Editorial: Unsteady hope of Iran deal now even more precarious

In the immediate aftermath of President Donald Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, assessing it to be "disastrous" or "correct" seems to be largely a partisan exercise.

Democrats are declaring predictable outrage; Republicans almost knee-jerk support. We cannot be quick to embrace either extreme. Given some of Iran's behaviors in the two and a half years since President Barack Obama signed America onto the deal, you cannot blame critics who worry that the arrangement did little to contain the republic's tendencies toward increasing tensions and conflict in the Middle East. Considering the general consensus that the pact so far has been working to control Iran's capacity to enhance those tendencies with nuclear capabilities, it is likewise easy to understand the fears about the consequences of walking away.

So, as President Trump abandons the deal without consulting Congress, we are left with the same limited sense of assurance we had to muster when Obama signed it despite the objection of Congress - a precarious hope. But it must be said that logic makes that feeling even more shaky today.

After all, as we mentioned, experts monitoring the agreement - which, keep in mind, was also hugely unpopular in Iran among hard-liners who felt their country had given up too much - say that Iran so far seems to be abiding by the letter of the accord. In those areas where the republic is pushing its limits, notably its agitations in Syria and other Middle East neighbors, we would seem to have more leverage as partners with the rest of the world rather than as isolated outsiders raising wild and unsubstantiated accusations in bellicose generalities.

The one point on which the nations of Europe and the Republicans and Democrats in America all agree is that Iran must not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. The coalition agreement provided a mechanism to achieve that prohibition peacefully. The president's approach - "crippling sanctions," in his words, and the threat of military action - at best implies substantial suffering, sacrifice and the potential for more increased violence. It is not easy to have confidence that this approach will work - especially if, as many of our allies have promised, the other partners continue to abide by it and keep sanctions lifted.

"By walking away from America's commitments under the (deal), President Trump has created separation between the United States and our allies, brought our nation's credibility into question, and made it more challenging, not less, to block Iran's nuclear ambitions." 10th District U.S. Rep. Brad Schneider, an original opponent of the Iran deal, said in a statement on Tuesday.

Whereas we once were left with little more than hope that an untrustworthy Iran would abide by the agreement and give the rest of the world a window of opportunity to stem its nuclear-weapons ambitions, we now are left with little more than hope that the absence of the United States from the agreement will intimidate a nation that previously showed no sign of timidity into abandoning its goals. Neither outlook is very reassuring, but President Trump appears to have taken the route that is least comforting. With little prospect that a Republican-led Congress will rise up to challenge him, we can only echo the call Schneider included in his statement to "find a path to work with the international community to thwart Iran's nuclear plans, counter its presence in Syria, and sanction its support for global terrorism."

That is not easier today than it was before, but it is the goal we must not lose to reflexive partisanship.