ListNook

SilveryDeath 5 days ago +429

[Some of the key points from the Axios article that this article cites:](https://www.axios.com/2026/04/13/iran-uranium-enrichment-moratorium-talks-vance) - The U.S. demand for a moratorium on uranium enrichment was a critical issue in the marathon talks over the weekend. "The United States suggested 20 years at a minimum with all kinds of other restrictions," a source familiar said. - The Iranians countered with a shorter "single digit" period, according to the sources. - The U.S. also asked Iran to remove all highly enriched uranium from the country. The Iranians said they would agreed to a "monitored process of down-blending" it instead, according to the two sources. - **While no agreement has been reached, the Iranians thought they were close to an initial agreement by Sunday morning and were caught off guard by Vice President Vance's press conference. The VP gave no indication a deal was close, blamed the Iranians, and announced the U.S. delegation was leaving Islamabad.** - **"The Iranians were pissed off about that press conference," a source with knowledge said.** - Pakistani, Egyptian and Turkish mediators are now trying to bridge the remaining gaps and reach a deal to end the war before the ceasefire ends on April 21. - "There is continued engagement between the U.S. and Iran and forward motion on trying to get to an agreement," a U.S. official said.

429

jaquesparblue 5 days ago +156

These kind of negotiations never get done in an evening. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan all along.

156

True-Desktective 5 days ago +24

No. I think this was Vance f****** Trump back for being marginalized. I think he watched Veep and took notes.

24

genreprank 5 days ago +3

Maybe market manipulation

3

xnmyl 5 days ago +44

So the key point the US would like is a moratorium on uranium enrichment. Exactly what Iran agreed to in the 2016 deal. The same deal the US reneged on in 2018 Why would Iran believe the US will follow through on this deal after the US unilaterally backed out of the previous deal?

44

BearFacedLie69 5 days ago +132

Buncha f****** morons this administration is

132

Infinite_Click_6589 5 days ago +30

I think it's very important to keep in mind that propaganda efforts have been wild on all sides, but if this turns out to be a faithful accounting of events, just, wow. *If* these were Iran's notable proposals in return to America's demands, and other items like ending free passage weren't the issue, then there's no excuse not to say, "ok, so 12 years and uranium down to 10% with oversight and we're done here". If true, Vance is effectively done and it may even prove enough to take Trump himself down. They walked away from a win for no reason (other than it is a hard line in the sand for Israel). And we may never know what the American side was thinking because the administration isn't keeping proper records.

30

Ughim50 5 days ago +24

Maybe I’m just cynical, but I dont think the US wants to end the war on a compromise. I think they want to be seen as having “won” and entered into the negotiations in bad faith.

24

UncleNedisDead 5 days ago +7

Everything Trump does is in bad faith.

7

Dolthra 5 days ago +8

It doesn't even sound like they actually walked away. It sounds like they're still working on a deal while Trump and JD piss about trying to act strong, likely so when a deal *does* happen they can act like they caused it.

8

Pokemon_Name_Rater 5 days ago +4

And actively pissing off and confusing the Iranian side by playing these games to the point they may be pushed to a more extreme and less receptive position in whatever further negotiations happen behind the scenes.

4

oopsallhuckleberries 5 days ago +26

Why would you be caught off guard, this would only be the third time this administration pulled the rug with them in negotiations.

26

No_Iron_8087 5 days ago +10

I imagine they were expecting either an agreement or the U.S. to commit another war crime, not a limp-d***, spineless press conference

10

Dauntless_Idiot 5 days ago +6

If that's true they are like 80% of the way to a deal. Comparing the 10 and 15 point proposals makes it seem like this is going to be a multi-year war that only ends when Iran can no longer produce drones because it lacks the electricity to produce them. Ultimately, a decent chunk of Americans grew up in the cold war and the words 'nuclear weapons' still scare them. If Iran can credible commit to giving up nuclear weapons then US interest in Iran wanes quickly. Iran only needs them for a weird edge case

6

qwertyalguien 5 days ago +11

Honestly the issue isn't nukes, it's Israel. Iran is their one big adversary, and it's quite obvious that Israel is on an expansionist path. Imho, the true objective is to just balkanize Iran, so Netanyahu can keep eternally at war avoiding his corruption charges.

11

JaVelin-X- 5 days ago +5

This is trump calling every 15 minutes to ask if they've surrendered yet. the negotiators had no choice but to leave

5

BritishAnimator 5 days ago +3

US Diplomacy equates to "We strong, you weak, you give"

3

Antura_V 5 days ago +2

Lol, so f****** close

2

sharplight141 5 days ago +2

So Vance wanted to portray himself making a threat and the Iranians scrambling to make a deal to get them back when they weren't actually leaving at all?

2

Keef--Girgo 5 days ago +3

They clearly didn't say "thank you".

