No. of Recommendations: 13
Why are you retorting a disingenuous troll of a poster boy for cognitive dissonance and willful thumb-to-the-eyeing type?
Because it's a good way to find out what arguments are circulating among the right-wing supporters of the Administration. If the Administration ends up cutting a deal with Iran - and it looks like they're really focusing on that as an exit ramp out of the war rather than unconditional surrender - it will present a real dilemma for Trump's base. The cognitive dissonance you noted. They believe that the JCPOA was a terrible deal because even though its terms were great, Iran could never be trusted to honor them. But now they'll have to support a deal that regardless of its terms will have the same problem, namely that Iran will have to be trusted to follow future commitments.
I'm very curious to understand how (or whether) Trump's base is going to square that circle. If they can't, it's kind of bad news for us all. Trump likes to make decisions (in part) by floating trial balloons and proposals and seeing how they are received by his base (and how they plan on television). So if his base is able to decide that we've always been at war with Eastasia, and that while Iran could not be trusted to honor the JCPOA they can be relied on to follow this new deal, then it means we've got a possible path out of this morass. But if there isn't an argument circulating out there that lets them get there, we're in real trouble.
That's why I'm curious whether Dope's got a response to this point - apart from assuming something fanciful like the existing regime abdicating in favor of Pahlavi (not as President, they'd have to make him Supreme Leader for it to matter). I was slightly hopeful when he was mentioning the "It's the traitorous Democrats' fault" argument, because that was a sign that maybe the base was trying that out as a way of coming to terms with a bad deal without blaming Trump. But that doesn't seem to be getting much traction....
