Was leaving the Iran deal a good idea?

Was leaving the Iran deal a good idea?

It's now been two years since Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from what he called the "horrible one-sided" Iran nuclear deal.

The pact, brokered in 2015 by the Obama administration along with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the Iranians, aimed to limit Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, in exchange for the repeal of some US and international economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic.


Trump – along with many US conservatives and the Israeli government – argued that the deal was a dangerous failure because it didn't impose strict enough limits on Iran's nuclear program and because sanctions relief boosted Tehran's ability to make trouble in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.

Though Washington walked, the other signatories (outside Iran) have continued to abide by the deal's terms – Europe, in particular, has done its best to offer Iran economic and financial incentives to keep Tehran from pulling out altogether.

So, has Washington's withdrawal achieved its purpose? Depends on what the move was really meant to accomplish. Let's go down the list.

Stopping Iran's nuclear weapons progress. With the US out, Iran has stopped adhering to the deal's guidelines on uranium enrichment. Over the past six months, Iran has (at least) tripled its stockpiles of enriched uranium, according to the UN. It has also conducted several new missile tests and recently launched a satellite, a move that the Pentagon sees as potential cover for testing long-range ballistic missiles.

Clipping Iran's wings in the Middle East by crippling its economy. US sanctions on Iran's oil exports and financial transactions have devastated Iran's economy – after soaring by 12.5 percent in the wake of the deal, the country's GDP has shrunk 13 percent since. And low oil prices aren't helping.

But over the past two years, Tehran has harassed oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, shot down a US drone, and increased its proxy attacks on US troops in the region. Don't forget the strike on Saudi Arabia's Abqaiq oil facility, carried out either by Iran itself or its proxies in Yemen. That attack briefly knocked 5 percent of the world's oil production offline last September. Tehran is still a dominant player in Iraq, even if that country's new prime minister wants to limit Iran's direct influence. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad remains Iran's Man in Damascus (or at least, a time-share with Russia). And Iran-backed Hezbollah still has formidable power in Lebanon, despite recent anti-government protests.

In sum, Iran is certainly operating with less money and more domestic economic pressures than before — but sanctions haven't blunted Iran's regional ambitions.

Scrapping an Obama achievement. President Trump made good on a campaign promise to blow up one of his predecessor's few tangible foreign-policy achievements. But hopes that intense new pressure on Iran would force its leaders to accept a tougher deal, one with Trump's name on it, have (so far) been dashed. Tehran will certainly be watching closely to see if Trump can win re-election in November.

Pressuring the regime politically. This is harder to judge. Over the past two years, Iran's streets have erupted with massive protests over economic issues, corruption, and the downing of a Ukrainian airliner. Each time, the US has encouraged the protesters, while Iranian authorities have cracked down and weathered the storm. For now, Iran's particularly bad coronavirus outbreak has limited protesters' willingness to hit the streets.

In some ways the US pressure campaign has emboldened Iran's hardline clerics and military leaders, who never wanted to compromise on Iran's nuclear program in the first place and are happy with a more isolated economy that they can better control and exploit. That makes any new deal less likely.

Still, it remains to be seen whether a regime struggling to balance economic collapse, a public health crisis, and a web of foreign entanglements can continue to hold up, and for how long.

That's Bank of America's new target in its Environmental Business Initiative in order to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable economy.

Here's how it will drive innovation to address climate change.

On Tuesday, a major US intelligence report said the top threat to America right now is China. A day later, John Kerry, the Biden administration's "climate czar," got on a plane to... China.

Such is the drama of ties between the world's two largest economies these days.

More Show less

Should the Biden administration "reverse course on China" in the hope of establishing a friendlier relationship, as diplomat Kishore Mahbubani argues in a recent Financial Times op-ed? Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group analyst Michael Hirson take out the Red Pen to explain why it's not that simple.

And today, we are talking about the United States and China. The relationship between the two most powerful nations in the world is the worst it's been since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Pundits and policymakers alike all around the world are trying to figure out how Washington and Beijing can at least stop the bleeding because a reset is nowhere in the cards.

That's the topic of the op-ed that we are looking at today. It's from the Financial Times, written by Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani, and the title summarizes the key argument: "Biden should summon the courage to reverse course on China." Meaning, he should throw out the Trump era approach and open the door to more cooperation and kinder, gentler relations.

More Show less

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have been fully approved or are currently in early use globally, and COVAX, the global initiative started last year by the World Health Organization and other partners, is pushing for equitable access to vaccines for all. But most of the half billion jabs given so far have gone to citizens of wealthy countries, with half going to the US and China alone. What's the problem with so-called vaccine nationalism? Ian Bremmer explains that besides the clear humanitarian concerns, the continued global spread of COVID increases the risk of new mutations and variants that can threaten the entire world, vaccinated or not.

Watch the episode: Vaccine nationalism could prolong the pandemic

Should wealthy individuals and nations shoulder more of the burden in addressing climate change? Pulitzer Prize-winning climate journalist Elizabeth Kolbert argues that Big Tech leaders like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk should shift more of their focus to fighting for our own planet's survival, instead of space exploration. "We're doing as much as we can to make life difficult on planet Earth for ourselves. But there's virtually nothing we could do to make it as difficult as life on Mars, where there's, among other things, no oxygen." Kolbert, the author of Under a White Sky, discusses why it's so crucial for a few rich countries to bear most of the climate burden, since they're also the biggest emitters. Her conversation with Ian Bremmer is featured in the upcoming episode of GZERO World, airing on US public television stations starting this Friday, April 16. Check local listings.

In recent days, Northern Ireland has seen some of its worst street violence in over a decade. The anger has subsided a bit this week, but post-Brexit fears leave many uncertain about their future in a deeply divided land with a long history of political violence between Irish republicans and UK unionists.

More Show less

Fighting climate change is about making the planet get less hot. The more quickly countries slow down their carbon emissions, the faster that'll happen. All the more important for the nations that pollute the most — but not all of them are on board. Although the majority, including China, are setting future targets to go Net Zero, India doesn't want to commit (yet) to when to stop burning fossil fuels to spur economic growth. We take a look at when the world's top polluting economies intend to go carbon-neutral, compared with their share of global emissions, of renewable energy as a source of electricity, and percentage of global coal consumption.

Peruvian runoff: Perú's presidential election is going to a runoff in June between two surprise and polarizing contenders, each of whom won less than 20 percent of votes in a highly fragmented first round. Pedro Castillo, a far-left union leader and teacher who benefited from a late surge in the polls, will battle rightwing populist Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the country's imprisoned former strongman. Castillo wants to rewrite the constitution to weaken the political influence of the country's business elite and maybe to allow the state to nationalize parts of the mining sector to pay for social programs for the poor. Fujimori wants to use mining revenues to create jobs by investing in infrastructure and healthcare. The runoff will probably be a national referendum on Fujimori, a divisive figure running for the top job for the third time. No Peruvian president has ever left office without facing corruption charges, but Fujimori already faces several — and she'll avoid jail time if she wins.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal