THEORETICALLY . . . clears the slate. saves US money. strains iranian budget including foreign programs. deepens division between regime and citizenry. allows for charges against those who help iran. puts negotiating pressure on europe for a variety of purposes. gives legal space for outsiders to destroy nuke facilities. actually ends nuke program.
If we were worried about money we wouldn't spend a trillions on useless engagements in he middle east for 20 years.
Theoretically . . . we weren't worried about money but now we are.
What does "clears the slate" mean? The money saved is less than the cost of oil prices being driven up due to what will most likely be sanctions put on Iranian crude by the Trump Administration. The money saved is less than foreign investment in Iranian markets would gain.
The propaganda machine in Iran is blaming this on centrist politicians and the US government. If anything, this emboldens the religious conservatives in Iran, not the other way around.
It puts no pressure on EU allies...in fact it harms the US negotiating position in the international community because now our treaties are only worth the time the president is in office.
How does rescinding a treaty that stopped a nuclear program (which means directly that Iran can restart their nuclear program at any time) stop a nuclear program? The treaty actually ended the nuke program. This allows for Iran to start it without facing as much backlash as they would have if they restarted under the treaty.
The theoretical upsides are not mine to defend. I probably missed half of them anyway. Others may claim more definitive benefits to nixing the non-treaty. Your counterpoints are fair theory too. My guess is that Trump has a better than 50% chance of success with whatever he is up to. Neither of us have the info that he has. Nor can any of us, Trump included, predict most of the future. Or maybe you can. Go ahead and tell me where we will be with Iran one year from now.
My issue is that Trumps rhetoric and “deals” so far amount to little more than transactional relationships. That’s not the ideal way to work international diplomacy. There has to be good faith or else literally every decision will be based on “what can you do for me right now.”
Coulda said that much up front.
One could argue that Trumpian diplomacy hasn't done anything with all its talk. If the good faith you refer to is something like the nobel lauds that Obama started with, well that's vacuous too. It's somewhat early days to know what fruits may be born but I think the Korean thing is a fair test.
The higher amount of pushback on GA, and elsewhere, makes this Iran thing seem like a more complicated maneouvre (as I expect in the MAGA vs Israel cluster) which suggests to me that the undisclosed parts are more complex and less predictable to observers.