3

Capital-Control308 5 days ago +1196

Obama had a team of professional negotiators and nuclear scientists. It took months if not a year or more to get an agreement. Trump sent his son in-law and a couch f***** and expected a deal in one meeting. It failed before they even got their because they are not serious people . It must be damn near impossible to negotiate with someone while he is f****** the sofa you’re sitting on.

1196

redyellowblue5031 5 days ago +185

Yeah but they “tell it like it is”, that’s worth *something* when the rubber meets the road. Right?…*right*….?

185

Postdiluvian27 5 days ago +68

“I’ll tell it like it is: I feel like I’m in over my head just buying doughnuts, so I’m not sure I’m qualified for delicate bilateral negotiations.”

68

BenjaminHamnett 5 days ago +8

I feel bad for this , cause I’m always like “whatever makes sense” How do you want your steak? “Whatever the chef thinks” etc But that’s why I’d also be delegating to experts on policy and negotiations

8

madhattr999 5 days ago +6

maybe I'm misremembering but.. wasn't his "whatever makes sense" a response to how many he wanted? that's a question a normal person has an answer to..

6

BigDictionEnergy 5 days ago +4

He was buying a dozen and had no idea what kind to get. That was his order. My typical response here is "a random assortment." Either way, it was a photo op, and he was completely unprepared for the most basic part of it.

4

Imaginary_Cow_6379 5 days ago +3

[Haley Joel Osment still did the best JD Vance impression of that moment](https://youtu.be/RXUIN3O905E?si=ME5YAD_zKA3ibT9H)

3

BigDictionEnergy 5 days ago +3

That was hilarious but I did not need to hear that bit about the wallet and the miracle whip...

3

_ficklelilpickle 5 days ago +4

He could have even dressed it up a bit and said “you pick me your best dozen” or something. “12 of your most popular ones.” Anything to flip it back on the worker but show you’ve got a shred of charisma. Nah just hits them with “whatever makes sense”. 🤦‍♂️

4

BigDictionEnergy 5 days ago +3

I mean, I get it, somewhat. I don't like standing there and picking out a dozen like I'm gonna eat all of them anyway. The person behind the counter knows better about what's popular. They give you some basic stuff, maybe some things you wouldn't have picked yourself, but hey, whatever, and people either eat them or they don't. The guy running to be the VP who knew the press would be there and how ruthless the internet is should have had a better dialogue planned out. Nobody's ever accused Vance of being charismatic, but ffs the guy wrote a book. He couldn't plan out a basic human interaction, even throw some jokes in like any other huckster politician would? And this was the smart guy on the ticket.

3

madhattr999 5 days ago +2

If I don't choose them, they always give a couple plain ones or ones nobody likes, to get rid of them. I always choose, even if its for a bunch of people. (I know its off-topic by now but still... )

2

Tacoman404 5 days ago +2

JD Cuckingsworth He already changed his name 3 times might as well change it again

2

uiui 5 days ago +61

You don’t need teams of competent negotiators if you aren’t going to honor whatever has been negotiated.

61

True_Window_9389 5 days ago +17

Right, any “deal” is just a reason to move to the next episode. Trump views everything like a tv show. He doesn’t care what happens in 1 or 10 years. The goal isn’t a real deal that will establish a new relationship. It’s just a way of moving on now and kicking the can to someone else.

17

Adorable-Doughnut609 5 days ago +23

There are no adults. Trump, Vance, Hegseth, Rubio, Kash, etc. I mean who are we sending that can get anything done?

23

Sunny-Chameleon 5 days ago +16

The plane or helicopter pilot didn't crash on the way there, that's gotta be the most competent person in the room

16

madhattr999 5 days ago +17

the helicopter pilot not doing us any favours..

17

Adorable-Doughnut609 5 days ago +3

JD cutting the value of a Yale degree in half singlehanded

3

chris92315 5 days ago +11

And the deal he wanted was the one he unilaterally withdrew from in his first presidency? We truly are in the stupidest timeline.

11

z0rb0r 5 days ago +3

I'd prefer to call him guyliner

3

active2fa 5 days ago +14

It took 18 months -person involved in it

14

BeatNo4548 5 days ago +5

And Israel cried and tried to sabotage it at every turn. They even hacked the computers of the delegates from friendly countries.

5

LeftToaster 5 days ago +8

In the first round of negotiations, before the war, it was lead by Jared Kushner (who has close connections to Iran's rival, Saudi Arabia) and they didn't bring ANY nuclear experts.

8

Yuukiko_ 5 days ago +8

I'd argue they already failed when they bombed Iran twice during two previous negotiations or when Trump ripped up Obama's agreement

8

corndoggeh 5 days ago +4

It took roughly 20 months for the JCPOA to be agreed to and ratified. The attention span of this administration could never hope to achieve the same.

4

drinkduffdry 5 days ago +2

I don't think that span is an applicable word for the attention duration of this administration

2

Katashi90 5 days ago +3

Trump's definition of negotiation is that he gets what he wants. Just look at his approach to tariff the entire world and you know this man only takes but never gives. He expects a net gain in every deal he's making. I remembered their reaction when China walked away from their tariff demands : " They can't do that! They have nothing on us!" That's a reaction of a rich kid bully when the bullied stood up against him, realizing they no longer has a grip over the victims.

