It is likely that Trump will withdraw from the deal, as this will allow him to threaten sanctions towards countries that import Iranian oil, and therefore increase his leverage in trade negotiations. This option is particularly useful for the US, which has abnormal weight in trade.
What “withdrawal” means is unclear. These sorts of terms won’t have to go into effect immediately. Trump will keep them as an option, and will probably add a time line to increase their urgency.
Withdrawing from the deal also fits Trump’s world view, as he seems to actually believe that Iran violated the deal’s spirit, that they are a threat to Israel, and that the country deserves harder sanctions.
Yes, it is very likely that Trump will be able to get other countries to accept a new deal. Most other countries support the current deal and will accept a new deal over no deal. Furthermore, a new deal will mean Trump’s option of trade sanctions will expire, until he comes up with something else, decreasing policy uncertainty.
holy fukk, Trump whipping it out. talking directly to the great people of Iran – “The future of Iran belongs to its people.” Translation: your marginalization in the world by your leadership is over. World Peace.
There are remaining 5 countries in the deal with Iran, and now those countries will be in charge of enforcing the nuclear controls. So, Iran has no more freedom than before. On the other hand, the US can do whatever they want. It was a dick move, but this seems to make sense now…
i mean if the US enforces sanctions but Russia, China, UK, Germany, & France dont then i cant imagine the sanctions will do much damage. Its DJT flipping off obama and doing whatever bibi wants, but if the agreement maintains status quo without the US its just another sign of a shift of global power away from the US.
also, much like the US & paris accords - if the agreement continues without it, the US loses a lot of leverage they had to enforce or negotiate.
Why would the 5 remaining countries do deals with Iran when their companies will be jeopardized by OFA ? They could remain in the deal on paper but I’m sure Shell, Total or any company worth their salt would not do any transactions with Iran for fear of losing the U.S market.
Yup the Europeans will keep it together on paper to make the US look bad, but eventually it will die and Iran will go back to making a bomb. It’s hard to blame them really, it’s clear the US and Israel beating on the war drum.
Yes, that is a good point. Now Trump has a reason to threaten those companies or the countries they are in, if they don’t accept the trade terms that the US wants. The US has more bargaining power now, not less.
In terms of retaliation from “allies”, I’m not sure if there is much that they can do. They won’t cut off trade with the US over this, and most people would probably agree that the US over contributes to regional defense in general.
What alternative motive does trump have for exiting the Iran deal if it can’t be linked to Iran’s noncompliance towards nonproliferation? I hear many say the tail (Israel) wags the dog but the same can be said for most intervention in the middle east (think Libya). For once, it can’t be pinpointed to oil - so let’s brainstorm viable motives.
Iran is backing Assad with Russia (and has been accused of encouraging their chemical capabilities) while the US has been aligned with KSA which has been supporting rebels and wanting to displace Assad for like 30 years. Pretty straight forward. It’s just the same ME power struggle we’ve been fighting since the 90’s. Anyhow, I don’t have a strong opinion, personally would like to see things deescalated with Iran and don’t think a strong KSA really helps anyone but the KSA but so it goes.
Middle East 101
Iran=Shia, KSA=Sunni (along with like 80% of the mid east and uses this fact and control of Mecca to exercise authority)
Saddam was a Sunni leader controlling a roughly 85% Shia country neighboring Iran, KSA liked this.
KSA has also had a history of funding groups like Al Quaeda and ISIS associated with Sunni leadership and using them as non-official proxy militia to push agendas in the region.
When Saddam fell, the democratic process obviously replaced him with a Shia which loosened KSA’s grip in the region and extended Iranian influence.
Assad’s religion is an offshoot sect that does not align with either Shia or Sunni influence which Iran counts as a win, given the growing influence of Iran, KSA has been keen to topple the regime and has used ISIS and other Sunni groups to push this with Russia and Iran propping up Assad.
At the same time Iran has pushed back by supporting Houthi’s in split identity Yemen on KSA’s other border to stir things up which has just made things more aggravated.
Following the latest round of chemical weapons the admin pushed back on Iran with this deal designed to put sanctions on, probably also makes him look more aggressive ahead of NK talks and here we are.
good overview but from here things start to get complicated. Take the sunni sect for example, there are strong divides dating back centuries. Even Saddam as an example, he was party of the ba’ath party similar to assad.
The US takes a very disjointed approach with short term goals. If Afghanistan we funded the sunni rebels, we are technically at war against ISIS but fighting their enemies (iran/russia), we are funding the turks who we take as allies now but could very likely turn into a new chapter of a terrorist group in the future, who btw, are fighting our ally, turkey…
What is the US’s overarching plan? ME stability, energy security, security in general?
Doesn’t matter, you’re overly complicating it. You asked what the end game is and on a high level there it is, not really that cryptic. Sure there are divides but ultimately on the high levels KSA / Iran are concerned about it’s irrelevant. As far as US policy being short sighted, in other related news grass is green.