|
Lot of simplistic, one sided views.
The deal was struck the way it could not stand in the long term. The Islamic republic of Iran (this is the official name) has a lot of disturbing things in its charter alone. One would need to understand the meaning of treaty in Islam to be able to interpret such deal, a treaty is only valid as long as it's convenient for the Islamic party, as long as the Islamic party is not strong enough, in a position to break it.
Don't confuse Iran (as a historically Persian territory and people) with the Islamic republic of Iran. The deal was struck with the Islamic republic of Iran. The Islamic republic of Iran (Islamic theocracy) is not a reliable partner, its only (and a major) value is as a counter force to the Sunni expansionism.
One of the primary reasons for the recent riots and protests in Iran (which were of course completely omitted and downplayed by our mainstream media not to "offend" the Islamic regime) was that the actual population of Iran saw exactly zero from the funds that were released by the Obama regime. It certainly helped to strenghten the regime and its armed forces, and make any prospect of change way less likely though.
|