Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1816383494

Pence tells Israeli paper: We will tear up any new nuclear deal with Iran

Why could Tehran want to sign anything now? To have a likely '24 presidential candidate say this now is a deal killer.

Middle East
google cta
google cta

Former Vice President Mike Pence told an Israeli newspaper on Tuesday that a future Republican administration will tear up any new nuclear deal made with Iran today. Beyond all of the political bloviation, it is important to understand how Pence's statement undermines the U.S. bargaining position right now in Vienna.

“If the JCPOA finds a way to be resurrected, we will be a part and a voice of a chorus of Americans with that new administration coming into office to end the JCPOA just as quickly as we ended it under the Trump-Pence administration," he charged in Israel Hayom.

Not only would Republicans withdraw from any new agreement they would bring back President Trump’s (fundamentally counterproductive) aggressive posture against Tehran, he boasted:​​

"During our administration, it wasn't just that we got out of the JCPOA, it was that we isolated Iran like never before, we challenged their malign activities. We not only took down ISIS [the Islamic State] and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but it was our administration that took down Qassem Soleimani." He then added, "We made it clear to Iran and all of their affiliate organizations and terrorist groups across the region that the day of them sowing violence across the wider Arab world was over."

One of the biggest sticking points on behalf of the Iranian negotiators has been the inability to ensure that any future White House won’t waltz in and rip up the renewed agreement. So far they haven’t been able to get that kind of assurance, even from the Democrats who are supposedly behind getting a deal out the door. Now the GOP in the form of Mike Pence, one of the most high-profile likely candidates for president in 2024, is openly saying it will kill it. 

So what does this do?

It means that any carrots the U.S. puts forward in the talks are devalued precisely because we are explicit about their lack of durability. Therefore, Washington has to offer more to achieve the same because of this open lack of trustworthiness.

As I have written elsewhere, this has been a major challenge throughout these nuclear talks. Being unreliable does not put you in a good position to ask for a "longer and stronger" deal.

At the same time, Pence is not lying. If the GOP wins in 2024, I see only two scenarios: either Washington walks out of the deal a la Trump, or it adopts an ambiguous position in which it doesn't commit to staying and flirts with leaving. 

In the latter case, the United States injects so much uncertainty into the situation that international businesses will begin exiting the Iranian market, whether or not any sanctions are lifted from a renewed deal.  As such, uncertainty is a de facto sanction.

Not getting what it has been promised, Tehran will likely quit the deal or it will reduce its obligations, as it did from 2019 and onward. But this time around, the JCPOA would likely not be able to take that pressure without collapsing. The nuclear deal dies and with it any hope for achieving any peaceful resolution with Iran.

Naively, many in D.C. are still thinking of how to "strengthen" the deal once it is revived. But I fear that very few have internalized how weak the Western bargaining position is: One can't ask for more when one simultaneously admits that no American promise can be kept longer than four years.


Then-VP Mike Pence in 2020. (Shutterstock/Noamgalai)
google cta
Middle East
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

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.