I think you're oversimplifying what happened with the Iran deal. The argument against the JCPOA was never just that Iran was violating it in 2018. The bigger criticism was that it didn't actually end Iran's nuclear ambitions. It delayed them while allowing Iran to keep enrichment capability, it didn't deal with ballistic missiles and included sunset provisions where major restrictions eventually expired. So saying "Iran was completely out of the nuke game" isn't really accurate. The deal put limits on the program, but it didn't eliminate the program. And the claim that opposition to the deal was only because Obama negotiated it ignores the fact that there were serious objections from Republicans, Israel, several Arab states and a number of security experts long before Trump pulled out. As for Iran not being close to a bomb, that's a separate debate. But if Iran was truly no threat and nowhere near nuclear capability, then why has the IAEA spent years raising concerns about uranium enrichment levels, stockpiles and reduced cooperation from Iran? You can argue the JCPOA was the best available option, but claiming Iran was "completely out of the nuke game" and that the only reason anyone opposed the deal was because of Obama isn't supported by the facts.
Create an account or sign in to comment