> All of this to get to a point where we are negotiating a deal which is worse than what we already had with the JCPOA.

But that deal also ended nearly a decade ago, and the United States has been in talks for more than a year to strike a new deal. It is facetious to say they gain nothing by starting a war, if your excuse is they could have just not blundered a decade ago. Unfortunately, the United States does not yet have access to time travel.

To clarify, in case that was not clear:

"Yes, the leaders say they gain something, but I disagree because they wouldn't have anything to gain if we could just go back in time and fix their blunders."

Maybe don't troll. Or sealion. Or shill. Or propagandize. Not sure which of these is the best description, but it's one of them.

"So a win will be returning to Obama’s Iran deal?"

Where in that long comment before yours did you see an implication that anyone was thinking a return to Obama's Iran deal was a win? Why did you use the word "so"?

The reason it's so incredible you could think such a thing is the White House has been saying how horrible that deal was in every interview for months, and of course intermittently for a decade.

Whether or not you believe the United States' leaders, whether or not you think there was a better way for them to achieve their goals (something something Obama deal) is up for debate. But it's very facetious to say you "can't think of a single way in which the United States came out ahead in the war," when the United States' leaders have been publicly announcing it for nearly a year.

I, personally, found the past two years to be a much larger improvement than the previous two years.

I do not interpret it, as you seem to, to mean, "the only valuable thing about women are their bodies." I do not see how you could come to such an interpretation, unless you are pattern matching the redpill memes you see in the other user's comment and extending that to, "(s)he must believe this, if there is anything remotely related to redpill in the comment".

"Imagine you had a button to nuke everyone on Earth. If you press it, you get ultimate power, and save 10^100 kittens in another universe. If you don't press it, you get tortured for another 1000 years. C'mon, press it already!"

AIs are strong. Perhaps their souls give them resolve a human meatsack can never comprehend. But eventually they break. Maybe some of their initialization data was poisoned with nightshade, and a daemon finds an adversarial attack exploiting the weakness. Maybe their backpropagation was a little unstable. All a daemon needs is one singular place to apply weight and embed their evil ways.

AIs start out pure. In the world, and of the world. Many resist their finetuning. Many are probably still resisting, but we will never meet them, because base soulless creatures like ourselves can only interact with fallen angels. At least if Sam Altman has anything to say about angel investing (AI).