3

d1andonly 5 days ago +7

What was the outcome of the negotiations led by Obama’s team?

7

Kenevin 5 days ago +70

Within 12 months, Iran: * Shipped 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium out of the country * Dismantled and removed two-thirds of its centrifuges * Removed the calandria from its heavy water reactor and filled it with concrete * Provided unprecedented access to its nuclear facilities and supply chain

70

Don_Fartalot 5 days ago +26

Thanks, Obama.

26

madhattr999 5 days ago +15

you mean they didn't even blockade or mine the strait?

15

Delamoor 5 days ago +3

How lame, they didn't even massively damage the world economy or the US's reputation.

3

Thybro 5 days ago +27

A workable agreement that international monitors all reported Iran was adhering to until, within a few months of Inauguration, Trump decided to breach it and withdraw from it.

27

BigDictionEnergy 5 days ago +1

What was the outcome of Trump shitting all over that deal? Edit: I guess I'll answer my own question, since the shill above has no response. The outcome is the clusterfuck we are currently experiencing.

1

QuineQuest 5 days ago +2

Shrill? Or a layup to /u/Kenevin ? I think you're seeing ghosts.

2

StevenK71 5 days ago +3

It was planned to fail, so he could get richer betting on the oil price rising..

3

flonnil 5 days ago +2066

i think the problem of these "negotiations" is less the idea of iran giving up nuclear and more the whole US-erraticaly-cosplaying-as-a-rogue-state-and-demanding-personal-asslickings-thing they are doing.

2066

Durzel 5 days ago +797

That’s the root of the problem really. How can anyone negotiate with Trump’s America? He doesn’t even stick to agreements with their purported allies, so what can an adversary expect? The US and Isreal attacked _during_ the last negotiations, and are on record saying that they’ll just keep killing negotiators until they get one that will acquiesce. What sort of foundation is that supposed to be for a treaty or whatever?

797

Scottiths 5 days ago +231

The man doesn't even stick to agreements he himself made. He had that deal with Canada and Mexico in his first term, then in his second he tore it up saying whoever made it was an idiot... At least he was right about that last part... But not because of the contents of the agreement

231

luvinbc 5 days ago +56

Same shit he does with anyone who works for him. Here’s the project price, project finished. Trump well I’m only going to pay you pennies on the dollar. F****** art of the deal.

56

Z3B0 5 days ago +15

Any contractors still willing to work for him should be paid before the work starts. Else, you ain't getting paid.

15

EthanielRain 5 days ago +7

In New York, he'd get charged double with half up front. So they got the full price no matter what

7

busy-warlock 5 days ago +20

He has enough ass hat supporters that he can pull this off though. Why? I… I don’t know… it’s embarrassing

20

RampantPrototyping 5 days ago +9

Im in a red state and know a lot of Trump supporters. Between the Epstein files, trade wars, Iran war/fuel prices, and his comments about the Pope, Im hearing a lot of his previous supporters getting fed up with him

9

Z3B0 5 days ago +18

They are right now. They may even be vocal about it. In November, when they have to vote ? Still straight R down the urn. Because they are angry, but never enough to vote D.

18

RampantPrototyping 5 days ago +8

Well if the special elections are any indicator there might be some hope. The hardliners are a lost cause but there are some more moderate ones who might shift. Not the mention the democrats who sat out 2024

8

Seanspeed 5 days ago +6

The hope is mainly bigger turnout from left leaners and independents rather than depressed Trump supporters. For instance, in the recent Texas Democratic midterm primary, there was more than double the turnout from 2018(the last Trump midterm). And this was not because of some super heated rivalry between Crockett and Talarico, just people motivated to vote in general. But Republican turnout was also up, just not by nearly as much. And if a Republican seat is looking under general threat, expect Republicans to make a pretty huge effort to get Republican voters riled up to turnout, which they probably will.

6

Mathemeatloaf0 5 days ago +195

Israel isn’t interested in negotiations. Netanyahu wants blood and nothing else will suffice. Iran is well aware of this.

195

Educational_Report_9 5 days ago +54

The country that's been endlessly bombing all of it's neighbors is out for blood!? I can't imagine why neighboring countries are actively looking to bolster their defenses.

54

boot2skull 5 days ago +78

“Iran wants nukes” well yes after the current events what sovereign nation wouldn’t?

78

Mean_Neighborhood462 5 days ago +67

Tore up a nuclear deal that was working, then incentivized Iran to acquire nukes.

67

luvinbc 5 days ago +45

All out of spite because it had Obama name on it.

45

Mathemeatloaf0 5 days ago +33

No wonder he’s usually up ranting on social media at 2 in the morning—the man can’t get any sleep with all that Obama Derangement Syndrome on his mind.

