The Iran Nuclear Deal is currently under discussion to be rewritten and renewed in Vienna, with an outcome that will determine the future of U.S. foreign policy with both Iran and other potentially aggressive nuclear armed states. However, the fact that these talks have to happen, over a deal that should already be enacted, exposes a glaring hole in how the U.S. has conducted foreign policy in the last two decades.

This isn’t a story that starts with the Iran Nuclear Deal, or even one that starts with Obama, the person who signed the nuclear deal. Rather this is a story that starts with the Bush administration, and with the Qaddafi run regime in Libya. Throughout the 70s and 80s Qaddafi repeatedly attempted to start up nuclear weapons programs and attempted to purchase nuclear weapons from armed countries. Materials needed to construct nuclear bombs were acquired from black market sources and it was determined he was years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. This however all changed in the winter of 2003 when Qaddafi made the decision to end all weapons of mass destruction programs. Potentially due to fear of invasion from the United States following the end of the Iraq war; however, how true that is in question as the initial meetings occurred before the invasion. In exchange for disarmament, sanctions on Libya were lifted and as Bush put it Libya would have the potential to ”regain a secure and respected place” on the global stage. At the time this was a huge move towards disarmament and opened the door for the potential disarmament of other dictator states such as North Korea, and a future free of proliferation.

The deal did not stick. In 2011 a civil war aimed at ending the Qaddafi regime broke out in Libya. The new Obama administration chose to intervene in order to help oust Qaddafi and were successful in doing so. Post Qaddafi, Libya crumbled into a state of ruin, with the GDP per capita dropping from nearly nine thousand in 2010 to just over three thousand in 2011, and where it remains as low as four thousand today. Alongside the extreme economic conditions would come humanitarian woes as the slave trade and open air slave markets would find a home in Libya without a stable government. The aftermath was so bad in fact that Obama would later refer to it as his “worst mistake.” The crumbling of Libya as a nation after the overthrow of Qaddafi is not the point. The point is the implication it had for U.S. foreign policy. Qaddafi had made a deal with the Bush administration, one where it was assumed that he wouldn’t face the same fate as Saddam Hussein. However, this deal and agreement was broken by the Obama administration with his ousting. And was made possible by the fact that he had no nuclear weapons to protect himself and his regime. This sets a precedent that is horrible for disarmament. If you are a dictator of a country with nuclear weapons, say North Korea for example, you know the fact that you possess nuclear weapons is the main thing preventing an invasion and regime change war from the United States. However, seeing Qaddafi make a deal with the Bush administration and seeing that deal broken by the Obama administration only reinforces the thought in your mind that nuclear weapons are the thing that is keeping you in power. This exposes the glaring hole in U.S. foreign policy, that any deal made can be completely torn up and reversed in the next election cycle.

This is where the Iran Nuclear Deal comes in. In November of 2013, the deal was signed. It was no doubt a great diplomatic achievement at the time as it guaranteed Iran would not get nuclear weapons. Iran’s weapon program had been ongoing for years and appeared to be getting closer by the day to having the ability to create nuclear weapons, luckily the sanctions placed on Iran as a result of the program gave them a reason to come to a diplomatic agreement: the lifting of sanctions for the end of the nuclear program. An independent entity, being the International Atomic Energy Agency, determined Iran was following the terms of the deal. Despite this fact, however, in 2018, Trump made a move to abandon the deal, deeming it to be “unfair” and against the best interests of the United States, despite opposition from close allies and colleagues within the U.S. Sanctions were once again put on Iran, and as a result of the U.S. pulling out the deal, Iran resumed its nuclear program. This quick turnaround from the Obama administration of a groundbreaking deal with Iran to the deal essentially being ripped up reaffirms the notion that U.S. foreign policy is flawed. What’s the point of our adversary nations making deals with us for the betterment of mankind if we are only going to burn that deal a few years later? Why should any country ever want to join a disarmament deal with us again if we can’t be trusted to keep that deal? The implication from the ripping up of this deal will have severe consequences for non-proliferation across the globe unless these talks in Vienna go as planned.

So how go the talks? As it stands the outcome is not entirely clear, the talks seem to have stalled at different points and then started again at others which have caused frustration as one Iranian official stated that western diplomats have only pretended to take initiative in the talks. However at the same time, many have said that the talks are going well as one Russian diplomat stated: “significant progress” had been made.

While it remains unclear exactly how the talks are going, it is clear as day on how they must end. An agreement must be reached with Iran or else the precedent will be set in stone: the U.S. breaks their deals, and doesn’t renew them.