The Iran deal – officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – was one of the diplomatic crowning achievements of former President Barack Obama`s tenure, but it has been a divisive issue in Washington since its realization in 2015. On May 8, 2018, the United States officially withdrew from the agreement after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum ordering the reinstatement of tougher sanctions. [397] In his May 8 speech, President Trump called the Iran deal ”terrible” and said the United States would ”work with our allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. [398] The IAEA also found that Iran had complied with the JCPOA and that it ”had no credible evidence of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009.”[399] Other parties to the agreement have stated that they will work to maintain the agreement after the U.S. withdrawal. [400] The deal was sealed in July 2015 under President Barack Obama. On Meet the Press, on September 6, 2015, former Foreign Secretary Colin Powell expressed his support for the nuclear deal with Iran, saying it was ”a pretty good deal.” [248] Powell said that several provisions accepted by Iran, such as the reduction of centrifuges and uranium reserves and the deal to shut down its plutonium reactor, were ”notable changes” that halted Iran`s path to a nuclear weapons program. Powell also defended the verification provisions of the agreement and said, ”I think a very strong verification system has been put in place.” [248] On August 13, retired Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, and John Warner of Virginia, a Republican, published a comment on support for the deal, ”Why Hawks Should Also Support the Iran Deal,” in Politico. [239] Levin and Warner, both former chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that ”if we reject the deal, we risk isolating ourselves and undermining our ability to build the most powerful coalition possible to stop Iran” if military measures were needed in the future. [239] Levin and Warner wrote, ”The agreement on the table is a strong agreement in many ways and it maintains the strong deterrence and credibility of a military option. We ask our former colleagues not to take measures that would undermine the deterrent value of a coalition that participates in the use of a military option and can support it. The failure of the United States to accede to the agreement would have this effect. [239] On August 14, retired senators wrote Richard Lugar of Indiana, a Republican, and J.

Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, a Democrat, also to support the deal. [240] In a column for Reuters, Lugar and Johnston said, ”Rejecting the deal would severely undermine the role of the United States as a trusted leader and partner around the world. If Washington were to move away from this highly competitive multilateral agreement, its reliability would likely be challenged for decades. [240] They also wrote: ”Tehran would be the winner of this refusal by the United States, because it would achieve its main goal: the lifting of most sanctions without having to accept restrictions on its nuclear program.