Israel is very much behind this fiasco, that's for sure. It's sort of a 'small intelligent dog leading its not-so-smart owner on a leash' situation. Who is actually taking who for a walk?
If someone steals $20 from your wallet and then hands it to you, did he just give you $20 of his own money? If it's still too complicated for you, US is the thief in this scenario and Iran is the victim.
Iran is NO victim. They have been and still are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Now they are destablizing other parts of the middle east to cause more mayhem.... Even their own ppl have had enough of the regime. And some of you want to let them stay in power? Seriously....
Unlike the US allies Saudis, who have never sponsored terrorism. 9/11, Yemen...never happened. But I get it, since they're your allies, they're free to do whatever they want. If the other guys does the same, he's the villain. That's some Fox News logic right there.
Perhaps one could be interested in conveying the truth and still be concerned about Iran's destabilizing efforts and terrorism sponsorship? The truth is that unlike @Palindrome falsely asserted, Obama didn't "give" Iran $4B (it was actually $1.7 billion but if you're making shit up why not embellish, right?), the U.S. returned their own money that we had frozen as part of an agreement to reduce their nuclear threat. That's a fact, and no amount of evil on the part of Iran changes that from being a fact. I'd caution that you not conflate my or @d08's attempts to maintain a fact based dialog with the idea that we somehow want Iran to stay as it is. In fact, you'll find that when you feel the need to make shit up to support your position it makes your argument weaker rather than stronger, most intelligent people stop listening to you when you're clearly fabricating support for your argument. So let's all agree that Iran does some bad stuff, none of us supports that bad stuff. There are a variety of ways to deal with that which smart well meaning people can disagree on. Some of us thought that freezing large parts of Iran's nuclear program and starting dialog with them was worth a try given that the alternative policy of the past 40 years has failed to accomplish anything other than making them a hostile nuclear state. You may disagree, and if you put together some cogent reasoning for another alternative I'd love to hear it. But "Iran bad, Obama bad, Obama gave the $4B in 2015 and THEN they started a civil war in Syria (that actually started in 2011)" isn't a cogent argument or even really a coherent one. Perhaps we can agree on that as well?
Seriously is right, so we get to decide who does and doesn't stay in power? See how that's worked out in Cuba for the last 60 years Mr Southbeach.