For the record, I'm not the Iranian regime. Abstract references to nowhere are not solid arguments, so you need to elaborate further. So, let me repeat the question, how did the illegal assassination of Iranian and Iraqi officials contributed to the American foreign policy? Has Iranian influence declined in Iraq?
Not really.
That's like your opinion, though. Meanwhile, Syria is much weaker than in 2011 and has still failed to control significant portions of her territory. In the meantime, Iran has wasted countless financial and human resources, just for the sake of restoring her ally to the pre-war situation. Not to mention the fact that Timber Sycamore reinforced the cooperation between the Gulf Monarchies, Israel and the US, in the face of a common enemy. And all this achieved with a minimal cost, without even having to set boots on the ground. Your appeal on the civilian dimension is contradictory and unconvincing, as long as you praise Trump for
withdrawing from the deal.
Rejecting empty rhetoric and misleading verbalisms is nowadays considered semantics? Sounds like a post-modernist dystopia. You still have failed to explain how the Iranian government blackmailed its partners. By the way, the rest of the response is also subjective and incoherent. By your logic it can be easily argued that Iran contributed to the stability of the region, by supporting sovereign governments, encouraging the popular struggle against dictatorships and fighting off terrorists and expansionist powers of any kind. It's just empty rhetoric and completely meaningless in a debate about foreign policy. The last sentence is more relevant, but a compromise between Iran and the US can benefit the US, as well. That's less certain for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and etc., but why should their interests be a priority for the White House at the expense of American goals? After 35 years of strategic incoherence, a preliminary agreement, imperfect though it is, is a breakthrough in what was otherwise a never-ending confrontation.
*Not sure how the UK is relevant, Britain has been a non-factor since the 1950s, even Oman and Qatar are more important than London these days.
Nice jab, but I was never actually a supporter of the deal, because the unreliability of one of the signatories had already been well-established, given its previous history of rogue behaviour.
Correction that leads to the complete dismissal of your example is not pedantry.