In its 2009 analysis paper, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran", the Brookings Institute advocated the US make a deal with Iran, then renege on the deal (making it look like Iran was refusing something very reasonable), and then attack Iran with support from the international community:

“… any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context — both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it.

“The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer — one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down.

“Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.” – pg. 39 (Hat tip to Tony Cartalucci for alerting people to this years ago.)

https://brutalproof.net/2017/02/15811/

Bump

Or they're just claiming it was all a 7D chess move to make themselves look like brain geniuses

>>507179393
They've been planning their takedown of Iran for half a century.

>>507178445 (OP)
Problem: Iranians accepted Obama's deal, Trump rejected it.
Not gonna work.

Unfortunately, collectively, humans are smarter than they were in 2009