It will probably be the US, Israel, and some tiny African nation that can use a loan vs the rest of the world, as usual. And it will send a clear message to N Korea that there’s no point in negotiating about nukes with us.
It’s in the news lately, in that Trump is being somewhat cryptic but threatening to end the deal.
What a disaster that will be. There’s no evidence so far Iran has violated the deal, and based on the deal, they can’t make efforts towards nuclear weapons for at least ten years. If Trump ends the deal, then Iran has no reason not to, once again, work towards nuclear weapons.
And the US would get nothing from ending this deal. This is irrational and unreasonable policy, and if Trump goes forward with ending the deal, he’ll be helping Iranian extremists and hurting American national security.
Further, ending this deal would demonstrate to other countries, including North Korea, that America can’t be trusted to keep to the terms of deals we sign.
Their reasons for complying are weaker if the US backs out. There are still significant reasons to continue to comply, though. It’s a multi-party deal, not a bilateral agreement. Iran would still have a deal with the other parties that lifted sanctions - UK, France, the EU, Russia, and China. That’s a pretty big economic reason to stay compliant after US withdrawal. It also offers them the opportunity to keep driving political wedges between the US and those other parties. That distraction helps them with things like potentially reducing interference in the proxy war going on between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The motivation to comply is weaker. The instability caused by a major change can produce other negative effects in terms of US interests once it filters through regional politics. It’s not nearly as clearcut as Iran “no reason not to, once again, work towards nuclear weapons.”
Fair enough, my language was hyperbolic.
There’s the rub. He’s doing his cryptic shit again. He does this weekly with every subject, from hiring new people in his administration to important policy decisions about earth shaking topics. Past experience says to not take what he says as gospel. He blows hot and cold depending on who he talked to an hour ago, what tv pundit he saw pontificating on fox news, and reacting to criticism from perceived opponents in congress and the press.
I personally have retreated to what was policy in my elementary school in the 1950’s–duck and cover. 
To expand on my school days–when an atomic bomb was perceived to be launched towards the US, we went into the hall by our lockers, kneeled down and covered our necks. I’m not quite sure what protecting our necks was supposed to do. Probably we weren’t old enough to bend over and kiss our asses goodbye.
That’s fine for people in schools. What are we supposed to do if we’ve already graduated?
Paranoid to wonder if backing out would be an attempt to goad Iran and/or NK into doings something that the Trump administration could spin as a casus belli?
I don’t see why Iran wouldn’t wait to resume bomb production. Iraq and North Korea make it very, very clear what the US foreign policy is: the US doesn’t attack countries that have a nuclear threat.
In not-so-surprising news, Trump leaves the deal.
Uggh. What a colossal blunder. Bolton gets his wish, and we’re closer to war with Iran than before, and Iran now has an easier path to a nuclear weapon.
But how? Bibi stole all the instruction manuals!
I think it’s reasonable to say that we’re already at war with Iran, we’ve just been moving slow in the hopes that a good excuse to do so would arise.
Time to start queueing up that Nobel Peace Prize. :rolleyes:
I wonder if Trump is as good at pulling out of women as he is at pulling out of deals?
Well, no real surprise he decided to reimpose sanctions. I haven’t read anything about it yet except that it’s happened, nor seen the reactions of Europe or Iran itself, but I assume they aren’t good.
That said, I do wonder if Trump (or someone on his team) is deliberately using this to stiffen the discussion wrt North Korea and possibly or perhaps ultimately with China over trade. Probably reading too much into this, but it seems curious that all of this is coming to a head right now, and hard to believe that this isn’t meant as a signal to someone other than Iran, who I doubt Trump et al really care all that much about except as an annoyance in Syria and who they probably feel they can make an example out of without significant repercussions wrt the US. Hell, just look at what this has done to the oils futures market…US oil will probably be booming again this year because of the price surge, a non-zero part of which has to do with OPEC production caps and the situation in Iran, who was allowed to sell oil cheaply on the market and is now going to go back under sanction when the price of oil is rising.
Or, maybe Trump is just an idiot and all of this is actually coincidence, and I need to put my tinfoil cap back on…
Here’s a wild guess: Even with the Americans trying their very best to bully European, Russian, Chinese, etc. companies out of doing business with Iran, the ever-continuing increase in trade will still be big enough to make the deal worth keeping for all remaining parties involved.
So, if I had to guess, I’d say the deal will stay in place.
Not crazy at all, this. Indeed, The New York Times reports that:
And if the US decides to impose a blockade? The thing is, while it’s nice to think that the US doesn’t matter and everyone will just ignore whatever we do, that isn’t reality. I seriously doubt it will be business as usual for Iran and everyone with no change exept the US will put the sanctions back in place (which is meaningless as the US doesn’t buy any oil from Iran…and yes, I know that oil on the international market is fungable, but the reality is we just don’t get our oil from them nor even a lot from the region).
Interesting. I didn’t know it was even a thing. But it makes sense to me that someone on his team has thought about it anyway. Thanks for the link!
Oh I certainly agree that plenty of companies will have to decrease or even completely halt their trade with Iran. From that same New York Times article I just mentioned:
So you’re right: It won’t be “business as usual.” What I imagine, rather, is that enough companies (and governments) will resist the American bullying that the deal will still remain worth it to the Iranians et. al. Of course, I could be wrong - it happens, on occasion. 
No, it could happen…it just won’t be casual ignoring of the US as I took you to mean. And it also depends on how hard the US (i.e. Trump et al) want to play all of this. They could, for instance, impose additional sanctions or other measures on foreign companies in, say, Europe, who ignore the sanctions and try and continue to do business. The US could in fact impose a blockade, though that’s one step short of war (and a pretty small step), but the point is there is a spectrum of things the US COULD do if they are really all in to put the screws to Iran. And they might do it as a relatively easy way to demonstrate to other countries (China, say, or Russia and certainly North Korea) what a pain we could be and perhaps get them in a better negotiating frame of mind.
Personally, as I said earlier, I think this is a mistake for the US to be taking a hard line on this wrt what we seem to know. But it’s a mistake to think that the US would be ignored.
You’re assuming Trump is playing the deep long game. He isn’t. And the responsible people in the US gov’t don’t want to go in this direction either.
Trump got the headline. That’s all he wanted out of this and now it’s Mission Accomplished, fuckyouverymuch Obama. The only thing he enjoys better than this is putting his name in big gold tacky letter on tall downtown buildings. If someone would only allow him to continue to try to do that, he’d be happier than Putin on his 4th term inauguration.