[mupuff1234]

Maybe because signing a new deal is better for your country and your people?

Like what's the worst case scenario that happens to iran if they just signed a new deal? How would it have been any worse than the current situation?

The deal doesn't even require a high level of trust - worst case they just go back to the previous situation. Making a deal only has an upside, even without trust.

Just like employment at will - and yet having a job is better than no job in most cases.

[hardbass]

Yes of course but you are forgetting Iran needs to arm itself to the teeth before the new deal, so that when American does dealy things during the deal they are repelled. Just like the last few times America did a "peace deal" with Iran and then started dropping bomb deals upon them.

[mupuff1234]

And what in the deal will stop them? It's a deal about nuclear capabilities - the previous deal certainly didn't prevent their conventional armament.

[hardbass]

What is a deal? I think its a matter of definition. America is in the 9th or 10th day of continually dropping bomb deals unprovoked after setting a peace deal. Under that definition of deal, I think Iran should drop some good deals on some American naval vessels until America stops this stupid war.

I am of course not certain why Iran's armament is of any concern to America. It might be of concern to another country of course, which loves to make America fight its wars.

[defrost]

So why is the US bringing all the drama here then?

Is it really just for a return to the pre-Trump status quo, only this time with the same deal not cosigned by Obama?

[mupuff1234]

Yes, it's as simple as that, Trump just wants his name on the deal.

[carefulfungi]

That's not even enough though. Ask the Canadians who signed the USMCA (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/pr...).

There's zero foundation for trust to uphold an international agreement even between US and its closest allies. Iran has no basis to believe any agreement will be legitimate or upheld.

[mupuff1234]

So again, let's say the agreement doesn't hold - how exactly is that worse than before?

[carefulfungi]

The previous agreement ended with the US killing the Ayatollah and other senior leaders, promoting regime change, and demanding unconditional surrender. Venezuela capitulated to the US and is now under US control. If Iran's leadership's goal is to survive and to maintain control of their country, they're likely to continue hostilities until they re-establish a deterrent. Worked for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

If you believe the US military, Iran has already lost the majority of its capital-intensive armaments and its nuclear program and its senior leadership. This means there are fewer strategic holdings now at risk. Iran knows it can't be effectively invaded. The regime loses control in two scenarios: (1) internal regime change; (2) diplomatic capitulation to US demands. Waiting out at least US mid-terms while continuing to threaten the strait and neighbor's infrastructure is quite possibly Iran's best decision tree path from the point of view of the regime.