Voice of America reported on Thursday that “some U.S. officials see little downside to decertifying the Iran nuclear deal,” but the tenor of those quoted in the piece might be better described as, “decertifying the deal is not a big deal.”
The thrust of their comments is that decertification does not quite live up to its hype, or justify the hysterical response from Iran and some Western defenders of the deal.
For starters, the officials doubted Iran would actually follow through on any of its dire threats if President Trump withholds certification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). They said Iran’s behavior has been pretty unjustifiable since the JCPOA was imposed, and it won’t get much worse if decertification occurs. Various officials blasted Iran for continuing to support the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah as a proxy army and working to destabilize the Middle East.
Even National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, widely seen as one of the most vocal advocates in the Trump administration for keeping the deal in place, is quoted saying Iran has been “accelerating the arming of their proxies” more than ever since the JCPOA went into effect. He also called the JCPOA the “worst deal” and said it doesn’t address “clearly critical capabilities Iran is still free to develop.”
Officials who downplayed the effects of decertification did not think it was entirely useless or symbolic. They portrayed it as an important step to “call out” Iran and “put them on notice,” especially if combined with more sanctions. Contrary to conventional wisdom that Iran will lash out in fury, there is always the possibility it will clean up its act somewhat as it seeks to persuade Congress that the nuclear deal should be kept largely intact after Trump withdraws presidential certification.
The VOA article also voices concerns that the JCPOA emboldened Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, presumably because they believe the nuclear deal restrains the United States from taking effective measures against them and confers international prestige upon their sponsors in Tehran.
President Trump did indeed announce he would decertify the deal on Friday, using language consistent with the idea proposed by VOA’s sources that decertification could strip Iran of the underserved diplomatic prestige granted by President Obama, without immediately compromising non-proliferation goals.
For example, a White House statement Friday morning declared, “It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran’s government end its pursuit of death and destruction.”
Trump’s statement on Friday afternoon was tough on Iran’s “sinister” agenda and the “bloodshed” it has caused across the Middle East. He also accused Tehran of violating the spirit of the deal so thoroughly that certifying compliance would be a lie. He announced sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iran’s missile program. Perhaps most importantly, he said he was willing to terminate the deal if Congress can’t work out necessary improvements with Iran and European signatories to the JCPOA.
In sum, the nuclear deal is alive, but imperiled, and the most dramatic steps President Trump could take remain viable options. The ball is in Iran’s court. If it wants to keep the tremendous economic benefits provided by the JCPOA, it will have to swallow—no doubt with much grumbling—President Trump’s tough words, and if Congress comes through, it may be forced to accept conditions much tougher than anything found in President Obama’s poorly written, furtively processed nuclear deal.
Some critics will argue Trump did not go far enough, citing the points raised above that decertification is more a prelude to action than firm action in and of itself. Others, of course, will say Trump went too far. If the White House called this play correctly, it will have reframed the deal into something Iran must work to keep, rather than a diplomatic cudgel it can use against the United States while pocketing billions of dollars it funnels into all manner of evil schemes.