left Israel and the GCC countries in a worst position than if it hadn't done anything at all. The "deal" is a pathetic outcome.
We should return to combat operations and finish what we started. This is not about invading the country. It is about neutering the regime so that it can't threaten the region and international waterways. The most important aspect of this is bleeding it dry economically by destroying their ability to export oil. Track and sink the "shadow fleet" anywhere in the world, carpet bomb oil production facilities, and destroy bridges and railways that allow trade by land. Make it clear that any damages caused to neighboring countries will be paid for by Iran using their frozen assets.
If JCPOA was followed by both Iran and the US to the letter, we would face a similar crisis to the one seen today, except around 2031-2035.
What matters is ongoing engagement and monitoring, it's a far more tractable position than standoffs with zero knowledge or interaction.
Claiming "agreements are renegotiated and extended" is hypothetical. What incentive does Iran have to agree to enrichment caps post-2030? Why would Iran give up its strongest negotiating card, its nuclear program?
* Global sanctions relief
* $100-150 billion in frozen assets
* Access to the global oil market
Iran in 2030 under JCPOA already has access to all three. The US already played its best cards to get Iran to agree to JCPOA. The US has little new to offer, other than resumed sanctions.
And with JCPOA and its possible continuation, that was a joint agreement among a number of countries - in the current situation, it’s just the U.S./Israel (+ them trying to impose their will on other countries to go along with any carrots/sticks).
Not turning the country into a parking lot is a rather generous offer.
What's not hypothetical is that, under the deal, they agreed to not enrich until 2030. What's not hypothetical is that Trump abandoned the deal, with nothing to replace it, allowing them to start enriching in 2017 instead.
And if you're going to claim that renegotiation is hypothetical, then you also have to agree that any other possible future outcome, including one in which Iran develops a functional nuclear weapon, is also hypothetical.
And those 13 years would have been plenty of time to extend or renegotiate that agreement.