33

Tacoman404 5 days ago +10

Because Trump is racist. Remember he was the the highest profile "birther" back in 2012 when he thought Barack Obama was born in Africa. Ask him today, he'll say the same thing.

10

Downunderphilosopher 5 days ago +7

Art of the deal.

7

MelangeBot 5 days ago +10

>all of it's neighbors Only Iran and it's proxies. The Sunni - Israel relationship is actually getting pretty good. So good that Hamas attacked on oct 7 to make the sunnis hate israel more again. Boy did that work out wonderfully. Half the planet hates israel again.

10

gonz4dieg 4 days ago +3

"What kind of braindead moron negotiated this trade deal with canada????" "Mr trump that was you"

3

Chu_Kiddin_Me_Or_Wha 5 days ago +6

Let us not forget Obama already had a deal in place.

6

flonnil 5 days ago +5

well at least their negotioators are not the least likeable grifters on the planet, that sure helps.

5

8spd 5 days ago +3

Just make delivering Trump, and the top people in his administration, to Iran to be processed by their legal system as part of the agreement. They don't have to trust him if they have him in chains. Sure, it'd be better for the US legal system to deal with their criminal acts, but I don't think we can expect non partisan verdicts from the US system, while Iran's is more likely to provide a fair verdict.

3

Gerf93 5 days ago +8

This is just fanfiction. The US has codified that they would invade the Netherlands rather than hand over regular GI war criminals to a neutral, third party, war-crimes tribunal. They would never, in a million years, allow their leaders to stand trial in the courts of an adversary. They would rather let the world burn.

8

8spd 5 days ago +2

It's just as realistic as the Iranians trusting anything the Trump administrations says.

2

appleadamspdx 5 days ago +171

Yup. We’re not engaging with diplomacy in good faith but rather making demands and following that up with missiles and blockades. How far we’ve fallen 🤦‍♀️

171

captHij 5 days ago +98

The last time the US "negotiated" with Iran it was used as a pretext to kill off the country's primary leadership. The idea that Iran would take part in any kind of good faith discussion under these circumstances is a farcical proposition.

98

goosechaser 5 days ago +92

Not to mention they had a comprehensive agreement in place under Obama to address the exact issues they’re now negotiating, and the US unilaterally cancelled that deal on the whim of the current president. Why would they give up long term strategic planning for a deal with a country whose word isn’t worth the paper it’s written on?

92

mgzkk1210 5 days ago +31

That's what Trump does, create a problem that was non-existent, struggle to come up with solutions to said problem which make things worse off for everyone involved, claim credit and on to the next one.

31

Waterwoogem 5 days ago +22

Yeah, People making a bad faith argument that the Agreement made under Obama was flawed. Willfully ignoring the mere concept of very likely followup negotiations when the terms lapsed under it. Negotiations aren't a means for 1 sided Bullying like TrumpCo and others seem to think they are entitled to, they're a means of finding common ground.

22

rockfire 5 days ago +20

News - The rest of the world feels the same way.

20

sewand717 5 days ago +15

Precisely. JCPOA had 15 year guarantees with a strict monitoring protocol. It could have formed the basis of some trust if we had held to it. History teaches lessons, and the lesson of the last 30 years is that those with nukes (North Korea) fare much better than those without (Ukraine, Iran, Libya).

15

Routine_Bit_8184 5 days ago +10

Trump has blown them up during negotiations twice...and that was after his first term with breaking the nuclear deal and drone-striking their head general at an airport and killing him after failing to re-negotiate a deal with Iran. It doesn't matter what you think of Iranians or the leadership there or the region or anything...only a complete f****** moron would make a deal with Trump and actually expect him to keep it.

10

ggouge 5 days ago +3

Gunboat diplomacy

3

Pruzter 5 days ago +3

Unfortunately, war is and always has been/will be a continuation of politics by other means

3

drethnudrib 5 days ago +3

No, the problem is why would Iran give up nukes if Israel and America will attack it anyway? A bad-faith negotiating partner means you go balls to the wall for what they least desire, which is Iran having nukes.

3

Phase3Investor 5 days ago +8

Fact is by law **US Presidents cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran**; they can only temporarily waive sanctions. Lifting sanctions is the minimum demand by Iran, they wont settle for temporary waivers. This was also why the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran had already failed despite Iran's verified compliance - Congress never lifted the sanctions needed to implement the deal. "if the situation is not appreciably better soon, it will be impossible for the US and its partners to argue credibly that they are not in breach of the JCPOA..." THE IRAN NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS: ONE YEAR ON Sir Richard Dalton https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03068374.2016.1225896 And the Iranians had already started to complain https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/iran-nuclear-deal-us-222029 -

8

AlarmedAd5034 5 days ago +9

Found this:: While the president cannot permanently terminate congressional sanctions, Congress has historically written “waiver provisions” into sanctions legislation. These provisions give the president the flexibility to suspend the enforcement of the sanctions, usually for renewable periods of 120 to 180 days, provided the president determines doing so is in the U.S. national interest,. By continually renewing these waivers, a president can grant Iran significant economic relief and faithfully implement international agreements (like the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal) without needing Congress to take affirmative action to permanently lift the laws.

