In 2018 Donald Trump Killed a Chance to Reform and Pacify Iran

Back in 2013 a moderate candidate won Iran’s presidential election. That leader proceeded to work a deal that significantly limited Iran’s nuclear development. The United Nations supported that agreement and six major countries signed on, including the United States. The settlement was effective. Inspectors made several site visits and reported the Iranians honored terms of the agreement.

If negotiations in later years produced more improvements, perhaps we would not be dealing today with an aggressive Iran and a war new war in the Middle East,

               How was that remarkable breakthrough achieved, and what caused its demise? 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:06

Imagine that the Iranian people elected a moderate national leader. And wouldn't it be great if that leader promised to restrict Iran's nuclear program and also try to establish friendly relations with the United States and other countries? This all sounds wonderful, but it's too good to be true, right? Actually, it's real. That kind of progress did take place, and it was not so long ago. Back in 2013, a moderate candidate won Iran's presidential election. That leader proceeded to work a deal that significantly limited Iran's nuclear development. The United Nations supported that agreement, and six major countries signed on. The United States, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany. The settlement was effective. Inspectors made several site visits and reported the Iranians were honoring terms of the agreement. Now that's real progress. In fact, if negotiations had continued in later years and produced more improvements, perhaps we would not be dealing today with an aggressive Iran and a war against that country. How was that remarkable breakthrough achieved? And what caused its demise? Welcome to History is Relevant, and I'm Robert Brent Toplin. Here's the plan. First, we'll consider how tensions grew between Iran and the West prior to that nuclear agreement. Secondly, we'll note how two open-minded national leaders played crucial roles in developing a breakthrough. And finally, we'll show how that settlement unwound and consider the impact of that change. Part one, the historical background. US-Iran relations were tense for decades prior to that election of a reformist presidential candidate. Many Iranians blamed the United States for the antagonism. They complained about plotting by the CIA and the United Kingdom's M-16 that led to the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister. He had nationalized a British-owned oil company. The CIA M16 coup installed the Shah, a monarch who worked closely with the Americans. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution tossed out the Shah, and that brought an end to the Persian monarchy that had existed since ancient times. Iran's relations with the USA deteriorated quickly, especially when Iranian militants grabbed 52 employees at the U.S. Embassy and held them hostage for 444 days. In subsequent years, Iranian leaders promoted violent actions in the Middle East that alarmed the international community. For example, suicide bombers supported by Iran undermined the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian peace program known as the Oslo Accords. Also, Iran-backed militants sparked violence in Lebanon and in other Middle Eastern countries. In 2002, President George W. Bush called Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, the axis of evil. Iran's foreign policy was especially hostile toward other countries from 2005 to 2013, when Mahmoud Al Madinijad was Iran's president. Almadinijad, a hard-line conservative, pushed the development of Iran's nuclear weapons program, though publicly he claimed that his country was only interested in peaceful applications of nuclear power. In 2007, France's president Nicolas Sarkozy warned about Iran in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly. The French president spoke about a catastrophic danger of nuclear proliferation. He said, if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to the stability of the region and the stability of the world. That speech succinctly identified the reason many global leaders imposed strong sanctions that deeply undermined Iran's economy. The sanctions produced great hardship for the Iranian people. Part two, the nuclear deal. Many Iranians were determined to change the situation when they voted in the twenty thirteen presidential election. They elected Hassan Rouhani, a moderate. Rouhani held a law degree from the University of Tehran and a PhD from a university in Glasgow, Scotland. Hassan Rouhani's goals were strikingly different from those of Ahmed. Rouhani sought to restore the economy, improve relations with the international community, and protect the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. He advocated personal freedom, free access to information, women's rights, and especially significant, a restart of negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program. Fortunately for Rahani, the United States president at the time, was interested in improving relations too. During his first term in