You are ignoring the fundamental difference between the JCPOA's goals and the argument here. JCPOA was not a denuclearization agreement, it wasn't even a "no atomic bombs" agreement. All it did was limit centrifuge count, and enrichment density. Iran complying with those was mostly useless for the goal for the goal of preventing them getting an atomic bomb. It was effectively a stalling maneuver, one that would have partially expired last year.

Or it was working, as intel agencies seems to agree on, and set the stage for future agreements and getting Iran on a path of normalization.

Instead Trump ripped it up and then got involved in yet another useless zionist middle eastern war that only seems to have made Iran stronger and further destroying US reputation.

"It was working"

I'm trying to discuss what that means, because I think that's where we are disagreeing.

What does that mean to you?

To me (and it's crafters) the JCPOA "working" meant slowing Iran down temporarily.

Comparing their progress towards building a bomb under and after the agreement? We know they followed the agreement with minor discrepancies, and when sanctions started they started breaking it. With no diplomatic agreement and sanctions in place what should Iran be doing? Might as well build a bomb then.

> Comparing their progress towards building a bomb under and after the agreement?

Well yeah, like I said, it was a stalling maneuver. It slowed things down.

> We know they followed the agreement with minor discrepancies, and when sanctions started they started breaking it. With no diplomatic agreement and sanctions in place what should Iran be doing? Might as well build a bomb then.

Well yeah, they were doing that before and during the JCPOA. Why wouldn't they do it after?