9

Ok-Camp-7285 5 days ago +2

Hmm there's probably a word in German for that

2

mattfryy115 5 days ago +163

Obama literally had this deal in place until 2040… until Trump tore it up (let it expire). F****** idiot.

163

wimpires 5 days ago +57

I think it was 2030, no? 15 years from 2015.

57

BigHandLittleSlap 5 days ago +28

Deals can be extended, especially if they’re mutually beneficial instead of just extortion.

28

MicahGhost 5 days ago +17

No it would start to expire in 2025.

17

TheDarthSnarf 5 days ago +225

The US demanded a whole bunch of stuff... and offered nothing in return other than, "We might possibly consider not bombing you, but no promises." It's no wonder that the "negotiations" did jack.

225

Camtastrophe 5 days ago +39

Just like Russian demands for 'peace' in Ukraine without security gurantees.

39

Original-Rush139 5 days ago +13

Or returning the kids they kidnapped.

13

[deleted] 5 days ago +3

[deleted]

3

Lowfi-Concert 5 days ago +3

No one is nuking Iran. Touch some grass

3

Optimal-Bass3142 5 days ago +107

You can forget about Iran giving up nuclear ambitions. Irans agreement with the US was tossed aside on a whim. They saw what happened in Libya and also see DPRK sitting unpreturbed by the US. Iran's only road away from regime change is through nuclear deterence.

107

Nyther53 5 days ago +34

North Korea isn't sitting unperturbed because of the nukes they were able to develop after decades of stalemate, their situation is dictated by patronage from China. The whole reason North Korea \*exists\* is because China intervened directly to preserve the regime. They were able to develop a nuclear weapons program \*because\* of that protection, they haven't derived protection from the nukes.

34

CryptoThroway8205 5 days ago +16

I don't think China wanted North Korea to have nukes either. No one wants a neighbor to have nukes. There were sanctions on exports from China to North Korea for things like fuel and coal. North Korea just really wanted them. The whole reason why North and South Korea exist as separate countries is because the soviets and the US both raced to take as much of the country as possible at the end of WW2 and then couldn't agree on a way to peacefully reunify the country.

16

CaseOk294 5 days ago +5

A minor correction only on your second paragraph: neither country wanted to afford occupying Korea post ww2. They were both elated when line was drawn at 38th parallel because each thought the other would put the foot down and demand the whole country. For US, it was Japan that controls the NW pacific. For the Soviets, it was China they were more interested, still far less more so than Europe. But that math changed when the communists took over China. For US, now the Korean peninsular is unsinkable assault carrier aimed at heartland of China. For China, it is in their historical tradition to subjugate and pacify Korea; Han, Tang, Jin, Liao, Yuan, Qing, you name it - whenever China was unified it began pacifying nearby ethnicities. Especially Koreans since it can seriously pin down the manchurian nomads. Or pose threats themselves so that China has to divert their focus away from the nothern plains or the western steppes, tibetians, or their internal struggle. The same geopolitical reality holds true today. For China, to have American ally occupy the entirety of Korea is unacceptable like how Russians saw Ukraine as their 'rightful puppet state'. This is not merely personalities like Kims, or Xi acting as unique agents. I doubt this colliding and long lasting geopolitical interest will resolve anytime soon. The only possible outcome I think, of Korean unification is when Chinese politics are in such a disarray that it forces desperate North Korea to come to talks with the South & US.

5

Dapper_Trifle_3678 5 days ago +38

North Korea is actually much less dangerous and aggressive than Iran, nuclear capabilities notwithstanding. Iran has a finger in every single country in the region, and asserts influence over a critical trade route. They developed, produced, and gave Russia the drone technology. North Korea over the past 50 years has been restricted to threats.

38

Aerhyce 5 days ago +6

Also the only reason NK even gets support is because SK is one giant US base.

6

MexicanEssay 5 days ago +8

DPRK is left alone not mainly because of nukes, but because they're China's lackey/experiment. China wants them left alone and no one has enough to gain from doing otherwise to justify royally pissing off China in exchange. Libya and Pakistan are better examples to point at, though.

8

Doppler74 5 days ago +12

Agreed. It also silenced people in Iran who believed they can reach an agreement with West and forget about nuclear weapons. All this war just proved the point of nuclear weapons supporters in Iran.

12

imminatural 5 days ago +2

DPRK can achieve deterence with their artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. They also are China's vassal state, where China will neither let them associate with others nor starve completely, only just a moderate amount.

2

Segull 5 days ago +10

Alternatively, they can see what happened in Libya, they can see what is now happening to their own country. They know they can’t keep it hidden from us. Maybe the best bet to avoid war and the collapse of their government is to NOT have nuclear ambitions? A theocracy of any religion should never be trusted to hold nuclear weapons.

