Maybe they could have but that would have been a great thing to build upon.
But hearing interviews and reading the words of those who hammered out the deal, their primary concern was restricting Iranian nuclear progress.
That was the âyesâ that they were working towards. Everything else was ancillary.
I know that was their intended goal. Which is fine. But it was not the only dangerous threat from Iran. And certainly was not even the most immediate threat. My point is they needed to have been addressing these other points as well. Trust needed to be two-way. No more supporting groups that kill allies. Sanction relief should have come at a heavier cost for them.
Lol this sauce is crazy weak.
Damn youâre right. Obama should have let Iran get some nukes.
This calls for a fact check.
The deal did lift some sanctions, which lifted a freeze on Iranâs assets that were held largely in foreign, not U.S., banks. And, to be clear, the money that was unfrozen belonged to Iran. It had only been made inaccessible by sanctions aimed at crippling the countryâs nuclear program.
Secondly, $150 billion is a high-end estimate of the total that was freed up after some sanctions were lifted. U.S. Treasury Department estimates put the number at about $50 billion in âusable liquid assets,â according to 2015 testimony from Adam Szubin, acting under secretary of treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence.
Donât bother. Itâs been discussed over and over and the only people who repeat the talking point have Obama Derangement Syndrom.
You do know the Iranians were giving the Iraqis money and materials to kill US troops?
Giving up getting nukes which makes you invasion proof is a pretty big cost.
Bomb bomb bomb
Bomb bomb Iran
Remember how war hungry cons were back in the day
If Obama was wrong, then so was Trump.
So this argument helps youâŚhow?
if you are testing for intellectual integrity ⌠the consistency in responses to the same accusation ⌠donât set your bar to high. In other words⌠there is zero, zilch, nada to be found.
The subject is not that the Iran deal was bad for the US, which it was, but that Iran was allegedly offering the exact same bouties on US soldiers that Russia is allegedly offereing, and yet this was not a big stopping point to prevent giving them more money to do even more of it.
Only now are the same people who were silent then outraged over this sort of thing.
Again, its about Trump, not bounties.
Iran continued killing Americans before, during, and after the agreement.
âSo recuasse Obama entered a deal with Iran that means its fine for Trump to side with RussiaâŚâ
What a stupid leap of illogic. But thatâs how libs roll.
âValidated claimsâ? When were they validated? How were they validated?
âValidatedâ appears to be the reversed side of âdebunkedâ. They both mean, I donât have to explain because I cant.
Reposted for posterity. 
They werenât given money to do even more of it. They had sanctions which had their assets frozen removed to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon. But I agree with all the conservatives here, we should have just let Iran get nukes.
Yep shouldâve let Iran get nukes I agree
I didnât believe that anyone alive actually trusted Iran to keep their promise, you proved me wrong.
Uhh, the nuclear deal has built in verification they are abiding by it. It has nothing to do with âtrustâ. But I agree, 5 years after that article, we should have let Iran get nukes
