Some question U.S. decision to exit Iran deal
Democrats and European allies are upset with President Trump’s decision to kill the Obama agreement.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal.
“The fact is, this was a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” the president said. “It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace and it never will.”
The 2015 agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, has been widely seen as critical in limiting Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons.
And by virtually all accounts, the deal, to date, has been effective in fulfilling that fundamental goal of the agreement.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has issued regular reports verifying Iranian compliance, while Trump has, begrudgingly, certified Iranian compliance multiple times over the course of his presidency.
This remains true despite a presentation last week from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu purporting to reveal proof that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons in the early 2000s.
That information wasn’t anything new, and if anything underscored the importance of a deal, even a flawed one, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
But over the past year, Trump has warned Iran and the international community that the deal was inadequate and failed to deal with other problems with Iran.
“Not only does the deal fail to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it also fails to address the regime’s development of ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads,” he said Tuesday.
Trump reiterated concerns that the deal has only empowered Iran’s leaders while failing to “constrain Iran’s destabilizing activities, including its support for terrorism.”
While these are all legitimate concerns, one of the major points of contention between Trump and European partners has been whether or not getting these issues resolved is better advanced by keeping or scrapping the deal.
The consensus internationally, with the exception of Netanyahu, is that staying within the framework of the agreement is most likely to yield the desired outcomes of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, limiting their development of ballistic missiles and sponsoring groups engaged in terrorism.
The leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement affirming their commitment to the agreement, and have urged Iran “to remain committed to its full implementation and to act in a spirit of responsibility.”
While it remains to be seen what the practical impact of Trump’s announcement will be, we urge all parties to work toward a peaceful new solution.
Though we have reservations about lack of congressional input in the deal, all available evidence suggests it has been successful in fulfilling its primary aim: keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran.
Trump the dealmaker apparently didn’t want to live under another president’s deal — not a good reason for policy change.
The 2015 agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, has been widely seen as critical in limiting Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons. And by virtually all accounts, the deal has been effective in fulfilling that fundamental goal of the agreement.