Former President Barack Obama has resurfaced to vigorously defend his 2015 nuclear accord with Tehran, boasting that his administration pulled it off without firing a missile while implicitly rebuking President Donald Trumps more confrontational approach to the Iranian regime.
The remarks emerged in a previously unaired segment of an interview with CBS host Stephen Colbert, recorded in April at the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago. According to Mediaite, the exchange sheds new light on how Obama viewed the balance between diplomacy and the use of force in dealing with a regime he openly described as murderous and a sponsor of terrorism.
Colbert pressed the former president on whether he had ever seriously contemplated military action as a tool in his negotiations with Iran. Oh, it was definitely considered, Obama replied, before outlining his core premise: My basic theory was that Iran couldnt become a nuclear state. That the regime itself was murderous, oftentimes towards its own people, engaged in state-sponsored terrorism, was a threat to the United States and allies of ours. So the idea that they would have nuclear weapons would be extraordinarily dangerous.
Obama warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize an already volatile region and spur a dangerous arms race. It would also trigger a nuclear arms race in what is a powder keg, he said, while stressing that he viewed the regime as not entirely irrational and that military action should remain a last resort instead of the first.
The former president went on to praise the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal, as a model of multilateral diplomacy. He emphasized that it was internationally agreed upon that mechanisms be put in place to enforce and verify Irans enriched uranium stockpile, a framework he argued constrained Tehran without open conflict.
And we pulled it off without firing a missile. We got 97% of their enriched uranium out, Obama said, underscoring what he sees as the deals central achievement. They were able to maintain a modest civilian nuclear program for energy, he added, framing the agreement as a pragmatic compromise rather than a total dismantling of Irans nuclear capabilities.
In a clear swipe at Trumps decision to abandon the accord and pursue a pressure campaign that included military strikes and heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf, Obama insisted the JCPOA was delivering results. He pointed to the stability of key shipping lanes before Trumps reversal, contrasting that with the later disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.
Not only did I think it was working, even Israeli intelligence thought it was working, even our intelligence services thought it was working, Obama said. So, theres no dispute that it worked. And we didnt have to kill a whole bunch of people or shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
Colbert noted that Trump had branded the JCPOA the worst of all time and unilaterally withdrew from it in 2018, a move applauded by many conservatives who saw the deal as dangerously lenient toward a hostile regime. Obama, however, dismissed Trumps criticism as personal and political rather than substantive. Yeah, because I did it, he quipped. Which is fine. That seems to be a pattern.
The former president then insisted that no serious independent folks would say that it didnt work with respect to the nuclear program. Yet he also acknowledged that the agreement was narrowly tailored and never intended to topple the regime or dismantle Irans broader military apparatus, limitations that critics on the right long highlighted as fatal flaws.
Obama framed the JCPOA as part of a broader philosophy that seeks to restrain American power rather than use it decisively to reshape hostile governments. He continued: Part of this balance between military force and diplomacy is based on, What are your objectives? What are your goals? And is it important for the United States, as the most powerful nation on earth, to show certain restraint to say All right, wed rather take care of this really big problem, recognize were not going to solve all problems without going to war.
Rather than pretend or delude ourselves into thinking that just by going to war were going to fix all problems where usually we end up causing more, he concluded, reiterating a worldview that prioritizes negotiated limits over regime change. For many conservatives, that posture remains deeply problematic, as it effectively concedes longevity and leverage to a regime Obama himself calls murderous, while leaving open the question of how long such deals can restrain an adversary determined to outlast any American administration.
Login