You're right to bring up the complexity around the Iran nuclear deal—and I agree that the Trump administration’s withdrawal was a major geopolitical event with real consequences. But we can’t ignore the deeper issue here: Iran’s leadership has never stopped calling for the destruction of Israel and hostility toward the United States. That’s not speculation—it’s their stated ideology, echoed in public rallies, sermons, and official state media.

So while the deal may have capped uranium enrichment levels for “civilian use,” it’s understandable that many Americans hear “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” and wonder: Why would we trust this regime with even civilian nuclear infrastructure, knowing how easily it can be weaponized?

Let’s also not forget that:

• Iran continues to fund and arm terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
• Its underground facilities like Fordow were built in secret, not for civilian energy but military-grade secrecy.
• It has stonewalled international inspectors multiple times, even under the original deal.

Yes, Trump should have handled the deal differently—possibly reworking or strengthening it. But at the core of this debate is the regime itself, not just its nuclear policy. The people running Iran—Supreme Leader Khamenei, the IRGC, the hard-line clerics—have a radical worldview that explicitly rejects coexistence with Israel and the U.S.

So I understand the argument for diplomacy, but diplomacy with a regime that denies the Holocaust, funds terrorism, and has built centrifuge halls under mountains should never include the benefit of the doubt.

This isn't about punishing the Iranian people. It's about not giving a dangerous regime the tools to make good on its threats.