Trump's 'Better' Iran Deal: Less Money, More Unspecified Win-Winning

In a display of rhetorical acrobatics that would make Cirque du Soleil green with envy, former President Trump vociferously defended his administration's 2020 nuclear agreement with Iran by staunchly denying America's involvement in a theoretical $300 billion post-conflict reconstruction fund. The palpable indignation with which he decried a nonexistent commitment, while simultaneously lauding his own, vastly different, agreement as intrinsically superior to Obama's 2015 iteration, left seasoned political pundits stroking chins carved from pure confusion. Apparently, if you spend less money on a deal, even if that money was never allocated to begin with, you've already won. The metric, we are to understand, is not peace, nor stability, but rather the exquisite art of not-spending-what-you-weren't-going-to-spend. It's a fiscal strategy so advanced, economists are still trying to find the 'fiscal' part.