No, that's a non sequitur. I wouldn't even agree with it in any case. Then you close with a bulverism.
It argues that the Nobel committee saw in the results of Obama's presidency a failure to live up to the award they gave him prematurely as to that point he'd done nothing warranting it. If he had lived up to their expectations, they wouldn't have the regrets they do.
Puts the nation first
Is decisive and can act regardless of popular opinion to do something that must be done.
Isn't prone to corruption and favoritism
Is not looking to grow government and in particular, the social-welfare state.
That turned out to be an utter and complete disaster.
It will increase the risk of war and terrorism in the Middle East.
www.hoover.org
Why Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal Was a Disaster and Trump Was Right to Kill It
barmogal.substack.com
As war erupts between Israel and Iran, experts revisit the 2015 nuclear deal, arguing that sanctions relief, sunset clauses, and unchec - JFeed Israel News
www.jfeed.com
The New York Times Magazine profile of Ben Rhodes contends that the administration “largely manufactured” a dishonest narrative about the diplomacy surrounding the Iran nuclear deal in order to win public support for the agreement. But the core claims of official deception around the Iran deal...
www.brookings.edu
Essentially, what Obama did was ask Iran to end development of a nuclear weapon, rid itself of the materials to do so, and agree to not pursue one in the future. To do this he sweetened the pot with frozen Iranian assets--give the Iranians a bribe. The whole of this deal was in part cooked up by Joe Biden, easily the most incompetent foreign policy person you could have.
To sell it to the US public and Congress, Obama said it was this deal or war with Iran. That wasn't the case, but that was how he tried to sell it. Congress wasn't buying that and ratification didn't happen. To the extent he could, Obama went forward with the deal. Iran--and we now know it to be a fact--simply hid their program better while dumping portions of it that were expendable or obsolete. They were even handed the cash to do that, unknowingly, by Obama.
They were, and are, building a large commercial sized heavy water reactor for example. This is an uneconomic method to produce electrical power, and they claim it is for "research." But that too is a canard since a large heavy water reactor is extremely expensive to construct and unnecessary for research purposes. It does however have high utility in producing plutonium as a biproduct of operation--something necessary for mass production of nuclear weapons.
www.bbc.com
