Will Trump tear up ‘horrible’ nuclear deal with Tehran?

Donald Trump could be poised to take the first step towards unravelling the nuclear deal with Iran by declaring that Tehran has not complied with it.

The US president has signalled his intention to declare Iran non-compliant next month.

By law, Iran’s compliance with the joint comprehensive plan of action is reviewed every 90 days, after which the state department can either certify Iran’s compliance to the US congress or not. If the president sticks to his promise, experts say it would at very least tighten America’s noose around Tehran or mark the start of the end of the joint plan.

Mr Trump’s preference is clear. “I think Iran will be non-compliant. I think they’re taking advantage of this country and I do not expect that they will be compliant.”

For the past two review cycles the Trump government has followed the recommendation of secretary of state Rex Tillerson and senior diplomats and certified that Iran is keeping to the terms of the deal.

But Mr Trump’s comments, coupled with a review under way by more hawkish officials at the White House, is now moving towards telling congress that Iran has broken the deal.

This gives congress the choice of reimposing sanctions over Iran’s nuclear activities. It would then be up to the joint commission in Vienna overseeing the agreement to decide if the US is in breach of the deal by reimposing sanctions.

In 1991, secretary of state James Baker came up with the “dead cat strategy” as a way of shaming a recalcitrant party into co-operation.

Failing to certify Iran borrows from that strategy, said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defence of Democracies. By not certifying, Mr Trump would be able to “undercut the Iranian regime’s false claims of nuclear innocence by highlighting examples of Iranian non-compliance with the nuclear deal”, he said.

“He could then continue the nuclear deal while rolling out a much more comprehensive Iran policy that targets the nature and behaviour of the Iranian regime.”

Easier said than done, says Aaron Miller, vice president for new initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson Centre.

“I can’t imagine this agreement is going to survive its full term [15 years],” Mr Miller said. “Mr Trump has no stake in this nuclear deal, his administration didn’t negotiate it, the president believes it is one of the worst agreements, only exceeded by the Paris Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Mr Trump withdrew from those two agreements. “Even if you de-certify but don’t walk away from agreement, this is on a downward trajectory.”

But for Mr Dubowitz, not certifying “should be combined with a willingness to sit down and negotiate a follow-on agreement with Iran that addresses the current deal’s fatal flaws”.

But even if Mr Trump declares Iran to be non-compliant, there is still no indication the US has a strategy to tackle Tehran’s regional behaviour.

With tensions on the rise, could disrupting the deal trigger confrontation? Mr Dubowitz acknowledged the atmosphere is more highly charged.

“The Iranian regime harassed the US navy in the Gulf this week, fired long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and continues development of an intercontinental ballistic missile,” he said.

“Iran is also building up missile production facilities along with Hezbollah in Lebanon, establishing another front against Israel on the Syrian border and attempting to connect a land bridge between Iran and the Mediterranean [through Iraq and Syria into Lebanon].”

Such “aggressive and provocative behaviour” risked drawing the US into military confrontation, Mr Dubowitz said.

He said a new, broad strategy was needed to counter Tehran’s activities. But Mr Miller said the Trump government preferred the status quo when it came to the Middle East.

But once the US sheds the nuclear agreement, Washington could become “more ambitious.”

For the past two review cycles Trump has followed the advice of senior diplomats and certified Iran is compliant