{
"authors": [
"Richard Sokolsky",
"Aaron David Miller"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [
"Iranian Proliferation"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
The administration needs to come up with a sensible strategy to confront Iran where it challenges core U.S. interests. But playing around with a nuclear agreement is both irresponsible and dangerous.
Source: USA Today
President Trump has certified for the second time that Iran is in compliance with the 2015 nuclear accord that limits its nuclear program. But the leaks and background briefings surrounding his statement, followed by new sanctions announced Tuesday, sent unmistakable signals: The decision was taken grudgingly, Trump is increasingly unhappy with Iran and the deal, and he may be looking for a way out.
This is potentially playing with fire. The Iranian regime is repressive, a serial human rights abuser and expanding its influence in the region. Iran without nuclear weapons is a far less dangerous adversary. Unless Iran cheats big time on the agreement, there are four very good reasons why the administration would be well advised not to abandon it or take actions designed to push Iran to do so.
Signaling can be dangerous. Everything about the president’s certification, which is required every 90 days, seemed like a warning to Iran that the next time might be different. The White House put out the story that Trump spent 55 minutes of an hour-long meeting arguing against certification and that he’d been talked into approving it the first time around in April. Administration officials mentioned the additional sanctions and said they intended to strengthen enforcement policies in response to Trump’s request for a more hard-line approach...
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Richard Sokolsky is a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program. His work focuses on U.S. policy toward Russia in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.
Senior Fellow, American Statecraft Program
Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on U.S. foreign policy.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
Amid uncertainty caused by the Iran war, the global drive for nonproliferation has stalled. With Europe diplomatically marginalized and countries reassessing their nuclear options, efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons risk becoming irrelevant.
Jane Darby Menton
Between the United States’ market-driven approach and China's state-led industrial strategy, Europe is reckoning with how it can remain competitive in the global economy. But is Europe in danger of becoming a U.S. or China colony?
Noah Barkin, Anu Bradford
Preparing candidate countries for EU membership is no longer enough. As the enlargement process becomes a reality, the union must also prepare its own societies.
Iliriana Gjoni
The full list of humiliations Europe has endured since Donald Trump returned to the White House makes for grim reading. But Washington’s adversarial approach to its allies undermines its own power base.
Rym Momtaz
The U.S.-Iran war has crossed a dangerous threshold: water infrastructure in the Gulf is now a target. Ecological statecraft is no longer peripheral to security, it's part of its foundations.
Olivia Lazard, Ali Bin Shahid