The last deal for de-nuclearization already worked, but it was inexplicably terminated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
Intelligence chiefs have testified in front of congress that Iran was following through with it's end of the deal. The US then unilaterally decided to tear up the treaty and put in economic sanctions based on nothing. It's almost as if they want Iran to build nuclear weapons. It's also putting pressure on Europe to pull out of banking and business ties that were built after the embargoes were ended.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/politics/kim-jong-trum...
From the text of the deal itself? All the nuclear restrictions were for "15 years", and some for 10 years. After that? Unclear.
Surprised at the downvotes - read the text for yourself: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-tex... search for 15 years, it's the plain fact of the matter, not some "talking point".
They don't normally have a set end date.
A set end date basically means Iran plans to restart activities on that date without any kind of sanction. There's a reason this deal was so heavily criticized.
>The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitors Iran’s nuclear program under the deal, confirmed in Vienna that Tehran had breached the limit.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-usa/iran-rej...
If you think military provocations and escalations are a sign that sanctions are "working" you're in for a surprise. All it takes is one side to make a little mistake and it escalates quickly and unintentionally.
Trump has emboldened the Iranian military by pulling his punches. Now they assume they can take action without a military response from the US because Trump is not willing to go to war. That logic unfortunately makes war more likely.
Exactly my point. Doesn't mean it's a good deal.
More sanctions won't necessarily produce a better deal. Iran can also have a military response or build a bomb.
You need to let go of the illusion that there was any actual permanent "deal" in place at all. What was in place was a temporary stopgap at best, and Iran would exit from that stopgap with multiple avenues to building nuclear weapons within a year or two after the expiration of its provisions. If the goal was to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, the "deal" didn't accomplish that at all, it merely postponed it. Letting an extremist theocratic regime (and a known sponsor of terrorism) eventually arm itself with nuclear weapons in a powder keg that's the Middle East seems like a terrible deal to me. Much worse deal, in fact, that not doing anything about North Korea for two decades.
Now they have started enriching uranium again, so they are theoretically moving closer to building a bomb. To stop that without Iran's co-operation would require force, so if the West finds a bomb unacceptable the West is on a path to war.
For all your criticism of the deal, you haven't addressed the fundamental question of how this situation is better than the deal. Interpreting Iran's provocations as signs of progress towards negotiations is not convincing.
Or in other words, this was all unnecessary, but some of the damage caused by abandoning a done deal might be reversible.
You do realize that the UK grabbed a tanker first?
Good (for the US) news is, it's working. They're getting ready to negotiate, hence the UK tanker intercepts etc. Weak negotiating position, need bargaining chips. I kind of agree with Lindsey Graham: if you just want nuclear power, there's no need whatsoever to enrich your own uranium. You can buy fuel for reactors from the enriching nations, no problem. I'm sure, given the situation, you could even negotiate the price down to nearly nothing, as well.