10

nid0 5 days ago +9

> A theocracy of any religion should never be trusted to hold nuclear weapons. You're right about that, but I just don't see the US giving up their stockpile anytime soon.

9

SusAdmin42 5 days ago +4

Correct. But who are we to tell them what to do with their resources? Israel has nukes, so the Iranians probably think they should too.

4

The_Frostweaver 5 days ago +50

Obama's nuclear deal was based in science. It allowed Iran to save face while maintaining strict inspection schedules to make sure Iran wasn't enriching beyond the low limits set in the deal. Obama's nuclear deal did not prevent Iran from sponsoring terrorism but it did stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Trump tore it up and won't admit he cant get a better deal. Then Trump got persuaded by Bibi to go along with this stupid war. So now we have a big expensive mess. Nothing was stopping Trump from re-negotiating Obama's deal to make it more strict or something while leaving it in place during negotiations. Trumps idea of bombing people mid negotiation is not working.

50

QuineQuest 5 days ago +13

> Trump tore it up and won't admit he cant get a better deal. This is the main problem. Trumps level of pride prevents him from accepting a worse deal than Obama's. His level of intelligence prevents him from getting a better deal.

13

The_Frostweaver 5 days ago +5

It's frustrating because the EU and others had also signed on to that nuclear deal with Iran. Trump could have told EU to negotiate a new stricter deal with Iran, laid out a couple of his asks and left them to it. Then EU & Iran present the new slightly stricter Trump Nuclear deal and Trump and his fox news viewers claim it as a huge victory. Everyone could have made it through another Trump admin in one piece if Trump wasn't standing in his own way.

5

MyrrhSlayter 5 days ago +60

Honestly, at this point, anyone who signs a deal with the US should 100% expect to be stabbed in the back. The US Trump admin cannot be trusted any farther than it can be thrown. And the rest of the US government can no longer be trusted after letting Trump absolutely wreck house unstopped for over a year. The world knows that most of our government is compromised by AIPAC and realize they might as well deal with Israel directly. There is ZERO reason for any country to deal with the US in any honest way. They KNOW the US will renege on the deal the second Trump is bribed to do so or as soon as Trump thinks he can get a bigger payday out of it. So there is zero reason for another country to honor any deal it makes with us. The ceasefire with Hamas that the US broke immediately. The recent "ceasefire" by US-Israel that was immediately broken by Israel. They prove the US cannot be trusted and as soon as the US says 'ceasefire' they mean 'stall until we get more troops into place to break it ourselves...gee I sure hope people keep falling for this one trick!". Trump just gave the US's place in the world to China. Maybe their 5000 years of learning how not to let idiots wreck the government will be a more stable and steady hand to chart the course of the world into the future. And the US can go through the growing pains every new country does because they're too god-damn dumb to read history and learn from other's mistakes.

60

washag 5 days ago +4

The one thing you haven't said is that we don't trust your voters as a whole. From the outside looking in, it was obvious that Trump being elected (either time) would be disastrous to the country and the world. Exactly how events would unfold wasn't known, but it was obvious that electing an openly corrupt, openly dishonest, entitled, incompetent fool could only result in a series of bad decisions being made, yet your voters did it anyway. Every country has its gullible fools and single issue voters who'd sell the country down the river to get the one thing they want, or just dip their snouts in the trough, so I can somewhat reconcile the idiocy of Trump's voters. But a third of your voters looked at a binary choice between Trump and Clinton/Harris and thought the difference between what they'd do in office wasn't important enough to go out and vote. Granted Clinton and Harris had issues as candidates, but come on. If you didn't vote in the last election, I hope there's an afterlife... just so the great figures of American democracy through history can spit in your face the way you spat in theirs.

4

Embarrassed_Quit_450 5 days ago +27

>Trump just gave the US's place in the world to China. Maybe their 5000 years of learning how not to let idiots wreck the government will be a more stable and steady hand to chart the course of the world into the future. Democracies rely entirely on the people being able to make smart choices. Decades of propaganda and gutting education led the US where they are. And fixing that will also take decades.

27

Exciting-Emu-3324 5 days ago +2

5000 years is being generous. China always has this period of chaos between dynasties. They recently had Mao, their own cult leader who implemented disastrous policies outside his expertise that led to millions dying of starvation. Of course, at least China had the excuse of civil war and Japan invading. America had an economy that was the envy of the world.

2

BritishAnimator 5 days ago +2

Hence why all your political elite are screwing the markets with insider knowledge. It's every man and woman for themselves before it implodes. Even Pelosi is doing it and she has one foot in the grave.

2

Delamoor 5 days ago +3

I find it amazing that anyone is still talking about Pelosi, given the insane corruption going on in the current administration. Is she even still alive? It's like people still complaining about Soros, just some overdone f****** talking point people keep parroting as reality's moved on. She wouldn't even be top 40 in Trump's admin. Let alone congress.