the White House, Barack Obama pressured the Iranians to abandon nuke research, but that strategy was not productive. During his second term, Obama promoted a different strategy. He announced the United States was prepared to negotiate with Iran and, as he said, move forward. An international settlement was reached in 2015 that required Iran to reduce its nuclear stockpile and allow inspection of its nuclear facilities in exchange for gradual reduction of sanctions. There were provisions to ensure that authorities could reimpose sanctions if Iran did not keep its promises. That provision was called the SNAP back. Once the program was operational, United Nations inspectors certified that Iran had made satisfactory progress toward achieving objectives of the nuclear agreement. During the 28 months the deal was in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it found Iran committed no violations aside from some minor infractions that Iran quickly addressed. In 2017, Rouhani won a second term as Iran's president, thanks in large part to economic improvements that followed the nuclear deal. Inflation in Iran dropped substantially and business activity surged. For a brief time, international leaders were optimistic about Iran's prospects. They hoped the nuclear agreement would lead eventually to additional breakthroughs, especially reduction of Iran's missile buildup and reduction of Iran's support for militant groups in Middle Eastern countries. Part three, the death of the nuclear deal. Improved relations lasted only a short time. Donald Trump denounced the nuclear agreement when he campaigned for president in 2016, and in 2018 he pulled the United States out of the program. Trump claimed this was a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never ever been made. President Trump's decision shocked world leaders. Some appealed strenuously, pointing to the agreement's positive effects. They urged the American president to reconsider, but Trump refused. Consequently, the United States reinstated all the sanctions it had waived, and the USA imposed additional economic penalties drawn up by the Treasury Department. In May 2018, an article in the New York Times summarized what might happen in the future because of actions by President of the United States, Donald Trump. The article said, and I quote, Mr. Trump's move could embolden hardline forces in Iran, raising the threat of Iranian retaliation against Israel or the United States, fueling an arms race in the Middle East, and fanning sectarian conflicts from Syria to Yemen. That was a wise statement. Troubles mentioned in the article and other problems became evident in later years. Why did President Trump wreck an accomplishment that had the support of the United Nations, Iran, and several other major countries around the world? Some think Trump's attitude related to his contempt for Barack Obama. Perhaps that animosity grew intense when President Obama told jokes at the White House correspondence dinner in 2011 that embarrassed Trump. He was in the audience. Others attribute Trump's action to lobbying by the Israelis, especially pressure from Benjamin Netanyahu, a powerful Israeli politician who was close to Trump. There may be other reasons for Trump's decision to dump the agreement. It is difficult to identify the motivation behind many of Donald Trump's controversial decisions, but it is clear that President Trump's abandonment of the nuclear deal had significant repercussions. After the deal fell apart, the clerical and revolutionary guard leaders in Iran diminished Hassan Rouhani's authority, and they returned to an aggressive foreign policy. Those hardline leaders sought nuclear weapons capability. They sent money to militant groups throughout the Middle East, and those proxy fighters engaged in numerous armed conflicts, including attacks on Israel. Donald Trump sabotaged a successful program. When he first moved into the White House, a moderate politician was the president of Iran, and many Iranians were hopeful that their lives could improve. They had expectations as well that their country, long regarded as a threat to peace, would be welcomed into the community of nations. Trump's actions crushed those hopes. Would the world be in better shape today if Trump had not tossed out the nuclear agreement? We can't be sure. The Ayatollah, as well as the clerics, figures in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and others did not wish to surrender their positions of power. A popular president such as Rouhani had the potential to undermine their authority. The regime's leaders would resist change. Nevertheless, if the nuclear deal had remained in effect and the Iranian economy continued to improve, it would have been difficult for Kingpins and the establishment to continue defending a system that many Iranians despised. We don't know how events would have unfolded if the nuclear deal had remained in effect, but at least there was a chance for significant progress. Trump's reckless abandonment of the settlement eliminated that opportunity. We are left asking, if the nuclear deal had not been killed, would Iran's relationship with the United States, Israel, and the world now be different?