Follow us on social

P20180805sc-0480_1

Five years after Trump's JCPOA exit, Iran closer to bomb than ever

With President Biden seemingly now disinterested in this issue, perhaps it's time for Tehran's Arab neighbors to take over negotiations.

Analysis | Middle East

Today, May 8, is the five-year anniversary of Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. It is difficult to overstate how disastrous his exit from the agreement— and Joe Biden’s failure to re-enter it — has been for U.S. national security.

From Iran’s progress towards a nuclear weapons option and its support for Russia against Ukraine to the loss of U.S. leverage over Iran and credibility with the global community, this decision will go down in history as one of the biggest strategic screw-ups in American history.

Since Trump’s withdrawal in May, 2018, Iran has amassed enough enriched fissile material for several bombs. While its breakout time — the amount of time that Iran would need to assemble all the components necessary for one bomb — was more than one year  during the JCPOA, it is now less than 10 days. Neither U.S.-led sanctions nor Israeli assassinations have dented Iran’s nuclear advances. It’s clear now that only the JCPOA has been successful in boxing in Iran’s nuclear program. 

Meanwhile, having been betrayed by the United States, Iran has moved closer to China and Russia at a time when the U.S.’s own tensions with those powers are at a crisis point. Had the United States stayed in the agreement, Iran would very likely not be aiding Russia’s war in Ukraine today.

Moreover, Washington’s leverage with Tehran has dissipated. The United States has proven incapable of offering credible and enduring sanctions relief, while U.S. tensions with Russia and China have created new opportunities for Iran to circumvent U.S. sanctions.

In addition, in 2015, the U.S. was the gatekeeper to the international community. Washington decided which country was part of it and which was a pariah. But in today’s multipolar world, given that the United States has lost this role, Iran no longer needs Washington to shed its pariah status.

Tehran too deserves much blame for the dying state of the JCPOA. Western and Iranian diplomats have told me that Iran now wants to return to the package it rejected back in August 2022, while the U.S. and EU partners believe that Iran’s fast-growing nuclear program necessitates revisions to that text. But the prospects of reviving the negotiations are fast slipping away as the Biden administration has deprioritized this issue. Without some form of a deal, the risk of war is creeping closer.

Preventing war currently relies solely on the discipline of all actors involved — including the Israelis — from not taking dramatic escalatory steps. This is not a strategy that makes America safer.

As war inches closer, potentially triggered by Israel, other regional states are getting frustrated with Biden’s lack of interest and strategy. The president is neither handling this issue nor allowing Arab states in the region to find their own solution with Iran.

One possible way forward would be for a nuclear deal to be struck between Iran and its Arab neighbors. Georgetown University’s Ali Vaez and Vali Nasr of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies did an excelling job of spelling out this option for Foreign Affairs this week. It is worth a shot. Indeed, if Biden won’t prioritize this issue or does not want to pay the political cost of striking a deal with the regime in Tehran, he should at least not stand in the way of regional states seeking to find their own solution.

If they succeed, restrictions will be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program that will help prevent an Iranian bomb. If they fail, America will be in no worse position than it is in today.


President Donald J. Trump signs an Executive Order in Bedminster, New Jersey, entitled “Reimposing Certain Sanctions with Respect to Iran.” (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
Analysis | Middle East
Trump tariffs
Top image credit: Steve Travelguide via shutterstock.com

Linking tariff 'deals' to US security interests is harder than it looks

Global Crises

In its July 31 Executive Order modifying the reciprocal tariffs originally laid out in early April, the White House repeatedly invokes the close linkages between trade and national security.

The tariff treatment of different countries is linked to broader adhesion to U.S. foreign policy priorities. For example, (relatively) favorable treatment is justified for those countries that have “agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States, thus signaling their sincere intentions to permanently remedy … trade barriers ….and to align with the United States on economic and national security matters.”

keep readingShow less
Kurdistan drone attacks
Top photo credit: A security official stands near site of the Sarsang oilfield operated by HKN Energy, after a drone attack, in Duhok province, Iraq, July 17, 2025. REUTERS/Azad Lashkari

Kurdistan oil is the Bermuda Triangle of international politics

Middle East

In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that a strong Kurdistan Region within a federal Iraq is a "fundamental and strategic component" of U.S. policy. Two months later, that policy was set on fire.

A relentless campaign of drone attacks targeting Iraqi Kurdistan’s military, civilian, and energy infrastructure escalated dramatically in July, as a swarm of Iranian-made drones struck oil fields operated by American and Norwegian companies. Previous strikes had focused on targets like Erbil International Airport and the headquarters of the Peshmerga’s 70th Force in Sulaymaniyah.

The attacks slashed regional oil production from a pre-attack level of nearly 280,000 barrels per day to a mere 80,000.

The arrival of Iraqi National Security Advisor Qasim al-Araji in Erbil personified the central paradox of the crisis. His mission was to lead an investigation into an attack that Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials had already publicly blamed on armed groups embedded within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—components of his own government.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Sudanese protester stands in front of a blazing fire during a demonstration against the military coup, on International Women's Day in Khartoum, Sudan March 8, 2022. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Sudan civil war takes dark turn as RSF launches 'parallel government'

Africa

In a dramatic move last week, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced the selection of its own prime minister and presidential council to compete with and directly challenge the legitimacy of the Sudanese government.

News of the new parallel government comes days before a new round of peace talks was expected to begin in Washington last week. Although neither of the two civil war belligerents were going to attend, it was to be the latest effort by the United States to broker an end to the war in Sudan — and the first major effort under Trump’s presidency.

keep readingShow less

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.