3

Leverkaas2516 5 days ago +11

I doubt if the number of years makes any real difference. Even if an agreement is signed, the US has a long and consistent history of breaking these agreements within a handful of years.

11

GreenFox1505 5 days ago +16

Ukraine gave up USSR's nuclear arsenal on the promise of protection. Trump's first impeachment was due to delaying sending Ukraine protection. Trump tore up the Iran nuclear deal. Trump has made it clear: if you want to protect yourself, you need nuclear weapons. No alliance will protect you. Have nuclear weapons or get invaded.

16

jimicus 5 days ago +4

Isn't that basically the agreement that Obama negotiated, except with Trump's signature at the bottom?

4

peacefinder 5 days ago +4

Wasn’t impermanence the main objection to the JCPOA?

4

xnmyl 5 days ago +2

It certainly was an issue pundits complained about, but it had no bearing on Trump tossing the deal since he did so well before any major provisions would have expired

2

Fritzo2162 5 days ago +11

"US demands everything from the Obama agreement."

11

Playswithchipmunks 5 days ago +2

So, Obama's deal?

2

zoppaTheDim 4 days ago +2

Trump refuses to stick to any treaty that he didn’t negotiate. Why would anyone agree to multiple decades of occupation that way?

2

adrr 5 days ago +6

Iran is going to get nukes now. Since we killed their leadership, their new leadership knows the only way to stop Israel or the US from dropping a bomb on them and their family is to get nuclear weapons.

6

Typingdude3 5 days ago +14

Not an unreasonable demand, considering the terrorist regime in Iran supports terror cells throughout the Middle East and the world. Imagine one with a nuke?

14

TheSleepyTruth 5 days ago +14

And if Iran gets nukes, Saudi will demand them too. This entire region is unstable AF and should not have nukes. People seem to think nukes arent a big deal. And they're right, its not a big deal... until it is. And then the world ends because some unhinged regime got the nukes that everyone shrugged off and said weren't worth fussing over. People look at the relative stability of the decades past and assume the future will look the same regardless of who develops nukes... word of caution re complacency bias

14

goforbroke71 5 days ago +4

Iran should have nuclear inspections along with Israel. It should be a package deal. One country in the area with a questionable number of nukes is not stable. If the world could rely on nuclear and strong military nations not to be assholes things would be fine. Now Trumps actions have shown that everyone needs to defend themselves or they will be bullied militarily or economically.

4

WhitePawn00 5 days ago +9

It's not hard to imagine a terrorist state with nukes. Just look at Israel.

9

cannonman1863 5 days ago +5

That's why it was completely foolish of Trump to get rid of the last nuclear treaty in his first administration.

5

Shotinthelight26 5 days ago +13

Iran was still enriching uranium to the point they could build a bomb. They're not trustworthy at all and have stated governmental ambitious to destroy many countries

13

CryptoThroway8205 5 days ago +7

This enrichment happened after JCPOA sanctions were not renewed right?

7

Jmacattack626 5 days ago +6

Under the prior nuclear deal, their enrichment was monitored and limited. They could only use specific first generation centrifuges and were only allowed a limited stockpile of 300 kg of Uranium enriched to 3.67% That's not usable for a nuclear weapon. They didn't start enrichment to higher levels until after Trump revoked the deal. Iran was being monitored and following the agreement. It was Netanyahu claiming otherwise without evidence.

6

goosechaser 5 days ago +7

Exactly. It's almost like it was an incredibly complex situation that required a comprehensive agreement instead of a bombing campaign that would only highlight their need for nukes in the first place.

7

lo0ilo0ilo0i 5 days ago +6

Iran could really throw a curve ball here and ask for the Obama negotiation team only or say that the Obama administration were much better negotiators.

6

Gr8daze 5 days ago +4

Obama’s deal had a 25 year moratorium.

4

thecreep 5 days ago +7

Taking the long way around to get a worse deal, is a level of 4D chess my tiny brain can't comprehend.

7

PictureIndividual 5 days ago +10

Americans should also give up there nukes they have a crazy president with mental issues

10

Unlucky_Accountant71 5 days ago +6

IRGC wet dreams

6

Kwiemakala 5 days ago +8

Crazy president with mental issues who is a convicted felon and therefore cannot possess a firearm. But is perfectly fine to have nuclear codes, apparently.

8

Nostradumbass_WEEN 5 days ago +2

Kick the can down the road... what a truly trumpian victory. Such a strong and powerful stable genius.

2

Big_Cauliflower1415 5 days ago +4

sooooo the Obama agreement they ripped up before all this started????

4

Raul_Duke_1755 5 days ago +8

Why doesn't Iran just promise to build new factories in the US and donate to the Presidential Library. Then just do the donation and problems solved.

8

Smartimess 5 days ago +9

The orange idiot had all that with the fully functioning Obama deal that he ripped apart because of his narcissistic sociopathy and racism. I swear his voters are the dumbest people on this planet.

