upvote
> I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago

These are somewhat independent variables. America was open about the fact that we were trying diplomacy before force. Either, one or no sides could have been negotiating in good faith and still wound up here with that setup.

reply
No they weren’t. Trump cancelled the previous treaty and then wanted a new agreement more favorable to the US than JCPOA.

I don’t like the mullah’s in Iran anymore than the next person but no reasonable and sane person would take that to mean “negotiating in good faith.”

reply
> no reasonable and sane person would take that to mean “negotiating in good faith.”

Taken as a whole, Trump has not been negotiating with Iran in good faith. That does not mean that Iran has been negotiating in good faith.

reply
That’s not how life works.

If someone takes the first underhanded step, it’s not on the victim to make amends. Iran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks.

reply
> ran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks

Sure. I think it was probably politically impossible for Iran to negotiate in good faith. That doesn't change that they were not negotiating in good faith.

reply
You’re conflating good faith and acceding to the US’s new demands based on past behavior.
reply
no it doesn't "turn out that". They have a long history of hiding their nuke tech and lying while also issuing death threats to israel. Trust but verify doesn't work with this country.
reply
> Trust but verify doesn't work with this country

I mean, the JCPOA verify seemed pretty well thought out.

reply