
Trump Should Have Never Ditched the Iran Nuclear Deal
Questions remain over the true damage to Iran's nuclear program. But as conflicting comments and reports come in from the Trump Administration and Pentagon intelligence estimates, one thing is certain: Trump's failed diplomacy got us in this mess.
I should know. Ten years ago, I was in Vienna as part of the U.S. team negotiating a deal to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Those negotiations culminated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It was Trump's decision in 2018 to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal that ultimately led to the perilous situation in the Middle East today.
The JCPOA was the result of a sustained campaign of principled, effective U.S. diplomacy. President Obama began laying groundwork for this nuclear deal as soon as he came to office in 2009. His view—shared then and now across the U.S. political spectrum—was that the U.S. cannot accept a nuclear-armed Iran. At the time, Iran claimed that its nuclear energy program was for exclusively peaceful uses. Yet given evidence of Iran's past interest in possessing a nuclear bomb prior to 2003, the U.S. could not take this claim at face value.
To get the nuclear deal, Obama and his national security team rallied the world to increase pressure on Tehran. The U.S., E.U., and other allies put in place punishing sanctions. The U.N. Security Council followed suit with a fresh round of sanctions in June 2010 that were wide-ranging and targeted the nuclear program.
These sanctions worked: they convinced Iran to come to the negotiating table. To iron out the technical provisions of a deal, the U.S. then put together a team of top career diplomats, nuclear scientists, lawyers, and sanctions experts. It was a remarkable lineup of American patriots and professionals. It was my great honor to serve on that team.
Our goal was to offer Iran phased and reversible sanctions relief in exchange for far-reaching limits on Iran's nuclear activities. To maximize leverage, we coordinated with other countries, including not just European allies but also Russia and China. It was difficult, exacting, high-stakes work—for months on end.
The effort paid off. Iran agreed to substantial limits on its nuclear activities, including to export out of the country around 98% of its enriched uranium stockpile. Iran's commitments were then subject to intrusive and permanent international monitoring. By the end of the Obama Administration, the deal was working, with all sides implementing their commitments.
Trump's abrupt withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 led to the predictable result: Iran's nuclear program surged ahead, breaking free of the deal's constraints.
When Trump returned to office in January, he launched a hasty effort to negotiate a new deal. But it bore a striking resemblance to the deal negotiated by Obama, with one nuclear expert calling the Trump framework a 'dollar store JCPOA.'
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu tanked these talks with airstrikes on June 12. The U.S. launched its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22.
Trump seems convinced the matter is now resolved. But what will be the fate of the tons of enriched uranium that Iran stockpiled after Trump withdrew from the JCPOA? How much Iranian nuclear infrastructure remains intact? Will Iran ever welcome back intrusive international monitoring of its nuclear activities, such as specified in the JCPOA?
To resolve these questions, the Trump Administration will need to do the tedious, difficult work of pursuing complex negotiations. Talks look set to resume next week.
But it will require a high level of technical expertise and diplomatic capacity. And the timing couldn't be worse, as Trump and Elon Musk's culture war on the so-called 'Deep State' has hollowed out and demoralized the ranks of government experts whose support was critical to achieving the JCPOA in the first place.
This sad saga has reminded me of what we've lost in the Trump era. The JCPOA was a product of effective and principled American diplomacy, undertaken in close coordination with our closest allies. It was a team effort by countless government professionals and specialists, all motivated by patriotism and a sense of mission, and operating in an era where they were celebrated not denigrated. It was a victory of dialogue and diplomacy over bluster and bombs.
Ten years ago that approach delivered results for the American people and the world. I worry about what comes next.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time Magazine
28 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Issues Blistering Response After Iran Threatens U.S.