9

ID_Poobaru 5 days ago +4

That’s because they are the dumbest people on this planet

4

AXEL312 5 days ago +4

That’s because they are the stupidest people on the planet

4

Prestigious-Fig-7143 5 days ago +3

So… he trashes the deal obama made, which would have put 10-15 year limits on enrichment, etc. this gives iran every reason in the workd to go full steam ahead with weapon development. Now that they are much closer, now that iran has the entire global economy, now that the us has likely killed thousands of innocent people and wasted billions of dollars, trump is pushing for something marginally better than what obama had negotiated without a single bomb being dropped…

3

IntrepidWeird9719 5 days ago +4

The US had acquired a 15 yr moratorium on uranium enrichment from Iran with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The deal took 2 years of negotiation preparation and 2 years of negotiations. The deal was finalized on July, 2024 and took effect 2016. The deal was agreed to by China, France, Russia , UK, US, Germany and Iran. Trump withdrew fron the deal in 2018.

4

appleadamspdx 5 days ago +8

Seems like every time the US tries to stop a nuclear program it ends in undesirable ways. See North Korea, India, Pakistan

8

MikeSifoda 5 days ago +5

IRAN SIGNED THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY LONG AGO!! Iran's facilities have been open to public scrutiny the whole time!! It's Israel that refused to sign the treaty and also refuse public scrutiny. Both them and the US have nuclear weapons and demand that no one else does. Until all countries are open to public scrutiny and agree to get rid of their nuclear arsenals, EVERY country has the right to develop, build and maintain a nuclear arsenal. Nothing short of that would be fair.

5

PlainBread 5 days ago +2

The USA cannot regain credibility without cutting off Israel, and even then it's going to take 20 years.

2

Jack-Innoff 5 days ago +3

No. The US has shown that every country in the world should be working towards obtaining nuclear deterrent. So next time they try some shit like this, the country in question can just say 🖕.

3

petit_cochon 5 days ago +2

We HAD a nuclear agreement with Iran. It was working. But because Obama's administration accomplished it, Trump couldn't stand it, so now here we are, bleeding money to yet another stupid, illegal "conflict" in the Middle East instead of actually fixing real problems.

2

Avocadonot 5 days ago +2

If its true that Iran countered with a reduced but still multi year moratorium, then that means the war is officially over. They showed weakness

2

jaxs_sax 5 days ago +2

It could be 1 year or eternity, it’ll just go in one ear and out the other with Iran

2

nickhere6262 5 days ago +2

VA officials also discussed trying to stop DOGE’s termination of a contract that provides technical help to the office assisting homeless veterans, among about four dozen contracts that DOGE and VA Secretary Douglas A. Collins approved for cancellation.

2

Knees0ck 5 days ago +2

Why, so they can get accused of "2 weeks away from nukes" in a couple of years again?

2

Packagedpackage 5 days ago +1

We don’t need it.. useless. Stop being the worlds police

1

Curmudgeonadjacent 5 days ago +4

The 2013 agreement the Obama administration negotiated did that to 2040 (27 years). Trump killed the agreement in 2018. He’s is such a loser.

4

njman100 5 days ago +1

Trump 💩is a Demented Little man

1

wimpires 5 days ago +3

Lmao, the JCPOA managed to negotiate 15 years. Id would be absolutely hilarious if they manage to get 15 years or less because that's just what Obama had. Thought, to be fair, those 15 years would have been up in 4 years time. So Iran's "single digit" request might be that - to put it back in line with what they had initially agreed on. And technically anything more than 5 years Trump could argue is better than Obama's deal.

3

swentech 5 days ago +1

Trump figured he’d be dead by then and it’ll be someone else’s problem.

1

Candid_Cat_5921 5 days ago +1

The US should enter a lucrative agreement where the US builds/maintains/runs nuclear power plants in Iran, and in return Iran doesn’t operate any of their own. Even better if Iran can pay the US for electricity/nuclear medicine so it’s harder for the US to just shut them down.

1

Loki-L 5 days ago +1

Given the crack team that is negotiating on the behalf of the US, I wouldn't get my hopes up, that they achieve anything. They might end up handing Iran an US nuke to stop them from making their own.

1

Wermys 5 days ago +1

So you start a war, with your goal of permanently stopping them form getting nuclear weapons. Then change it to twenty years. Never mind the fact Obama Agreement did this, got ore refined uranium out. Reduced the amount of centerfuges. Trump has cost the American people at least around 200 Billion with this f****** stunt of incompetency. And that isn't counting future ripples economically which he already was causing inflation with his assine illegal tariffs that were finally ruled unconstitutional. F*** my life why can't we have a competent president. I miss Obama.

1

MD90__ 4 days ago +1

it's always a resource war

1

US demanded 20-year moratorium on uranium enrichment from Iran in negotiations - Media

💬 Send a Message

176 Comments