Like his predecessors and a great many other people, President Donald Trump opposes the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. A host of countries had imposed severe economic sanctions on Iran to coerce the country into an agreement. President Barack Obama negotiated a multi-national agreement that would delay Iran’s progress toward a weapon in exchange for relief from international economic sanctions. The goal was to stop Iran’s nuclear program at a line one year away from constructing a nuclear weapon. The alternative course would be war with Iran. American public opinion at the time opposed a new war, so a deal made sense.
The nuts-and-bolts of the issue are that: a) it takes a lot of effort to get uranium from 3.67 percent purity to 20 percent purity; it takes much less time and effort to get uranium from 20 percent purity to 90 percent, the level required for a nuclear weapon.
The agreement required Iran to hold a maximum of about 600 pounds of “low-enriched” (3.67 percent purity) uranium until 2030 and no high-enriched uranium. Iran already had more than 600 pounds of low-enriched uranium, so Iran exported the surplus. The agreement also required Iran to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
As a presidential candidate and as an elected president, Trump disparaged the Iran agreement as “the worst deal in the world.” In the view of President Trump and other critics of the agreement, one problem is that the agreement isn’t a permanent solution. It ends in 2030. After that, Iran will be free to pursue its nuclear ambitions once more. Furthermore, the agreement did not constrain Iran’s actions in other areas like Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, or in the development of ballistic missiles. For American allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, the agreement stank to high heaven. Another .problem is ballistic missiles. Iran possesses missiles that can hit most Middle Eastern countries (e.g. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan).
In May 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the multi-lateral agreement with Iran. Since then, the United States has imposed increasingly severe economic sanctions. Both Iran and the other parties to the agreement continued to abide by the terms.
In June 2019, Iran announced that it, too, would withdraw from the agreement. Iran would begin stockpiling nuclear fuel above the threshold set by the agreement. It might also begin enriching that fuel above the level needed for nuclear power plants and toward the level needed for a nuclear weapon. Among the current unknowns are whether Iran has the technical capacity to make a bomb, and whether Iran had the technical capacity to miniaturize a bomb to fit on a ballistic missile. The answers are not readily apparent.
IF Iran sprints toward completion of one nuclear weapon, THEN how will the United States respond? IF Iran is just bluffing, THEN the ayatollahs may hope that other countries will push the United States into accommodation. IF not, THEN can Iran survive a hi-tech war?
Both Iran and the Obama policy are about to be tested.
 Michael Crowley, “How the Nuclear Deal Splintered into a Crisis,” NYT, 18 June 2019.
 Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China.
 President Obama seems to have believed that the Iranians would get fed-up with the clowns running the country before 2030. Then a new Iranian government would pack in guns for butter. I hope so. However, President Obama also bet on the “Arab Spring.” Some places actually play politics more hard ball even than in Chicago. So,…
 Could they persuade someone in a position of authority to see it their way? If so, how?