1

In 2015 P5+1 signed an agreement(JCPOA) with the Islamic Republic of Iran and after 3 years, Trump revoked the deal and now they are about to revive it. Given that the deal does not have enough support in the Congress and considering strong opposition in the region(Arabs and Israel), what's the interest of reviving it when it will probably be annulled after two or six years?

4
  • 2
    From a general point of view: it's not completely sure though that it may not survive longer. Giving up because there is a chance of failure isn't the wisest strategy. However, it's a good question and maybe the administration has said what they expect and why they actually think this deal would be a good one. They have thought so in the past so maybe they hope that state can be reached again, or maybe they see no better alternative or something else.
    – Trilarion
    Aug 28 at 20:04
  • 2
    This time around they might be able to put some things in place to protect it?
    – Joe W
    Aug 28 at 20:36
  • 2
    You can ask exactly the same Q about any treaty the US signs or ratifies, since the constitutional debate on whether presidents can unilaterally withdraw is not really settled. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter#Conclusion
    – Fizz
    Aug 29 at 7:18
  • Why did the previous administration revoke the deal when the next administration can just revive it? There are rarely permanent solutions to any political issue.
    – doneal24
    Sep 13 at 18:23

2 Answers 2

6

Politics is a matter of long-term pressures, not short-term actions. The point of passing a bill like this is to establish a principle and create some institutions, because principles and institutions are difficult to uproot once they take hold. Trump was unique to the extent that he had no regard for institutions, political consequences, or precedents; no other president would have taken that kind of abrupt unilateral action. Barring the unlikely event of Trump's re-election, the agreement should stand.

In normal US contexts, short-term political grandstanding belies long-term political stability. Lots of political leaders are willing to take a verbal stand against this or that, but are generally more cautious about actual behavior. The question is whether we are returning to something resembling a normal political context, or whether Trumpism will regain enough political standing to reassert its Pyrrhic quest for power.

2
  • I think it's not a viable deal, even some influential Democrats have opposed to it. Republicans don't want it at all. S.Arabia, UAE and Israel wanted always to curb it. And even in Iran it's not a popular deal. It seems to be a temporary solution.
    – TMFG
    Aug 29 at 7:17
  • 1
    @TMFG: Maybe, maybe not. But the higher level push, I think, is towards some sort of political normalization with Iran. Conservatives have been using Iran as a stalking horse since the revolution in '79; that has political advantages for them domestically, but destabilizes the region. Aug 29 at 14:08
0

The main interest of the West is to get more oil and gas, both of which Iran has. In the context of the current conflict between Russia and the West, the West is trying to get these goods even from countries which are not known to be friends of the West, like Venezuela and Iran. The reviving of the nuclear deal will give the western companies the possibility to do business with Iran again, including buying oil and gas.

Iran is willing to export gas to EU as can be seen in this article and EU needs that gas, but the main problem preventing it to hapen are US sanctions on Iran.

4
  • 1
    This does not appear to answer the question of why they are attempting this again if it can just be revoked again by the next president.
    – Joe W
    Sep 13 at 13:06
  • @Joe W Shure the next president can revoke it, but the next elections are 2024, so there´ll be 2 years the West be able to by oil and gas from Iran.
    – convert
    Sep 13 at 13:49
  • That still does not address the issues and concerns about this potentially being revoked for a second time. At a minimum if you think this is just about oil and gas and there are no concerns about it getting revoked again that should be in the answer.
    – Joe W
    Sep 13 at 14:09
  • Your answer covers why they may want to renew the deal but it does not address the concerns about it being able to be canceled again as soon as the next president takes office.
    – Joe W
    Sep 13 at 14:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .