That's the whole point of a "deal" (since The One won't let us call it a "treaty"). Or, in Trumpspeak, a "contract". Once the agreement is agreed to and the documents are signed, the "deal" is done. You cannot change or alter it in any way without the mutual consent of both parties. To do so unilaterally is to abrogate - or "repudiate" - it. That's definitional. Plus, thanks to GOP "Failure Theater", the "deal" is about to be legally binding under U.S. law.
Not that it shouldn't be abrogated AND repudiated, since O's "deal" isn't constitutionally binding since it will not receive anywhere close to the sixty-seven Senate votes that Article II, Section II, Clause 2 requires for ratification of any treaty. If Donald Trump - who, given his "populist" milieu, you would think would be the first GOP presidential candidate to get out in front of that particular issue parade - is sincere about "improving" the "deal," he has no choice but to open it back up and restart negotiations. Period.
But that's not what he's saying:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says it would make no sense to "repudiate" the nuclear arms deal with Iran.
Speaking about the agreement to rein in Tehran's nuclear program, the billionaire real estate mogul calls it "a horrible contract" and says he'd work to improve it if elected....
Trump says that if elected, "I will make that agreement so tough that if they break it, they will have hell to pay."
This is all bullcrap. "Making the agreement tough" means changing it, because there are no "they will have hell to pay" provisions in it. Changing it means repudiating the "deal" as it is and replacing it with a different one. Which Trump is insisting he will not do. Therefore, he supports Barack Obama's nuclear sellout to the mullahs against the overwhelming will of the American people whose "champion" he's claiming to be.
To quote V.I.K.I.:
The question is whether Tea Party Trumpsters wish to acknowledge it.
I know I'm not holding my breath.
UPDATE: Did any of you TPTers catch Hugh Hewitt's undressing of Trump's utter and complete foreign policy ignorance yesterday....
....and the latter's trademark puerile, caustic, recriminatory response to it?
I know, I know: "If you like Trump, the interview is meaningless because (a) nobody knows who those people are!" - although remember how George W. Bush was viciously ridiculed and lampooned for not knowing the names of every last world leader back in the 2000 campaign? It was considered disqualifying to his candidacy - "or (b) Trump is a manager, not a details guy" - which some will liken to Ronald Reagan, except that Reagan had an ideological and philosophical core around which his foreign policy worldview was built, whereas Trump's refusal to "sweat the details" is indicative of his utter lack of same - "and he’ll find the classiest, most luxurious natsec people or (c) ....knowing who the regional players were didn’t stop Obama from bungling everything he touched there, from Mubarak’s ouster to raising a Syrian rebel army to putting Iran on a [fast]-year track to having.... nuclear [weapons]." - which, of course, was not "bungling" but deliberate, treacherous sabotage in keeping with his own ideological and philosophical core - 'Name That Jihadi' is just a game being used by the dreaded GOP establishment to try to make Trump look stupid so that less populist eggheads like Carly Fiorina look good by comparison."
Except that Trump is stupid when it comes to foreign policy (see above). Or at least woefully ignorant. Presidents should not, I agree, succumb to "Captain Kirk Syndrome" - i.e. meddlingly having to do everything personally - but they should know the basics of all policy areas. That's what Double-H was quizzing him on, same as he has every other candidate he's had on his program. And Trump howlingly, embarrassingly, and alarmingly (given that he's the current Republican frontrunner) flunked.
That, my Tea Party Trumpster friends, ought to matter. Ditto his infantile temper tantrum of a reaction to it. The issue is not whether or not Hugh Hewitt is a "third-rate radio host," any more than Megyn Kelly is or is not an uncontrollably menstruating, bowlegged bottle blonde. The point is that a pattern is being established here, one that all conservatives should well and truly recognize after witnessing it from the current POTUS for the past nearly seven years: ignorance, incompetence, arrogance, malevolence, and "skin" that is thinner than a carbon nanotube. Donald Trump is not qualified to be president, wouldn't know what in the blue hell he was doing, doesn't care about foreign policy, is all about the symbolism and superficiality and none about the substance, and utterly lacks the temperment of a true leader. I don't know about you, but I don't want a guy who "spits fire" every single time he's challenged in the slightest on anything within a country parsec of the nuclear launch codes (assuming O leaves us any nukes to launch). And neither should you.
It's not a "gotcha" question to be asked something that anybody who presumes to be president of the United States will be getting paid to know. It's called "vetting," the process by which contenders have historically been separated from "pretenders". The current White House occupant was never vetted back in 2008; how's that turned out for us? And why in all the hells would TPTers want to reprise that?
And, getting back to the aforementioned pattern, here's another question for Trump's conservative Kool-Aid drinkers to consider: Why is it that the media figures Trump keeps childishly eviscerating in turn are all conservative? First Charles Krauthammer, then George Will, then the aforementioned Megyn Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. I'll tell you why: Because they all have committed the unpardonable "sin" of pointing out that Donald Trump is not a conservative.
Which also ought to matter.
So why doesn't it, Tea Party Trumpsters? Or do you want a supine, biased, anti-conservative media after all?