IAEA inspectors were in Iran when Trump pulled out of the JCPOA in 2017. They remained in Iran as the regime enriched uranium to 60+%. They were in Iran when we attacked in June 2025.
How did "Iran may allow IAEA inspectors at some point again" become a victory?
Everyone will have their take on the deal.
Mine is kinda what you'd expect.
1. Trump caved. The early-May naval attempt to break the closure of Hormuz -- Project Freedom -- could have worked. He didn't give it a chance.
2. He may nevertheless have done the right thing from an American perspective. On the larger chessboard, the one where America is curtailing Chinese lines of influence and supply on all fronts, he's gotten everything he needs. Iran's nuclear program is also set back dramatically. And worrying about gas prices come November is an extremely valid concern for an American president.
As I argued back in February, the US and Israel weren't fighting the same war. Roughly 80% of each side's war overlapped with the other's. But toward the end, their interests would diverge and America would bow out.
And so it was.
3. Israel remains in the region, Hezbollah remains ensconced in Lebanon and committed to murdering us all, Iran remains the same muqawama regime it always was, committed to mass-murder and mass-sacrifice of its own people. The decades-long war between the muqawama ideology and the Jews of Israel continues.
4. Israelis owe the United States a vast and abiding debt of gratitude for what it has done to Iran's missile and nuclear programs. That this finished on America's timetable rather than ours, that it was doing it for its own interests and not ours, these don't diminish the fact that we received from America more than we had a right to ask for.
5. And still, #3 remains true. We fight on. Because that regime is undeterrable, actually wants to destroy us all, and like the Nasserist ideology that once sent army after army at us to destroy us, will require a few more wars and perhaps another decade or two to defeat completely.
6. The new IRGC military dictatorship now in charge in Iran is built to survive catastrophe. But not to govern, reform or build anything of value.
Some commentators on the deal have suggested that the most damaging thing you could do to the Iranian regime at this point is send it back to its embittered people to try to govern the peace.
I think they might be onto something. It'd be a much safer and happier and more peaceful region if the regime falls from within and a new and better day dawns for the long-suffering people of Iran.
@nobarany@Tom_Rowsell True. I am not advocating for the approach. I just speculated that this could be a reason. However, the nature of the challenges and the solutions to them are going to be different. This could impact the final impact on the personality.
There is no source attached to the claim and I have zero knowledge about this person's relationship with his daughter. However, there is a different angle to look at this. If you remove the safety net for your children and they know every decision that they make, they have to own the consequences and they are the sole person responsible for their future (in this case only financial) it will result in a different character and personality. I can think of it as the last lesson a parent can teach their kid (I have no kids and I could be very wrong here)
According to President Trump's new standard, if al-Qaeda or Iran were to target Washington with "only" a few drones or missiles, and nobody was killed or injured, America should stand down and sign a deal with the aggressor. That approach will not bring peace to the region, including Lebanon and Israel. It risks teaching every side the same lesson: rearm, regroup, and prepare for the next round. A pause is not peace if everyone is simply loading more weapons for tomorrow.
@EfrnSss@PaulSkallas You might be correct but then he has posts like this: https://t.co/APe5SOqyfB
He gives the impression that he is an expert on Iranian and their culture. I grow up in Iran and I don't think I have a good understanding myself yet but he seems more confidant than me
Iranians are a land people. They always have been. They spread their culture to their neighbors. The religions come and go. but the land remains the same. They are not a diaspora people. When iranians leave iran they never keep their language or religion and they end up marrying out quickly. Iranians dont have cultural software that Mediterranean groups or arabs have to keep their culture alive in other lands.
The land must be defended by every inhabitant, woman and children included.
I disagree. He makes conclusions and without knowing the context he shouldn't make conclusions.
He says there is no sign of unrest and use it as a signal for the support of people of the regime. He can only do the first part if he wants to talk about the second part he needs to consider the context and situation
یا واقعیت را میبینیم، مطابق آن تصمیم میگیریم و عمل میکنیم ؛ یا باید و شاید و اگر در میآوریم، همه را شماتت کرده، فحاشی میکنیم و نهایتا دیگران را ناامید کرده و خودمان در ناامیدی غوطهور میشویم.
واقعیت اینست که جوان ایرانی برای نبرد و کشتن و کشته شدن تربیت نشده. برخلاف مادران فلسطینی، مادران ایرانی سرباز بدنیا نیاوردند وسرباز تربیت نکردند.
واقعیت اینست که یک شبه نمی توان به چریک و کماندو بدل شد.
واقعیت اینست که دشمن ما قاتلانی پرورده که جنایت و تجاوز و کشتار مایه افتخارشان است.
اینجا بود که ما فهمیدیم بدون کمک خارجی از پس این جنایتکاران علیه بشریت بر نمی آییم و این هیچ جای شرمندگی ندارد، واقعیت محض است.
ما با صدای بلند از جامعه جهانی کمک خواستیم و هیچکس به کمک ما نیامد مگر اسراییل و امریکا.
بدون کمک آنها خامنه ای هنوز زنده بود و پسر بی همه چیزش محو نشده بود.
بدون کمک خارجی، حکومت همچنان در حال پول پارو کردن و غارت ثروت ما بود.
بجای فرمان قیام دادن به یک ملت در بند،
بجای اینکه از خارج دستور این میدهید که به هیچکس
امید نباید داشت و بجای رواج ناامیدی، واقعیات را همانگونه که هستند ببینید و برای آن حل بیاندیشید.