this doesn't change what is happenign

Under U.S. law the JCPOA is a non-binding political commitment.[151][152] According to the U.S. State Department, it specifically is not an executive agreement or a treaty.[153] There are widespread incorrect reports that it is an executive agreement.[154][155] In contrast to treaties, which require two-thirds of the Senate to consent to ratification, political commitments require no congressional approval, and are not legally binding as a matter of domestic law (although in some cases they may be binding on the U.S. as a matter of international law).[154][f]

I never claimed it was

of course but the point I;m making is that when Obama chose not to radify it as a treaty he opened it up to the next president revoking it on whim

but ending this deal has caused iran to increase its production of enriched uranium

ok here is my claim

cancelling the iran deal was bad

I'm going to ignore you while I talk to Spader if he wants a source he can have one

oh also not only did trump drop the deal but also put sanctions on them too

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48587347

no the wikipedia page talks about Iran declaring itself out of compliance this year

after the deal was scrapped

"scrapped"

still applies in Europe and elsewhere to my understanding

yes but america dropped it and put sanctions on them. Were they getting money from European countries? I don't actually know.

idk ether

it just mentions the deal included a bunch of other countries none of which had the political motivations to scrap it like the US

again to the best of my knowledge

I mean if they were I wonder if it would be anything close to what they got from america. But not only did america put a dick in their mouth, then they tied them up and put it in their ass too

that's a colorful turn of phrase

what political motivations

different party in power

campaign promise

etc

yea but it was bad is what I'm saying

why

america should have kept the deal

not dogging genuinely curious why you support the deal

lol

because it benefits both parties. the USA can keep Iran harmless (with nukes at least) in order to protect its allies in that area. I think america has sanctions on iran before the deal but that might not be true. Irans government will benefit from the money being returned to them hopefully benefiting the people. Irans people will also probably like america more if we don't fuck them over economically, this leading to progression in that country

hmm

I don;t buy the idea the people ever see a drop of the money but otherwie I'm kinda with you

the sanctions date back to the hostage crisis i think

I don’t care if Iran has nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make the us less safe.

1979-80

Psssst bomb iran even the beach boys agree

Mutually assured destruction still holds

I wouldn't know that far back spader

a lot of trading partners over there salacious cat

@Legalize His citation is that he thinks that Iran are good faith actors.

and we put nukes on planes