The Iran deal vs. what?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented dramatic evidence Monday of how brazenly Iran deceived the world about its early-2000s nuclear weapons program, before the U.S. and its allies inked a deal limiting Tehran’s enrichment activities. Analysts and observers have long had hundreds of parts of a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle suggesting all this. Netanyahu offered the most vivid, high-resolution picture yet, based on 55,000 pages of documents on 183 CDs obtained by Mossad in recent weeks.

It was an impressive display, the fruits of a breathtaking intelligence coup.

What Netanayhu did not do is explain why old lies that were long suspected, if not known, are relevant to the question of the geostrategic question of the moment: whether the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed to in 2015 is better enforced or scrapped.

That agreement had few more strident opponents than this Editorial Page.

We loathed leaving Iran within 12 months of breakout capacity. Lamented the deal’s total failure to acknowledge, much less check, Iran’s terrorist mischief-making in the region. Mocked the transparent ridiculousness of “snap-back” sanctions to be imposed if and when Iran cheated. And feared the consequences of letting billions of dollars flow back to the anti-American, anti-Israeli mullah-led regime.

But the deed is done. The deal, designed to restrict and monitor Tehran’s nuclear program, is now in force. The question for Netanyahu — and, more pointedly, President Trump — is whether it is better than the alternative.

The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. intelligence community agree that Iran is abiding by the JCPOA’s terms. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis late last year said Iran is “fundamentally” in compliance with the deal; last week he added that “the verification . . . is actually pretty robust as far as our intrusive ability” — meaning, the IAEA’s ability — to inspect.

Netanyahu’s gotcha game proves beyond any doubt that Iran’s leaders made fools of the world for decades, including at a key moment when the nuclear deal was being sold.

There’s no turning back time, however. It does not follow that the path to a safer world today, with the Iran deal in effect, is to start over.

While starting over might eventually yield a stronger agreement, it carries the very real risk of letting a wholly unrestrained Tehran accelerate its arms development — while weakening America’s hand in other global nuclear negotiations.

If Trump wants out, he must argue not against the deal, but for a better way forward.