Is Trump Admin Negotiating Another “Iran Deal” On Their Nuke Program?

Let’s not forget that Iran had been trying to build a nuclear weapon since the 1980s, and failing. Even with all the knowledge and material they still could not do it. And then Israel and the US started messing with their program in various ways. And then along came Obama, which did a very silly deal. And now?

U.S. Is Negotiating an Iran Deal That Would Buy Time, Again

Just before Vice President JD Vance left Islamabad early Sunday morning, he described Iran and the United States as worlds apart, chiefly on the question of assurances that Iran can never build a nuclear weapon — “not just now, not just two years from now, but for the long term.”

It turns out that the Trump administration’s idea of the long term is 20 years.

As details of Mr. Vance’s 21-hour visit to Pakistan spilled out on Monday, people familiar with the negotiations said the U.S. position was not a permanent ban on nuclear enrichment by Iran. Instead, the United States proposed a 20-year “suspension” of all nuclear activity. That would allow the Iranians to claim they had not permanently given up their right, under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NNPT), to produce their own nuclear fuel.

In response, Iran renewed a proposal that it suspend nuclear activity for up to five years, according to two senior Iranian officials and one U.S. official. The Iranians had made a very similar proposal in February during a failed set of negotiations in Geneva that convinced President Trump it was time to go to war. Days later, he ordered the attack on Iran.

First, the US should offer to help Iran build a next-gen nuclear power plant, one that cannot produce weapons grade material, as dictated by the NNPT. This is actually something that should have been done in the 90s by the US and the other nations with nuclear weapons.

But for Mr. Trump and his aides there is also the risk that any agreement that emerges may resemble the 2015 nuclear accord, which the president exited three years later and called a “horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.”

At the core of Mr. Trump’s complaint about the Obama accord, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was that it contained “sunsets.” And it did: The Iranians were allowed gradually more enrichment activity until 2030, when all restrictions would evaporate. (Iran’s commitments under the nonproliferation treaty would still ban it from building a bomb.)

But the Obama deal did not involve a full suspension of nuclear activity, which would buy at least a few years of zero nuclear activity — past Mr. Trump’s term in office.

Wait, I thought the Obama admin and the Credentialed Media said this ended Iran’s nuclear weapons program. No? We were told it was “historic!” But, it was seriously bad. That 2030 timeframe was actually more like 2025. Obama thought we could trust Iran, and, really, Iran turned around and started doing the same old research even after giving Russia its nuke materials. It lifted all these sanctions, gave Iran lots of money, and gave them legitimacy. It allowed Iran to keep their underground weapons facility at Fordow, allowed the long range missile program to continue.

It restricted inspections, and disallowed Americans from being inspectors. And Iran could deny the inspections for up to 24 days. It didn’t require Iran to release Americans it was holding. But, you know, Obama wanted a big deal before leaving office.

(Hoover) The remaining parties are our nominal allies who must believe that this nuclear deal represents a retreat from the basic proposition of Pax Americana—the guarantee that the U.S. will provide meaningful guarantees for the security of its allies. Our allies may well become less hostile to Russia and China precisely because they cannot count on U.S. leadership in tough times. The situation is starker still for the Israelis, who fear that the deal will embolden the Iranians to create more mischief in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Saudis are probably next in line in this belief. And both are surely right.

Iran’s promises count for nothing. Iran is quite happy to fund Bashar al-Assad in Syria, to back Hamas, and to launch terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. It is eager to confront its Sunni rivals, most notably Saudi Arabia, by supporting their enemies. It is eager to annihilate Israel. Indeed now that the agreement seems in place, the Ayatollah says flat out that deal or no deal, “we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon.”

Why then would anyone be surprised that Iran would be willing to make high-sounding promises that it has every intention to quickly break? Does anyone really agree with the President’s rosy view that Iran will reciprocate our respect with its respect? Putting our best foot forward makes sense with ordinary business deals where reputations count. It makes no sense when dealing with a Holmesian bad man who has no need or intention of reciprocating good will with good will.

That was in 2015, after the deal was signed. And Iran just kept being Iran. No real change in behavior.

So, what happens with these negotiations? Where do they go, what are the terms? I seriously doubt Trump, Vance, and the rest will allow a crap deal like the Obama one.