The truth is, though, that U.S. next administration, even a Democrat one, has no intention to revive Iran nuclear deal and will not do it. We should not forget that the first actions for deterring the deal were actually taken during Obama’s presidency and when Democrats were still in White House.

Everyone remember that over Obama’s presidency and after they signed the nuclear deal with Iran, the United States Department of Treasury still prevented the actual removal of sanctions and inhibited their banking system from having normal transactions with Iranian banks. Additionally, they were Democrats who installed a set of legal and political conditions that later allowed Trump to pull out of the nuclear deal.

In fact, Democrat leaders believe that if they go back on the nuclear deal, they should wring more concessions out of Iran. By new concessions, they mean that the temporary limits defined for Iran in the deal should become permanent and eventually to dismantle Iran missile defense.

On this topic, Foreign Policy has recently published a report by Ilan Goldenberg and Eric Brewer. Ilan Goldenberg was the senior advisor to John Kerry, former U.S. Secretary of State and Eric Brewer is a Council on Foreign Relations international affairs at the Center for a New American Security.

The report suggest that the U.S. next president should rejoin the deal but only after they get new concessions from Iran:

“A future president should use the leverage gained from Trump’s exit—however much they might disagree with that decision—to come to some preliminary understandings with Iran on the many issues of contention that remain in the relationship and on the future of Iran’s nuclear program. The message to Iran and the world should be: We absolutely expect to rejoin the agreement, but first, we need to talk.”

These statements clearly show that Democrats have planned a complex scheme for their return to Iran nuclear deal, in case they win the elections. The mastermind behind this multilayered scheme is obviously John Kerry and his special advisors.
Goldenberg goes on as saying that “since Tehran has decided that abiding by the nuclear deal is in its interests despite Washington’s withdrawal, a U.S. return and the corresponding sanctions relief would essentially be a unilateral concession to Iran. Washington will have the ability to ask for something in return.”

It is clear what Democrats mean by “something in return”; they seek to constrain Iran’s missile program and power in the region, in exchange for reviving the “dead” and “distorted” JCPOA with putting even more restrictions on Iran in comparison to when Barack Obama was in office.

This scheme devised by John Kerry for Iran will become even more complicated when they start to request other international players to join this scheme.

If Democrats win the 2020 presidential election, he will definitely try to drag the European troika into this scheme of “redefining the JCPOA based on U.S. benefits”, the same as what Trump did in 2017 before he finally thwarted the deal.

However, the Democrats’ scheme is different from that of Trump’s, as Democrats are trying to forge general consensus to “restrain the powerful Iran”.

Democrats’ role in U.S. withdrawal from nuclear deal

It is also worth noting that Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal only became possible due to the set of legal and political conditions that democrats installed in the first place! In fact, before leaving the nuclear deal all together, Trump used these conditions as “triggers” which allowed him to justify himself in abandoning the deal.

Moreover, it was Democrats who set a precedent so as the U.S. president should “waive the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions” every 120 days. They were Democrats who put the fate of the Iran nuclear deal in the hands of every incumbent president. So, it can be concluded that, apart from Trump administration, Democrats should also be widely blamed for the shutdown of Iran nuclear deal.

Democrats planning for dissolution of the region

Democrats have very dangerous strategies in regard to West Asia and North East Asia and generally the Muslim world. For example, Joe Biden, one of the primary democrat candidates in 2020 presidential elections, has a dangerous and aggressive theory for “dividing Iraq”.

He believes that not only Iraq, but also other countries in West Asia and North Africa should be divided based on religious, ethical, and geographical features. He is in favor of strategies to turn these regions to a “scattered”, “fractured” zone where Washington and Tel Aviv can easily expand their authority.

By taking such strategies, Biden hopes to get the unconditional support of Europeans and other traditional Washington allies.

Starting proxy wars, supporting terrorist and Takfiri groups and pressuring the countries until they fall apart are all among the plans that Democrats have for Muslim countries in the region.

It is worth mentioning that Democrats played an important role in the creation of the terrorist group, ISIS during Obama’s presidency.

U.S. commitments means nothing

Violation of JCPOA revealed that the promises, commitments or deals made by any U.S. official, whether democrat or republican, have absolutely no credibility. The next U.S. president will follow in the footsteps of former untrustworthy presidents. It doesn’t matter who wins the next elections, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden or even Trump again!

Whether democrat or republican, the white house officials are not going to keep their commitments. By “abandoning the JPOCA” Trump proved the unreliability of U.S. promises and the next administration, if a democrat one, will do the same after staging a “fake return to Iran nuclear deal”.

Relying on any deal or contract that is signed an approved by U.S. officials, is not only a tactical but also a strategic mistake and would be to the cost of our economy as well as political stability.
We have already learned this bitter lesson by signing JCPOA and facing the events that succeeded it. Clearly, it is not the time for taking our chances and making yet another mistake.

The outcome of conflicts between Iran, Republicans and/or Democrats 

Donald Trump has ominous plans for Iran, and so do the Democrats.

White House intends to put extensive economic sanctions on Iran and reduce its power in the region at the same time.

In other words, the full-fledged anti-Iran scheme that Jimmy Carter adopted after the Iranian revolution in 1979 is now once again started by Trump, yet with using other means and methods.

In this scheme, there would be no difference between Democrats and the Republicans.

Now that Trump’s plans against Iran have been proven fruitless after two years that he has been in the office, other theories are gaining ground in U.S. political arena, especially that of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. National Security Advisor.

Before his death, Brzezinski said that the only solution for U.S. is to try to recognize “the powerful Iran” and how to live with it.

Finally, it seems that both Democrat and Republican parties have no fate other than failure in interaction with Iranian nation and government; and this would be the fate of Trump and any other president who comes after him.