That’s a strange way to describe an agreement that forced Iran to reduce its uranium stockpile by roughly 98%, cap enrichment at 3.67%, remove thousands of centrifuges, ship most of its enriched uranium out of the country, and submit to extensive international inspections.
Iran already had a nuclear program before the JCPOA. The deal didn’t create one, it restricted one.
As for the “cash and concessions,” the concession was sanctions relief. That’s how negotiations work. In exchange, Iran accepted restrictions, inspections, monitoring, stockpile limits, and enrichment limits. Calling that a giveaway ignores the other half of the agreement.
What you’re conveniently leaving out is that after the convicted felon tore up the JCPOA, the restrictions disappeared. Iran was then able to enrich uranium to levels far closer to weapons grade than would ever have been permitted under the agreement. If the objective was to limit Iran’s nuclear program, withdrawing from the deal accomplished the opposite.
The irony is that you’re praising a deal that reportedly seeks restrictions on enrichment, uranium stockpiles, and inspections, the same basic framework that already existed under the JCPOA. Had the convicted felon not torn up that agreement, there would have been no need to spend billions of taxpayer dollars, kill American Service members, wound hundreds of American service members, have capabilities of multiple military installations destroyed, and disrupt oil distribution around the world.
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to defend going back to an agreement we already had.