An Iranian Political Prisoner Said This About Obama and October 7...and CNN Panicked

This is CNN!!

BAHHAHAAAA


An Iranian Political Prisoner Said This About Obama and October 7...and CNN Panicked

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...point-n2672423


Kian Tajbakhsh appeared on CNN last night to discuss the Iranian operation. It wasn’t confrontational like Scott Jennings, Kevin O’Leary, or Ben Ferguson; he simply presented facts. He should know, as a former political prisoner. We discussed how liberals are trying to frame Operation Epic Fury as a new endless war, but it’s not new: Iran has considered itself at war with the United States since the Iranian Revolution. Tajbakhsh was present when officials stated this—we’ve been at war with the Islamic Republic since 1979.


What he later said about the failed Obama-led Iran Nuclear Deal is what caused CNN to cut to commercial, and you can see why. Tajbakhsh plainly stated how flawed the Obama administration’s logic was with this negotiation, and how giving this regime, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, billions might have led to the October 7 attacks. The fingerprints are all over it—the “straight line” as he said before, host Abby Phillip pulled the plug:


https://x.com/overton_news/status/20...point-n2672423

TAJBAKHSH: “What happened with President Obama, I’ll just say this very quickly.”


“And I was in the State Department in the 2000s when we implored the Bush administration not to restrict the engagement with Iran simply to the nuclear file.”


“What happened with president Obama is that, for better or worse — and I’m not going to litigate that here — he decided that given the four big problems that have always been on American objectives with Iran, that is enrichment, ballistic missiles, proxies and democracy inside Iran, that he would put all the last three aside and focus only on the nuclear deal.”


“Now, I’m not going to say that was good or bad. I don’t think it was a great idea, but what we have seen and this is also maybe controversial and I think a lot of my liberal friends are going to hate me for this…”


“Is that unfortunately you can draw a straight line from the 2015 nuclear deal to October 7th.”


“I think that what the Trump administration is—”


PHILLIP: “We…we…we do have to go to a break here.”


TAJBAKHSH: “Okay.”



Yes, cut to commercial, pop smoke, run away—this is CNN.


Operation Epic Fury has proven what a failure the Obama nuke deal was, how naïve his officials were, and how negotiating with insane people is always going to fail. You don’t need experience and degrees to know that the Iranians were never to be trusted. The Democrats—who are elite in always being wrong on foreign policy matters—got played here. Obama’s signature domestic achievement—Obamacare—is a mess. Now, his foreign policy gem has been shattered. And in the process, might have subsidized the Hamas attack on Israel.


You can see why CNN would want to flee from that segment.


Editor's Note: For decades, former presidents have been all talk and no action. Now, Donald Trump is eliminating the threat from Iran once and for all.

there is no direct connection between the Obama nuclear deal and Oct 7. here's why:

Thesis: The October 7 Hamas attack was not caused by the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal. At most, critics can argue for an indirect, background connection through Iran’s broader regional role, but that is different from showing the JCPOA was a real cause of the attack.

Argument 1: The JCPOA addressed Iran’s nuclear program, not its proxy relationships.
The deal left U.S. sanctions tied to terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles in place. That means the agreement did not authorize or normalize Iranian support for Hamas; it was aimed at constraining Iran’s nuclear activity. So the claim that October 7 “came from the deal” starts with a category mistake.

Argument 2: Iran–Hamas ties long predated the 2015 deal.
Iran’s support for Hamas was not invented by the JCPOA. The relationship was already longstanding, which weakens any argument that the nuclear deal newly created the capability or intent behind October 7. Even if Iran backed Hamas, that does not show the 2015 agreement was the decisive cause.

Argument 3: The more direct causes were Hamas’s own planning and operational deception.
Reuters reported that Hamas carried out a careful deception campaign and planned the assault over a long period, catching Israel off guard. That points toward proximate causes such as Hamas’s strategy, training, secrecy, and Israeli intelligence failure, rather than an eight-year-old diplomatic agreement.

Argument 4: U.S. officials did not initially say Iran directly ordered the attack.
Early reporting after October 7 said the United States saw Iran as broadly complicit because of its long support for Hamas, but had no direct evidence at that stage that Iran directed or was operationally involved in the attack itself. If direct Iranian direction was not established, the case that the JCPOA specifically caused the attack becomes even harder to sustain.

Argument 5: Hamas had multiple financing channels besides any hypothetical sanctions-relief spillover.
Treasury actions after October 7 described Hamas as using secret investment portfolios, financial facilitators, sham charities, and virtual-currency-related channels. That makes the causal story more complicated than “Iran got relief under the deal, therefore Hamas carried out October 7.” Hamas had broader and more durable funding mechanisms.

