Upending the world’s arms-control deal with Iran would be defensible if it was part of a larger strategy. But it isn’t.
THE Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (J.C.P.O.A.), a nuclear arms-control agreement between Iran, America, and several other world powers, is a shoddy deal. It does little to forestall Iran’s funding of Islamist terrorist groups. It allows Iran to build and test ballistic missiles, atop which nuclear warheads might one day be placed. The inspections regime meant to alert the world if Iran restarts its nuclear-weapons program is far too porous. Most detestably, Barack Obama’s administration sold the Iran deal by creating an “echo chamber” of experts and journalists spouting the administration’s talking points, as Ben Rhodes, a former top Obama official, admitted.
Donald Trump’s decision on Tuesday to pull out of the J.C.P.O.A. reflects these and other concerns with the Iran deal. Hawkish conservatives leapt to his defense. Bret Stephens, a New York Times columnist, called the move “courageous,” though he noted the need for follow-through. The Wall Street Journal editorial board lambasted the Obama administration for failing to garner domestic approval for the J.C.P.O.A. The Journal editorial board also included a critical caveat: “[Mr. Trump’s] administration has more work to do to execute his Iran strategy.”
But there is no coherent strategy, in Iran or anywhere else in the Middle East. To be sure, Mr. Trump has announced the general contours of a foreign-policy approach, including on Iran. But concrete action in accordance with an articulated strategy rarely ever follows. Worse, Mr. Trump routinely reverses course on previously announced policy objectives, undercutting his generals.
In Afghanistan, the administration has increased our troop count, but for no clear broader purpose—calling that a “strategy” is a painful stretch. In Syria, the Trump administration fired off two rounds of missiles in response to two chemical-weapons attacks. But that aside, the administration is largely mute on Syria. As a result, America has lost much of what remained of its regional influence.
Mr. Trump’s Iran policy hardly seems any better. To date, the administration has taken no substantive steps to, as its declared policy states, “deny the [Iranian] regime all paths to a nuclear weapon.”
And that lack of action is precisely the problem with dumping the Iran deal. Being in the J.C.P.O.A. confers benefits and carries costs, just as pulling out of the deal does. But by pulling out with no demonstrated plan of action, the Trump administration is making an arbitrary choice that will bring few benefits.
The administration is now free to re-impose financial sanctions on Iran, as they announced shortly after pulling out of the J.C.P.O.A. But to what end? The European signatories to the Iran deal have plainly refused to re-impose sanctions. As such, Iran will doubtless continue to finance terrorism and test ballistic missiles. Moreover, by exiting the deal, Mr. Trump has given the Iranians cover to build up their nuclear arsenal. That would be a defensible choice, were it to be accompanied by a rigorous nuclear deterrence strategy. No such thing exists.
Mr. Trump’s move also puts America’s European allies in a pickle. American “secondary sanctions” mean that European businesses could be cut off from U.S. markets unless they cease doing business in Iran. This move further alienates allies that America will need to execute any future Middle East strategy.
Mr. Trump’s Iran mistake will erode American credibility and undermine our alliances, all in the service of an Iran strategy that is either incoherent or non-existent. Whatever the follies of the Iran deal, a unilateral pull-out with no accompanying strategy is unjustifiable. Each time Mr. Trump errs, America’s standing in the world is diminished. It will take a generation to recover.
