TRUMP and IRAN - why tear up the nuclear deal?

[Sculptor1]

I'd like to canvas opinions as to why Trump unilaterally dumped Obama's Iran nuclear deal of 2015.

With the entire world scratching its head, whilst urging the US to return to the deal, I wonder whether there was any specific reasoning behind dumping the deal.
Has it proven to be a good idea? How's is working out for the interests of peace?

[LuckyR]

I'd like to canvas opinions as to why Trump unilaterally dumped Obama's Iran nuclear deal of 2015.

With the entire world scratching its head, whilst urging the US to return to the deal, I wonder whether there was any specific reasoning behind dumping the deal.
Has it proven to be a good idea? How's is working out for the interests of peace?

Uummm... because it has the word "Obama" attached to it?

[Sculptor1]

I'd like to canvas opinions as to why Trump unilaterally dumped Obama's Iran nuclear deal of 2015.

With the entire world scratching its head, whilst urging the US to return to the deal, I wonder whether there was any specific reasoning behind dumping the deal.
Has it proven to be a good idea? How's is working out for the interests of peace?

Uummm... because it has the word "Obama" attached to it?

Indeed.
Thanks for the answer. I was hoping that one of our American friends would try to defend it.

[Steve3007]

I'd like to canvas opinions as to why Trump unilaterally dumped Obama's Iran nuclear deal of 2015.

As LuckyR said, I think the principle reason is simply that it was negotiated by Obama. In a recent interview, Boris Johnson is one person to have acknowledged that fairly obvious fact. It appears to be the principle reason for quite a lot of Trump's decisions.

Obviously that doesn't, in itself, necessarily mean that it was a bad idea to dump the deal. So far, it seems to be bad. Iran is increasing its enrichment of Uranium and it's obvious why. In a world of "strong men" a nuclear weapon allows small countries to punch above their weight. And the murder of the Iranian general in Iraq also arguably plays into the Iranian regimes's hands by strengthening their case (in the minds of the Iraqis) for the US military leaving Iraq and leaving a vacuum for Iran to fill.

But maybe this game of brinkmanship will ultimately result in the Iranian regime being forced to the negotiating table, as Trump is gambling. Only time will tell. If it does, even if the resulting deal is identical to Obama's, if Trump can claim that it isn't, peel off the Obama label and re-brand it the Trump deal, I think he'll be happy with that.

[Sculptor1]

I'd like to canvas opinions as to why Trump unilaterally dumped Obama's Iran nuclear deal of 2015.

As LuckyR said, I think the principle reason is simply that it was negotiated by Obama. In a recent interview, Boris Johnson is one person to have acknowledged that fairly obvious fact. It appears to be the principle reason for quite a lot of Trump's decisions.

Obviously that doesn't, in itself, necessarily mean that it was a bad idea to dump the deal. So far, it seems to be bad. Iran is increasing its enrichment of Uranium and it's obvious why. In a world of "strong men" a nuclear weapon allows small countries to punch above their weight. And the murder of the Iranian general in Iraq also arguably plays into the Iranian regimes's hands by strengthening their case (in the minds of the Iraqis) for the US military leaving Iraq and leaving a vacuum for Iran to fill.

But maybe this game of brinkmanship will ultimately result in the Iranian regime being forced to the negotiating table, as Trump is gambling. Only time will tell. If it does, even if the resulting deal is identical to Obama's, if Trump can claim that it isn't, peel off the Obama label and re-brand it the Trump deal, I think he'll be happy with that.

Iran have been to the negotiating table and were screwed by Trump. I do not see them coming back any time soon.
What's been interesting is that Iraq, once the arch enemy of Iran now seems to stand in support of getting the US out.
It seems that the US finds it all too complicated for its democratic system to cope with. Let's not beat about the bush, the USA earmarked Iran as an enemy back in the 1950s when they instigated the coup that led to the Shah Resi Pahlavi being made leader with all his evil tyrrany. After the revolution the US funded Saddam Hussein in a 10 year war against Iran.
But the political complexion in Iraq is no longer the minority Baathists.
Both Iran and Iraq, as well as Syria are Shiites. And with Syria weakened, the majority shiites there may be increasingly well disposed to ally with Iran and Iraq at least in the aim of expelling the US infidels.
I feel all this is too much for Trump's brain.
If his aim is simply to undo Obama, for the sake of it, this puts the US in an insidious position.
Were I a Shiite Muslim I might well now feel that the US, ally of Saudi Arabia had been in the business of attacking my particular sect for the last 40 years +

[Steve3007]

I suppose, in a case like this, there are quite a lot of current and historical facts and narratives, including those that you've mentioned, that can be laid out on the table for consideration when deciding what to do. Including, and adding to, the list you provided:

US instigated coup against the Iranian government and installation of the Shah in the 1950's.

Islamic revolution in the late 1970's leading to the US Embassy siege, the downfall of Carter and rise of Reagan.

US, under Bush senior, shooting down a civilian Iranian airliner and never acknowledging it. (Bush Snr says: "I will not apologise for the US")

US funding of Saddam Hussein against Iran.

Iranian and Russian support for various groups, including the Assad regime, in places like Syria, in pursuit of their interests.

US and their allies' support for various groups in places like Syria, in pursuit of their interests.

US longstanding support of for Israel.

Iranian longstanding non-recognition and mutual antipathy with Israel.

US led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein regime.

US assassination of Iranian general.

In the resulting rush to respond, Iran shooting down of civilian airliner.

etc. etc.

Many actions taken by people because it suits what they perceive to be their interests at the time.

It seems to me that the tricky question with these big geo-political issues is what, if any, weight to give all of these various factors, and how far back in history you go. Does one take a completely "realpolitik" approach and keep wiping the slate clean, saying things like "we are where we are"?

Naturally, what tends to happen in practice is that all sides select the historical events that support their narrative. So, for example, Trump proposed committing the war crime of bombing 52 Iranian cultural sites - one for every US citizen killed as a result of the US embassy siege. Iran responded with a similar proposition based on the 290 people killed when Bush Snr administration shot down that airliner.

[Steve3007]

(Correction: when I said "US Embassy Siege" I probably should have said "hostage crisis". And apparently 52 people weren't killed. There were 52 hostages.)