Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and nearly 20,000 centrifuges, enough to make eight to ten bombs, according to the Obama administration. On August 4, 2015, three prominent Democrats watched in the Senate announced: Tim Kaine of Virginia (a member of the Foreign Relations Committee), Barbara Boxer of California (also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee) and Bill Nelson of Florida – their support for the agreement.  In a speech that day, Kaine said that the agreement was “preferable to any other alternative, including war,” and “America has respected its best traditions and shown that patient diplomacy can accomplish what isolation and hostility cannot do.”  In a similar speech on the same day, Nelson said, “I am confident that [the agreement] will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years. No other alternative available will achieve this important goal” and “If the United States were to turn away from this multinational agreement, I think we would be left alone in the world with little credibility.”  On August 6, another Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, who was to run for the position of Democratic Senator, announced his opposition to the agreement, writing, “There is a strong case where we are better off without a deal than with one” Iran has accused the United States of not respecting its commitments. , and Europe of submission to American unilateralism. To keep the nuclear deal alive, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have set up an exchange system called INSTEX to facilitate transactions with Iran outside the US banking system, but it is only intended for food and medicine already exempt from US sanctions. Republican leaders promised to try to kill the deal as soon as it was released, even before secret sections were made available to Congress, and “Republican lawmakers were running to send press releases criticizing it.”  According to the Washington Post, “most Republicans in Congress remained deeply skeptical, some overtly dismissive, the prospect of lifting economic sanctions, while all Iranian uranium enrichment capabilities remained intact.”  Mitch McConnell said that the agreement “seems to be far behind the goal we all thought we would achieve, that Iran would not be a nuclear state.”  According to a New York Times analysis, Republican opposition to the agreement “seems to have emerged from a genuine aversion to the details of the agreement, an intrinsic distrust of President Obama, an intense loyalty to Israel, and a global vision of the role that sanctions have played beyond the prevention of Iran`s nuclear capabilities.”  The Washington Post identified 12 issues related to the agreement on which both parties disagreed, including the effectiveness of inspections at unreported sites; Effectiveness of snapback sanctions; The importance of the limits of enrichment; The importance of the IAEA`s ancillary agreements; The effectiveness of inspections of military sites; The consequences of leaving an agreement; and the consequences of lifting sanctions.  [h] In 2020, Trump and Pompeo claimed that the United States remained a “participant” in the agreement, although it formally withdrew in 2018 to convince the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran after the U.S.
withdrawal for its violations of the agreement.