President Donald Trump issued blistering remarks in response to Iran's Supreme Leader claiming victory over Israel and, by extension, the U.S. In a loaded public message, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had also threatened to attack more U.S. Military bases, further splintering the Middle Eastern country's relationship with the U.S. 'Look, you're a man of great faith. A man who's highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell,' Trump said as he addressed the Iranian Supreme Leader during a White House press conference on Friday. Trump issued an even stronger response on his social media platform, Truth Social, later in the day, and doubled down on his stance once more when he reposted his message early Saturday morning. In the lengthy post, Trump accused Khamenei of publicly sharing a 'lie' by claiming Iran achieved a victory over Israel. He reaffirmed his much debated viewpoint that the U.S. strikes 'obliterated' the three key nuclear facilities it targeted on Saturday, June 21. Trump also seemingly made reference to previous reports that stated the White House turned down a plan by Israel to try and kill Khamenei. 'His country was decimated, his three evil nuclear sites were obliterated, and I knew exactly where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces... terminate his life. I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death,' Trump said, lamenting that Khamenei would not 'thank' him for this. 'During the last few days, I was working on the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery. The sanctions are biting! But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief.' According to Congress, the U.S. sanctions on Iran 'are arguably the most extensive and comprehensive set of sanctions that the United States maintains on any country.' They block Iranian government assets in the U.S., ban nearly all U.S. trade with Iran, and prohibit foreign assistance and arms sales. Read More: How U.S. Strikes May Have Inadvertently Helped the Iranian Regime Trump concluded his charged social media message by saying 'Iran has to get back into the world order flow' or else things 'will only get worse for them.' 'They are always so angry, hostile, and unhappy, and look at what it has gotten them. A burned out, blown up country with no future, a decimated military, a horrible economy, and death all around them. They have no hope, and it will only get worse! I wish the leadership of Iran would realize that you often get more with honey than you do with vinegar. Peace!" Khamenei broke his silence on Thursday, publicly speaking out—via a pre-recorded televised address and various social media comments— for the first time since Trump announced the (admittedly fragile) cease-fire between Israel and Iran. In his televised message, Khamenei threatened to attack more U.S. military bases should any more aggression from the U.S. side occur. 'The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region,' Khamenei said, referring to his country's air assault on Al Udeid Air Base, a U.S. airbase in Qatar. The strikes were intercepted by the U.S. (except for one that was allowed to proceed as there was no risk of contact), and no casualties were reported. The military action was retaliatory, a direct response to the U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities. Khamenei claimed 'total victory' over Israel. But Israel, the U.S., and Iran have all claimed to have won the war that started on June 13, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets, amid growing concern over Iran's nuclear capabilities. When the U.S. actively joined the conflict on June 21, striking three key Iranian nuclear facilities, world leaders urged de-escalation and a return to negotiations, amid fears of a far-reaching war erupting. Read More: 'Gravely Alarmed' World Leaders React After U.S. Strikes Iran Though Trump continues to say that Iran's nuclear sites were 'totally obliterated,' others have cast doubts on how effective the U.S. strikes were in setting back Iran's nuclear program. Leaked U.S. intelligence suggested that the damage to Iran's nuclear program may not be as severe as Trump has stated. CIA director John Ratcliffe said on Wednesday that the sites had been 'severely damaged' by the U.S. strikes, and that it would take years to be rebuilt. Amid the debate, the White House has put out statements arguing Trump's stance that the facilities were "obliterated," labelling reports to the contrary as "fake news." But some Democrats left a classified meeting with lingering questions over the effectiveness of the strikes. 'There's no doubt there was damage done to the program, but the allegations that we have obliterated their program just don't seem to stand up to reason,' said Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut on Thursday. 'To me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months.' When asked about concerns of Iran having 'secret nuclear sites' at Friday's press conference, Trump said he was 'not worried about it at all.' 'They're exhausted. The last thing they're thinking about right now is nuclear,' he told reporters. 'You know what they're thinking of? They're thinking about tomorrow, trying to live in such a mess. The place was bombed to hell.' Meanwhile, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that Trump needs to retire his "disrespectful" tone towards Khamenei if he wants a deal to be struck between the U.S. and Iran.'If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers,' he said. "The great and powerful Iranian people, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had no choice but to run to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our missiles, do not take kindly to threats and insults." Araghchi was referencing remarks made by NATO chief Mark Rutte who, during the NATO Summit on Wednesday, referred to Trump as the "daddy" who had to intervene in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: Dueling Fed chairs
When it comes to the Federal Reserve, President Trump can't get no satisfaction. He wants the Fed to cut interest rates, and it continually declines to do so. He mused about firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell earlier this year, but the Supreme Court quashed that idea. He routinely trolls Powell anyway, to no effect. So now Trump says he may choose a replacement for Powell months before Powell's term expires in May 2026. Powell would stay in his job until next May, while the 'shadow chair' offered a kind of alternative view of what the central bank's monetary policy could be, or would be once Powell was gone. That might telegraph to markets that lower rates and looser monetary policy are coming once Powell exits. