On Tuesday President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. A crowning jewel in the legacy of his predecessor, Barack Obama, the deal was signed after decades of tension over Iran’s alleged plans to produce nuclear weapons. While Iran has always insisted that their nuclear objectives were peaceful and in the interest of developing alternative energy sources, the international community remained sceptical.

 

What is the Iran nuclear deal?

In July 2015, following years of intense negotiations, a deal was signed between Iran and the P5 +1 of world powers – the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany. In the years leading up to it these countries had imposed a series of complex sanctions on Iran that had resulted in crippling repercussions for the country’s economy and its people. The deal itself contained agreements that would see these sanctions lifted in exchange for a number of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear development.  Some of these commitments included the following:

  1. Reducing Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium by 97%; ensuring that that they did not possess enough potent uranium that could be used to fuel a bomb.
  2. Disconnecting its centrifuges, the devices used to enrich uranium, by two-thirds and only allowing old centrifuges that would slow down the process.
  3. Preventing Iran from operating its heavy water nuclear facility near the large industrial city of Arak; a facility being used to make plutonium that would help fuel a bomb.
  4. Extensive monitoring and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that would verify that Iran was complying with the deal.

All of the evidence to date confirmed that Iran was complying with these obligations. So why has Donald Trump withdrawn the United States?

 

Criticisms of the deal

There is no question that the deal negotiated and signed by the Obama administration is far from perfect. It fails to address a number of serious and more immediate concerns for the region such as the development of Iran’s ballistic missile programme. The deal also does not address the support that Iran has for militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or the significant role it plays in the wars in Syria and Yemen. But these were never issues that the Obama administration sought to directly address at the time. Their immediate aim was to address Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons and so far Iran has kept its side of the bargain.

While Trump cited the above concerns in his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, he failed to produce any evidence that Iran was in violation of this deal. To observers it is easy to come to the conclusion that this has more to do with politics than policy. President Trump has made it his mission to dismantle President Obama’s legacy, whether it be Obamacare or the Paris Climate Accord. During the 2016 presidential campaign he referred to the Iran deal as “the worst deal ever” and it was a key campaign promise of Trump’s to “rip up” the deal should he win the race to the White House.

 

Dangers of backing out

By backing out of this deal there will be significant consequences for the United States, Iran and the wider international community. The other countries committed to the deal will want to work now to uphold and build on the agreement, but will the US’s withdrawal undermine this? The success of the deal going forward will rely on the strength of Iranian moderates to make the case and persuade the more hawkish members of the regime to remain on board. There is now a fear that this move by America will undermine those moderate voices and give the more hawkish ones a reason to abandon the deal altogether.

America is also working now to secure an agreement with North Korea to contain the development of their own nuclear programme. By backing out of the Iran deal, America is now sending a troubling message that they don’t stick to international agreements. Kim Jong Un could question any deal put on the table by America for fear that President Trump’s successor might back out of that deal further down the line.

 

What is the alternative to the Iran deal?

There isn’t one. At least not one proposed so far by the Trump administration or by those opposed to the deal in Congress. It is simply not enough to call this a bad deal, but not offer an alternative for moving forward. When George W. Bush’s administration walked back on President Clinton’s efforts to curb North Korea’s nuclear programme, it gave the regime a pass to move forward with their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. We know how that has turned out. This is not something the Middle East can afford to let happen with Iran.

In this situation a bad deal is better than no deal. At least it provided a basis by which the international community could work to keep the Iranians at the negotiating table. President Trump has missed an opportunity to work to build on what has been achieved so far. He could have used his influence over the deal to force Iran to an agreement over their roles in the wars in Syria and Yemen. He could also have used the deal to address Iran’s ballistic weapons programme.

The decision by Donald Trump is short-sighted and deeply disappointing. It is a decision based on domestic politics rather than a comprehensive understanding of the region’s geo-politics. Diplomacy does not succeed overnight. It requires years often decades of patience, commitment and long term perspective. Unfortunately for the Middle East and the wider international community this is something that Trump has been unable to grasp.