(Image credit: Copyright (c) 2017 Shutterstock. No use without permission.)
President Donald Trump announced last Friday that he is formally decertifying'' the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, a deal he described as "the worst ever" and criticised repeatedly during his presidential campaign. The immediate practical effect is not to terminate it, but to pass the buck to Congress, which now has 60 days to decide whether it should re-impose sanctions against Iran. Decertification may not, on its own, cause a "renewed nuclear crisis" with Iran, but it could be the "first pebble in a landslide", warns Richard Nephew in the Financial Times.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a highly technical agreement between the US, Iran, China, France, Russia, the UK and Germany, is essentially a "very simple transaction", says Zack Beauchamp on Vox.com. In return for strict limits on its nuclear programme, the other countries relaxed sanctions imposed on Iran. So crucial did Barack Obama consider the deal to averting "all-out war in the Middle East and possibly beyond", that he believed that inaction in Syria against the Assad regime (Iran's "protg") was a price worth paying, says Natalie Nougayrde in the Guardian.
Because many members of the Obama administration were sceptical at the time, a law called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act was subsequently enacted which obliges the US president to publicly certify every 90 days that Iran is in technical compliance with the deal and, more broadly, that suspension of sanctions is appropriate. Trump insisted last week that Iran is "not living up to the spirit of the deal".
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
However, the evidence that the deal is working is in fact very clear, says Beauchamp. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly confirmed that Iran is compliant. The leaders of France, Germany and the UK said in a joint statement that they were committed to the deal and concerned by Trump's refusal to back it. Officials warn that if the deal collapses, it could severely hamper efforts to stop the proliferation of atomic weapons.
It would be "the worst of all possible worlds", continues Beauchamp. Since the deal is "working on technical grounds", European powers which do more business with Iran than the US and can impose more painful sanctions probably wouldn't reimpose sanctions if the US "unilaterally destroyed the agreement". A US exit therefore wouldn't really hurt Iran but it would provide the regime with a pretext to "kick out" IAEA inspectors and "ramp up" its nuclear programme.
Trump's objectives aren't even clear, says Richard Nephew. Chasing a better deal is a "chimera". Why would Iran's leaders accept an agreement in which they "give more to receive the same benefits of the existing JCPOA"? It is much more likely to "play a waiting game, building up partnerships and alliances around the world by playing on international hostility towards Mr Trump".
His position defies logic, agrees Hooman Majd in the Washington Post. It won't change Iranian behaviour or eliminate a single ballistic missile, and it will signal that American negotiators are not to be trusted and validate Iranian hard-liners while undermining reformers and pragmatists. Itcould also turn the "most pro-American population" in the region into one of the most hostile.
Trump's move does make sense on one level, however, say David Miller and Richard Sokolsky on CNN. It's another policy "driven largely by Trump's campaign commitments and the peculiarities of his own ego". From his decision to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership to immigration clampdowns, his initiatives seem designed to satisfy his base, fulfil his campaign commitments and "overturn his predecessor's... domestic and foreign policy accomplishments."
Sign up for MoneyWeek's newsletters
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Emily has worked as a journalist for more than thirty years and was formerly Assistant Editor of MoneyWeek, which she helped launch in 2000. Prior to this, she was Deputy Features Editor of The Times and a Commissioning Editor for The Independent on Sunday and The Daily Telegraph. She has written for most of the national newspapers including The Times, the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, The Evening Standard and The Daily Mail, She interviewed celebrities weekly for The Sunday Telegraph and wrote a regular column for The Evening Standard. As Political Editor of MoneyWeek, Emily has covered subjects from Brexit to the Gaza war.
Aside from her writing, Emily trained as Nutritional Therapist following her son's diagnosis with Type 1 diabetes in 2011 and now works as a practitioner for Nature Doc, offering one-to-one consultations and running workshops in Oxfordshire.
Do you still have to file a tax return if you don’t owe any tax?
Millions of homeowners to see mortgage payments rise
