Should the U.S. withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal? | The Tylt

In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump called Iran a "rogue nation" and criticized the Iran nuclear deal made under President Obama.

"The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don't think you've heard the last of it. Believe me."

Trump argued the agreement "provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program," and also accused the Iranian government of aiding terrorists.

"It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran's government end its pursuit of death and destruction. It is time for the regime to free all Americans and citizens of other nations that they have unjustly detained. Above all, Iran's government must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving its own people, and respect the sovereign rights of its neighbors."

President Trump is not alone in his criticism of the Iran deal. When the agreement was first reached in 2015, Republicans tried to kill the deal, and 47 Republican senators actually sent a letter to Iranian leadership in an attempt to undercut Iran's negotiations with the Obama administration.

Since Trump took office, many conservatives have urged him to abandon the deal. Jonathan S. Tobin of the National Review encouraged the president to "ignore experts" and trust his "instincts" when it comes to foreign policy, arguing the Iran deal does nothing to actually prevent the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

Trump should ignore their arguments and those inside the administration who are echoing them. It’s wise to have some skepticism about experts’ opinions; their consensus can have little to do with achieving the goals they’re tasked with accomplishing. But the problem is not only that the deal was a bad one. It’s also that plenty of experts place more value on diplomacy per se — getting a piece of paper signed and then defending its value — than on the conviction that diplomacy will stop Iran from getting a bomb.

But not everyone thinks the Iran nuclear deal is such a failure. Philip Gordon and Richard Nephew argue in The Atlantic that the agreement is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

In fact, the deal is doing exactly what is was supposed to do: prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, demonstrate to the Iranian public the benefits of cooperation with the international community, and buy time for potential changes in Iranian politics and foreign policy.

They also argue had the Iran nuclear deal not been reached, the situation would likely be much worse.

Where would Iran be today without the agreement? It’s hard to know for sure, but even if Tehran had continued only to steadily expand its nuclear program as it had for the previous two decades, it would today likely be operating the more than 20,000 centrifuges it had at the time of the agreement.

Others argue withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal would ruin any chance of the U.S. finding a diplomatic solution to North Korea, signaling to the global community that we cannot be trusted to uphold our agreements.

But many are happy with President Trump's criticism of the Iran nuclear deal, and believe it is a sign that he will pull out of the agreement soon.