Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1855045270-scaled

Why Biden must ignore Sen. Coons’ ‘caveats’ and stay on course to return to the Iran deal

Opponents of diplomacy will be pushing for Biden to squeeze more out of Iran before returning to the deal; it won’t work.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The 2020 U.S. presidential election saw unprecedented voter turnout and continues to be an unparalleled challenge to America’s customary peaceful transition of power. The distinctive nature of this election is the culmination of divisions in American society and the stark contrast in the visions that these two candidates have articulated. The solid victory of President-elect Biden — who currently holds a nearly six million vote lead — confirms the discontent that the majority of Americans share for the Trump administration. From sowing discord within the country and isolating the United States on the global stage, the Trump presidency’s “America First” policy has ultimately displayed the fragility of American power and democracy. 

Of the many miscarriages of this administration, its policy on Iran is most emblematic of its overall failure. An incoming Biden administration will need to address these failures. However, to do so, Biden must be careful to distinguish himself from his predecessor from day one. Recent comments by Senator Chris Coons, who stated he would support a return to the Iran deal with “caveats,” is precisely the language that Biden should avoid, as it legitimates the disastrous policies of the Trump administration. 

Trump made the imprudent decision to end U.S. participation in the Iran nuclear deal, and institute a policy of brutal sanctions to bring the Iranian government to its knees. Instead, those in power in Iran remain unscathed, while Iranian masses suffer under an economic crisis and the catastrophe of a pandemic. Showing no humanity, this administration — led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — has only increased its hostile rhetoric and doubled down on its merciless Iran policy. While Pompeo claims to stand with the Iranian people, his State Department unleashed what he said would become “the strongest sanctions in history, when we are complete,” a policy that has continued unabated despite international calls for relief during a global pandemic.

Pompeo argues that “maximum pressure” has been an effective policy, but by what measure? Pompeo himself cites the dire conditions of Iran’s economy as a sign of success. While President Trump has stated his objective is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But we learned last week that he was considering military options as Iran’s nuclear program has expanded well beyond the limits imposed by the nuclear deal. If curbing Iran’s nuclear program was the intention of “max pressure,” it is clearly a resounding failure. For Iran hawks that have pushed Trump further down this path, their ambition of regime change is also a failure, as the Iranian government shows no indication of collapse.

That it is difficult to even ascertain what the goal of this administration’s Iran policy was, or is, exemplifies the incoherence of Trump’s whole presidency. Now, in their waning days, Pompeo has promised even more sanctions, using every tool at his disposal to make it more difficult for a future Biden administration to return to diplomacy, despite the fact that the majority of Americans have long favored diplomatic solutions with Iran.

Despite the musings of some Washington think tankers and pundits who would have us believe that a Biden administration will not be able to simply undo the damage of the Trump administration, the path to diplomacy is open. However, in order to repair the harm done by Trump, Biden will have to move quickly and resolutely.

President-elect Biden’s stance on the Iran deal was clear when he called Trump’s decision to withdraw a mistake and presciently noted that unilaterally exiting would isolate the United States, not Iran. Biden lambasted Trump’s Iran policy as a failure that had made the world less secure, tarnished America’s global reputation, and not delivered on any of its stated objectives. He indicated that as president he would return to the deal. 

For the reasons that Biden himself has laid out, it is imperative for his administration to make returning to the deal with Iran — so that both nations return to compliance — a top priority, as he has stated with other priorities such as rejoining the World Health Organization and reentering the Paris Climate Agreement. Anything short of an urgent return to the deal would give credence to an argument for using supposed leverage against Iran and, in turn, validate the policy of the Trump administration that he has spent years condemning. 

Moreover, with elections in Iran set for June of 2021, Biden’s window of opportunity may be short-lived if Iranians — disillusioned by U.S. betrayal and still suffering under sanctions — opt for a less engagement-friendly new administration. In contrast, the current Iranian administration has already called for Biden to return the deal. Unfortunately, the Trump administration’s policies have in many ways offered proof of what Iranian hardliners have long argued: that the United States cannot be trusted. To rebuild trust, President-elect Biden must set aside the idea of adding more disputes to the critical issue of resuming diplomacy, as Senator Coons has suggested. 

In a show of good faith, Biden should lift sanctions on Iran on humanitarian grounds in order to help them combat the pandemic. In turn, with sanctions lifted, Iran can return to compliance and once again adhere to the limits set forth in the deal. Any new negotiations to expand on the deal can take place from this starting point of mutual benefit. 

Americans may have voted, but the world has repudiated the Trump presidency for its inhumanity, antagonism, and disdain for cooperation, all of which were illustrated in his failed Iran policy. In restoring the Iran deal, Biden can successfully correct the conflict-laden course he is inheriting from Trump, repair U.S. credibility, and prove once again that the administration he served as vice president was right to choose diplomacy.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Photo: Stratos Brilakis via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.