Does Bozo want a better deal or a better Iran?

Trump Withdraws U.S. From ‘One-Sided’ Iran Nuclear Deal

President Trump declared on Tuesday that he was pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, unraveling the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and isolating the United States among its Western allies.

“This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” Mr. Trump said at the White House in announcing his decision. 

“It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.”

As the following article explains, it was hoped by O and Kerry that the deal would lead to cooperation between Iran and the US against ISIS and Sunni extremism in general.

But Iran has allied with the Russians and Assad and refused out of hatred to cooperate with the US in any way.

What Trump and those who support this move are looking for is not so much a better deal as a better Iran, a better regime.

But Iran had a better regime in the immediate aftermath of the revolution that got rid of the Shah, a secular and democratic republican regime.

And the Iranian people promptly allied with the radical clergy whose leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, had sponsored the revolution to begin with to overthrow it and put in place the ferociously Shiite, anti-American republic utterly devoted to the destruction of Israel now in place, in which the power of the clergy to impose Islamic religion and law on the country is institutionally guaranteed.

What reason does anybody have to suppose that a collapse of the current regime would be succeeded by something better in the eyes of Israel or the US?

Maybe what would follow would be years of civil war and chaos.

And maybe Bolton, Trump, the Saudis, and the Israelis would be OK with that.

Behind Trump’s Termination of Iran Deal Is Risky Bet That U.S. Can ‘Break the Regime’

Bolton has long wanted regime change, even if it would take a war to do it.

For President Trump and two of the allies he values most — Israel and Saudi Arabia — the problem of the Iranian nuclear accord was not, primarily, about nuclear weapons. 

It was that the deal legitimized and normalized the clerical Iranian government, reopening it to the world economy with oil revenue that financed its adventures in Syria and Iraq, and support of terror groups.

Now, with his announcement Tuesday that he is exiting the Iran deal and will reimpose economic sanctions on the country and firms around the world that do business with it, Mr. Trump is engaged in a grand, highly risky experiment.

Mr. Trump and his Middle East allies are betting they can cut Iran’s economic lifeline and thus “break the regime” by dismantling the deal, as one senior European official described the effort. 

In theory, America’s withdrawal could free Iran to produce as much nuclear material as it wants — what it was doing five years ago, when the world feared it was headed toward a bomb.

But Mr. Trump’s team dismisses that risk: Tehran doesn’t have the economic strength to confront the United States, Israel and the Saudis. 

And Iran knows that any move toward “breakout” to produce a weapon would only provide Israel and the United States with a rationale for taking military action.

. . . .

Exiting the deal, with or without a plan, is fine with the Saudis. 

They see the accord as a dangerous distraction from the real problem of confronting Iran around the region — a problem that the Saudis believe will be solved only by regime change in Iran. 

They have an ally in John R. Bolton, the president’s new national security adviser, who shares that view.

Israel is a more complicated case. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pressed Mr. Trump to abandon an arrangement that he has always detested. 

But Mr. Netanyahu’s own military and intelligence advisers say Israel is far safer with an Iran whose pathway to a bomb is blocked, rather than one that is once again pursuing the ultimate weapon.