October 7 was driven primarily by Hamas’s own long-term planning, ideology, and existing support networks, not by the Obama nuclear deal. The JCPOA may be invoked as part of a broader critique of Iran policy, but that is a political argument, not a demonstrated causal explanation of the attack.

part of the cause of October 7, ironically, is Netanyahu's policies themselves. he actually prefers Hamas over the Palestinian Authority, because he can say, "you want me to make a deal with these animals? hell naw." and who could blame him?

there is no direct connection between the Obama nuclear deal and Oct 7. here's why:

Thesis: The October 7 Hamas attack was not caused by the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal. At most, critics can argue for an indirect, background connection through Iran’s broader regional role, but that is different from showing the JCPOA was a real cause of the attack.

Argument 1: The JCPOA addressed Iran’s nuclear program, not its proxy relationships.
The deal left U.S. sanctions tied to terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles in place. That means the agreement did not authorize or normalize Iranian support for Hamas; it was aimed at constraining Iran’s nuclear activity. So the claim that October 7 “came from the deal” starts with a category mistake.

Argument 2: Iran–Hamas ties long predated the 2015 deal.
Iran’s support for Hamas was not invented by the JCPOA. The relationship was already longstanding, which weakens any argument that the nuclear deal newly created the capability or intent behind October 7. Even if Iran backed Hamas, that does not show the 2015 agreement was the decisive cause.

Argument 3: The more direct causes were Hamas’s own planning and operational deception.
Reuters reported that Hamas carried out a careful deception campaign and planned the assault over a long period, catching Israel off guard. That points toward proximate causes such as Hamas’s strategy, training, secrecy, and Israeli intelligence failure, rather than an eight-year-old diplomatic agreement.

Argument 4: U.S. officials did not initially say Iran directly ordered the attack.
Early reporting after October 7 said the United States saw Iran as broadly complicit because of its long support for Hamas, but had no direct evidence at that stage that Iran directed or was operationally involved in the attack itself. If direct Iranian direction was not established, the case that the JCPOA specifically caused the attack becomes even harder to sustain.

Argument 5: Hamas had multiple financing channels besides any hypothetical sanctions-relief spillover.
Treasury actions after October 7 described Hamas as using secret investment portfolios, financial facilitators, sham charities, and virtual-currency-related channels. That makes the causal story more complicated than “Iran got relief under the deal, therefore Hamas carried out October 7.” Hamas had broader and more durable funding mechanisms.

October 7 was driven primarily by Hamas’s own long-term planning, ideology, and existing support networks, not by the Obama nuclear deal. The JCPOA may be invoked as part of a broader critique of Iran policy, but that is a political argument, not a demonstrated causal explanation of the attack.

part of the cause of October 7, ironically, is Netanyahu's policies themselves. he actually prefers Hamas over the Palestinian Authority, because he can say, "you want me to make a deal with these animals? hell naw." and who could blame him? Originally Posted by pxmcc

i'll counter your AI report with my own


Whether a direct connection exists between the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas is a subject of intense debate among policymakers and experts, with arguments focusing on the fungibility of money and long-term regional strategy.



Arguments Against a Direct Connection

• Fund Allocation: The Obama-era deal involved unlocking Iranian assets that were frozen abroad, not U.S. taxpayer money. Supporters argue these funds were used for economic relief and internal projects, and the deal specifically did not address, nor was it intended to fund, proxy groups.
• Timing and Withdrawal: The U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, and the deal was considered "defunct" or severely weakened by 2023.
• Funding Independence: Iran has provided financial and military support to Hamas for decades, long before the 2015 deal, largely through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Arguments for a Structural/Indirect Connection

• Increased Resources: Critics argue that the lifting of sanctions under the JCPOA (and subsequent sanctions waivers) allowed Iran to boost its overall budget, thereby providing more resources to its "Axis of Resistance," including Hamas and Hezbollah.
• Regional Ambitions: While the deal capped nuclear advancements, it did not restrict Iran's ballistic missile program or its funding of proxy groups, allowing Iran to strengthen its conventional capabilities in the region.
• "Economic Windfall": Critics contend that the financial influx in 2015-2016 provided the Iranian regime with the cash flow necessary to expand its regional influence and proxy support networks.

Conclusion
While no concrete, direct evidence has been produced publicly showing that specific funds released under the Obama-era deal were used for the October 7 attacks, the debate centers on whether the deal economically empowered Iran, thereby facilitating its long-term support for groups like Hamas.

so no direct connection. possibly a weak indirect connection. fair enough..

part of the reason we're in this war is Trump pulled out of Iran nuclear deal, which was working as intended. Obama should have told Trump that he could rename it the Trump nuclear deal. same with Trumpcare..

so no direct connection. possibly a weak indirect connection. fair enough..

part of the reason we're in this war is Trump pulled out of Iran nuclear deal, which was working as intended. Obama should have told Trump that he could rename it the Trump nuclear deal. same with Trumpcare.. Originally Posted by pxmcc

there is a direct connection. unless you think Iran didn't use one cent of the billions Obama released to them to finance HAMAS. that cash was part of Obama's deal. ask yourself why it was given in cash? No don't bother with the sanctions prevented it claim. those were OUR sanctions to begin with so why can't we send that money by transfer? Iran wanted cash for a reason and Obama obliged them.