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments Like much of what Trump does, the idea is unprecedented and jarring. The Fed is the most powerful financial institution in the world, fully able to move markets and drive the direction of the economy. Investors parse every word the Fed chair utters, looking for signs of future action. Two voices saying contradictory things about Fed policy couldn't possibly be helpful. But is the idea really that crazy? Corporations do CEO succession planning all the time, and it's actually considered mismanagement if they don't plan for the departure of key executives. Warren Buffett said in May that he finally plans to step down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway at the end of this year, with longtime deputy Greg Abel taking the job. Buffett and his now deceased partner, Charlie Munger, had been talking up Abel for several years, so shareholders expected and welcomed the news. There's a difference, however, between prudent succession planning and what Trump seems to have in mind. Abel is not going to spend the rest of 2025 going on TV to call out all the mistakes he thinks Buffett might be making and promising to shake things up the moment Buffett is gone. He could make subtle changes over time, but investors broadly expect him to manage Berkshire much as Buffett has. Trump wants regime change at the Fed, not continuity. Whoever he picks will undoubtedly be more dovish than Powell and far more willing to cut rates. Powell and a majority of the Fed's policymakers have been holding off on rate cuts since last December, waiting to see if inflation picks up. Many economists think that's prudent, given that Trump's tariffs are a tax pushing up costs, which could add a full percentage point or more to the inflation rate. The Fed normally raises rates to head off inflation, and cutting rates amid rising inflation can make a price surge worse. Read more: How jobs, inflation, and the Fed are all related Trump seems not to care about the inflationary threat. He may also believe that lower rates will stimulate growth and offset the depressant effect of his tariffs. Trump, in his second term, has also overlooked expertise and staffed the government with loyalists willing to fight all his fights and attack all his enemies with the vigor of Trump Trump's shadow chair would likely be somebody who parrots Trump's claims that Powell is a 'numbskull' and a 'dummy' who doesn't know what he's doing. Every time Powell gives testimony or holds a press conference, the anti-Powell could hold his own public event, rebutting Powell and treating investors to frothy dreams of how much richer they'll get once Powell is out of the way. Maybe the shadow chair will show up at Jackson Hole in August and heckle Powell during his annual economic speech. This all sounds kind of silly, but it may already be affecting markets. After Trump floated the idea of a shadow chair, market expectations changed from two Fed interest rate cuts this year to three, according to the CME Group's FedWatch tool. Changing interest rate expectations can affect stock prices, since lower rates sometimes correlate with higher corporate profits. Frontrunners for the shadow job supposedly include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House economist Kevin Hassett, Fed governor Chris Waller, and former Fed governor Kevin Warsh. Those are all pretty serious people not known for the kind of mudslinging Trump may be looking for. Bessent generally declines to say much about the Fed's current policy, which is exactly what markets expect from a Treasury Secretary. The others have argued for a looser policy, but within the normal confines of respectful disagreement. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is more of a bomb-thrower willing to trash-talk the Fed, a la Trump. He recently posted a tweet explaining 'why President Trump calls Powell a loser,' for anybody wanting a tutorial. But Lutnick is the bad cop to Bessent's good cop, and investors would not find comfort in Lutnick's barroom demeanor if he were in line for the Fed job. If Trump's shadow chair spooked markets, it would be counterproductive. There's also the small problem that the Fed chair isn't a dictator unilaterally deciding whether to cut rates. There are 12 members of the Fed's policymaking committee, each with one vote at each policymaking meeting. The chair can be influential, but not autocratic. Powell isn't even the most hawkish voting member, dead-set against rate cuts. He's more of a moderate lodged between hawks resisting rate cuts and doves who think the Fed should be cutting now or soon. As many analysts pointed out when Trump was talking about firing Powell earlier this year, a new chair would still leave the current policymaking board intact. Even Powell would stay. While his term as chairman expires in 2026, his term as a voting member of the policymaking committee runs to 2028. A shadow chair wouldn't have any voting power until the Senate confirmed him or her to the job next May. The best such a person could do is amplify the chorus of voices vilifying Powell. Maybe that would be good enough for Trump. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks Trump order targeting law firm tied to Fox News, Dominion settlement
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from implementing an executive order targeting Susman Godfrey, the law firm that represented Dominion Voting Systems in its lawsuit with Fox News over the network's coverage of President Trump's 2020 election fraud claims. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan said the effort violated the Constitution and threatens the independence of the bar, which she called 'a necessity for the rule of law.' The decision marks the latest blow to Trump's effort to penalize law firms for pursuing cases he opposes or hiring lawyers he alleges are adversaries. Trump's April order sought to ban Susan Godfrey attorneys from accessing government buildings, viewing documents or representing any party that has litigation involving the federal government. The president contended that the move was necessary 'to address the significant risks, egregious conduct, and conflicts of interest.' AliKhan, a Biden appointee disagreed with the justification. 'While the Order proclaims that it has been made pursuant to the 'authority vested in [Donald Trump] as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,' Order, the court is not convinced that there is a statutory or constitutional basis for the actions taken therein,' she wrote in her ruling. 'Defendants do not point to any statutory authority that empowers the President to punish a law firm for its choice of clients, donations, or other speech, and the court is not aware of any law that would support such action,' AliKhan continued. The judge added, 'Likewise, there is no constitutional authority that supports the action taken by the Order, and it cannot be sustained based on any of 'the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President.' The law firm in a statement online hailed the ruling as a 'resounding victory.' 'The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional,' the company wrote. 'Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day.' Godfrey, which helped deliver Dominion a $787 million dollar settlement, filed a suit against the president after his order was released. Other firms, including WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, were also on the Trump administration's hit list. Several of those orders have also been temporarily locked after the companies filed similar lawsuits.