The current US administration has a clear strategy with respect to Iran: maximum economic sanctions in lieu of the previous nuclear deal. But, what are the potential negative outcomes of this policy which may negatively impact the US in the long term?

I can list a few of them, although they are not huge costs:

  1. US is discredited because of leaving Iran's nuclear deal without a convincing reason.
  2. EU, Russia and China don't allow US to become an economic punisher in world.
  3. Iran may get more radical, and try to revenge in non-economic approach.

But, is there any other cost that politicians are citing in opposition to this strategy?

  • 4
    I'm afraid that's mostly speculation on future events, which is offtopic in this forum.
    – Rekesoft
    Jun 29 '18 at 9:39
  • 1
    If you change the question from costs of to potential negative outcomes, the question might fit the guidelines.
    – userLTK
    Jun 29 '18 at 10:49
  • 1
    @userLTK "potential negative outcomes" is still highly speculative. Chaos theory says a butterfly in Teheran can cause a hurricane in Florida.
    – Philipp
    Jun 29 '18 at 11:18
  • 1
    Also, "negative outcome" is pretty subjective. For an extreme example. overthrow of the current theocracy and its replacement with a secular, anti-religious government would probably be viewed negatively by members of the government and devout Muslims, positively by a lot of other people.
    – jamesqf
    Jun 29 '18 at 16:57
  • 1
    I think a lot of you are too hooked on the "that's speculation" tag. We can define a negative outcome pretty easily. A drop in trade, rise (or fall) in oil prices - depending on your perspective. A collapse in the economy. A military response. These are all neatly defined negative outcomes. Many actions in the political world have expected outcomes. One man's negative can at times be another man's positive, but that's different then opinion, that's about position.
    – userLTK
    Jul 2 '18 at 3:28

Browse other questions tagged .