I'm sure HAMAS does have bank accounts somewhere but wire transfers leave a trail. Cash does not. and what's still the best cash to have? US Dollars. exactly what Obama gave them.


Obama's deal was a fraud designed to allow Iran to develop weapons. the supervision was satellite photos and external surveillance cameras that showed nothing about what was really going on. Iran could have been holding satanic human sacrifices in these facilities and we'd never know it.

Lock him up… ahem.

Err…

SNICK

The money that Obama gave back to Iran was Iran's money that was being held in escrow while the trade embargo was being enforced. Waco, you actually found those enrichment charts that Lustylad posted a few years back. Those charts show that Iran had enriched up to 20% U-235. The JCPOA agreement allowed Iran to keep 5% enriched Uranium for heating homes and office buildings. The other 15% Iran had to sell off. In return for lowering the amount of enriched Uranium , Iran got back their money that was being held in Escrow and the trade embargo was lifted.

That was a good deal for the USA and six other countries that signed it. No one is going to Invade Iran for having just 5% enriched Uranium, Not even Trump. Iran was able to go from 5% to 60% enriched Uranium because Trump got out of the agreement in 2018 during his first term. This gave Iran 8 years to start Enriching again. The Iran guest does not give all of the facts. PXMCC is correct the Obama/Iran nuke deal JCPOA was working as intended until Trump took the USA out it. Trump's own people informed Trump that Iran was compliant. This makes since, if Iran were cheating all along since 2015, they would be past the 60% enrichment they are at now.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action

That may be accurate, IDK, but it’s irrelevant to why Iran is currently going boom.

That may be accurate, IDK, but it’s irrelevant to why Iran is currently going boom. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Of course it's relevant. No one is going to be concerned about Iran having enriched Uranium at 5%. When the 5% number becomes a 60% number then that becomes a justification for why Iran must be invaded to force a regime change. Because 60% is not that far away from 90%. At 90% you can do the same thing that was done in Japan during WW2. And yes, the above (post #7) is accurate. I'll give you credit for saying so.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action

Only if you believe taking out the Iranian government has anything to do with preventing them from building nukes. If that’s the case, I’ve got a bridge for sale.

Only if you believe taking out the Iranian government has anything to do with preventing them from building nukes. If that’s the case, I’ve got a bridge for sale. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Trump did not make a case before Congress or to the American people. A day after the first mission there is A PSA stating that Iran has enriched uranium at 60% concentration. This material is resting at the bottom of the Nuke plant that was not totally destroyed in June 2025. No telling why Trump wants a regime change right now. We do know that the 60% is a number that causes concern, that's all you need to sell the idea that now is the right time to invade Iran.

What a giant load!

The reason for the October 7th attack is directly linked to the normalization of ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Hamas feared that such normalization once accepted by the Saudi’s would spread across the middle east. October 7th was a last ditch attempt to scuttle peace across the region.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-...zation-report/

Hamas document shows Oct. 7 attack aimed at derailing Saudi normalization – report
In days prior to assault, leader Sinwar said ‘extraordinary act’ needed quash Riyadh’s openness to diplomatic ties with Israel; other documents show great concern over issue

Hamas’s Gaza chief Yahya Sinwar told associates in the days prior to the terror group’s devastating October 7, 2023, attack, on Israel that an “extraordinary act” would be required to derail normalization talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia, according to a document found by the IDF in Gaza.

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday on a number of documents from recent years that discussed Hamas’s concerns about Saudi movement toward diplomatic ties with Israel, and the terror group’s efforts to hamper it.

Successive American administrations have sought to broker such an agreement, framing it as the “crown jewel” of potential normalization deals, in light of Saudi Arabia’s overarching status in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Only if you believe taking out the Iranian government has anything to do with preventing them from building nukes. If that’s the case, I’ve got a bridge for sale. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

A bridge to Epstein Island?

A bridge between the Twin Cities?

A bridge to health care?

You're right about one thing. This is not about Iran getting nukes. Or Obama.

Only if you believe taking out the Iranian government has anything to do with preventing them from building nukes. If that’s the case, I’ve got a bridge for sale. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

But daddy trump already confirmed that their nuke program was totally destroyed on the previous bombing that he promise would not happen.

So, was this current affair political and the excuse that donny&co can't get on page 1 about regime change? I've been asking. Waiting for an answer.