Published on: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 15:45:00 GMT
Original Story: Almost No One Has Said The Iran Deal Is Good For The U.S. – Forbes

Iran Deal: Consensus on Badness, Mostly.

Well, bless my weary millennial heart, if Forbes hasn’t just dropped a bombshell that absolutely no one saw coming. Their headline, “Almost No One Has Said The Iran Deal Is Good For The U.S.,” is truly a masterpiece of stating the blindingly obvious. It’s like reporting that water is wet, or that your boss will definitely approve that last-minute meeting invite. Shocking, I tell you. Absolutely groundbreaking journalism. My morning coffee just got a whole lot more cynical, if that’s even possible.

The Shocking Revelation (Not Really)

For those of you who might have been living under a particularly dense geopolitical rock since, oh, say, 2015, the Iran Nuclear Deal – formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, because everything important needs a ridiculously bureaucratic acronym – has been the diplomatic equivalent of that one ex everyone has an opinion on. Some insist it was a necessary evil, a pragmatic step to prevent nuclear proliferation. Others, and by “others” I mean pretty much every Republican with a microphone and a good chunk of Democrats who just didn’t want to rock the boat *too* much, declared it a catastrophic surrender to the mullahs.

The Forbes piece, with all the analytical heft of a particularly dry congressional report, merely confirms what anyone paying even a modicum of attention has known for years: the deal, despite its noble intentions (depending on who you asked), was never universally beloved. It was a compromise, a stopgap, a temporary truce in a perpetually simmering conflict. And compromises, by their very nature, rarely leave anyone feeling like they’ve won. Usually, everyone just feels vaguely ripped off, which, honestly, sums up most things in life after thirty.

A Brief, Painful History Lesson

Let’s rewind, shall we? Back to 2015. Remember that summer? Everyone was still playing Pokémon GO, wasn’t quite sure what TikTok was, and the Obama administration was painstakingly hammering out an agreement with Iran, plus the P5+1 group (that’s the UN Security Council’s permanent five members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – plus Germany, for good measure). The goal, ostensibly, was to curtail Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. A grand bargain, a diplomatic triumph, a testament to multilateralism, depending on which cable news channel you were watching.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the deal was met with the kind of vitriol usually reserved for Nickelback reunion tours. It was called a “bad deal,” a “danger to Israel,” a “cash infusion for terrorists.” Never mind the technical details, the verification protocols, the IAEA inspections – the narrative was set. It was a giveaway. A betrayal. The sky was falling, and Obama was apparently holding the umbrella for Tehran. The truth, as always, was far more nuanced and, frankly, boring than the political rhetoric allowed. It was a complex agreement designed to kick a very dangerous can down the road, hoping that future generations might figure out a less terrible solution. Spoiler alert: they haven’t.

The Truth, The Whole Truth, and The Campaign Trail

The beauty, or perhaps the tragedy, of modern foreign policy is its uncanny ability to be completely reinvented on the campaign trail. Facts are fungible, positions are fluid, and what was once a pragmatic necessity can, with enough rhetorical elbow grease, become an existential threat. The Iran Deal perfectly embodies this elasticity of “truth.” Was it good for the U.S.? Depends on when you asked, and more importantly, *who* you asked.

The political establishment, particularly in Washington, operates on a different plane of reality, one where consistency is a weakness and strategic pivots are just good politics. The general public, bless their hearts, just wants to know if they’re safe and if gas prices are going up. The connection between the two is often tenuous, at best, and completely fabricated, at worst. The JCPOA became less about nuclear non-proliferation and more about partisan loyalty tests. If you were a Democrat, you probably had to at least pretend to like it. If you were a Republican, you had to despise it with the fiery passion of a thousand suns.

When Diplomacy Was Just “Talking”

And speaking of positions shifting like sand in a desert storm, let’s take a little stroll down memory lane with one Donald J. Trump. Before he became the guy who tore up the deal with such theatrical flourish, before “maximum pressure” became the mantra of his administration, there was a time, way back in 2008, when a different tune was being sung. Young Donald, then just a real estate mogul and reality TV star, wasn’t quite so averse to the idea of engaging with Iran. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, he famously declared that if he were president, he’d be willing to talk directly to Iran, saying something to the effect of, “You have to be able to talk to them.” He even seemed open to the idea of a deal, suggesting a transactional approach. “You’re going to make a deal,” he said, implying that any good businessman could negotiate one. Fast forward a decade, and that same man was actively dismantling the very framework for diplomatic engagement, pulling out of a deal he once might have considered a starting point for negotiation, and replacing it with… well, mostly just more sanctions and a whole lot of yelling. The “art of the deal” apparently had a very specific expiration date when it came to Tehran, or perhaps it just didn’t apply to deals *other* people made.

Where We Are Now: Maximum Pressure, Minimum Progress

So, here we are. The JCPOA is effectively in a coma, on life support, perhaps even six feet under, depending on the news cycle. Iran’s nuclear program, rather than being contained, has reportedly advanced significantly. Sanctions are still in place, the Iranian economy is still struggling, and regional tensions are higher than ever. It’s almost as if unilaterally abandoning a complex international agreement without a viable Plan B doesn’t actually lead to better outcomes. Who knew?

The current administration, inheriting this particular geopolitical dumpster fire, is now grappling with the same questions. Do they try to revive the zombie deal? Do they push for a “better” deal, whatever that means now? Or do they just keep kicking the can down the road, hoping a sudden bout of sanity breaks out in Tehran (or Washington, for that matter)? The “truth” of the matter is, we’re in a worse position now than we were when the deal was in effect. The “reality” is that no one has a magic wand, and all the previous “solutions” have only created new problems.

The Unintended Consequences of Unilateralism

The whole “Iran Deal sucks, let’s trash it” approach, while politically expedient for some, has yielded exactly zero discernible benefits for U.S. national security. In fact, it has arguably made the region less stable and Iran’s nuclear ambitions more opaque. It’s the classic corporate move: dismantle a system because you don’t like the previous management, then spend years and untold resources trying to rebuild something similar, only worse, and then declare victory for your “bold leadership.” It’s exhausting just thinking about it.

“Good for the U.S.”: A Moving Target

What does “good for the U.S.” even mean in this context? Is it preventing a nuclear Iran at all costs? Is it maintaining regional stability? Is it upholding international norms? Is it selling more arms to Saudi Arabia? Is it keeping oil prices low? The goalposts shift constantly, making any objective assessment impossible. For politicians, “good for the U.S.” usually translates to “good for my re-election chances” or “good for my party’s narrative.” For the rest of us, it means another round of hand-wringing and the vague sense that we’re perpetually on the brink of something unpleasant.

Beyond the Headlines, Lies the Tedium

So, yes, Forbes, thank you for confirming that a contentious, politicized international agreement continues to be contentious and politicized. It’s a profound insight, truly. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go refill my coffee and contemplate the eternal struggle between the truth of inconvenient facts and the reality of convenient fictions. It’s a job, I suppose, but I’d really rather just be watching paint dry. It’s less stressful.