Can anyone actually give me an elevator summary of what this actually means without relying on tribal language or dog-whistles? Clicking link related doesn't actually explain why any of this matters to me outside of signaling and posturing; it just sends me to a timeline of various pundits and celebrities telling me how I should feel bad and angry about this.

This article gives a better overview than the "live" Guardian page: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-ir...

Also, Obama's take: https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10155854913976749

I miss Obama. Jesus christ, I can't believe i'm saying that now.

Heck, I miss Obama, Bush (both of them), Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon (I was too young to really remember anyone earlier), because no matter how much I might have disagreed with any of them on any particular thing, they were at least reasonably coherent.

Compare to this 2016-07-19 campaign speech Trump gave on the Iran deal:

“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-sentence/

> Can anyone actually give me an elevator summary of what this actually means without relying on tribal language or dog-whistles?.

To be studiously neutral:

The US is withdrawing from the international agreement under which Iran agreed to limit certain nuclear activities and submit to IAEA monitoring of its nuclear activities, in exchange for various concessions from other countries, including the removal of US “secondary” sanctions on those doing business with Iran (but not direct sanctions on Iran, which remained in place.)

The direct impacts would seem primarily to be the end of Iran's obligations under the agreement and a return to US secondary sanctions; indirect impacts are somewhat more speculative and disputed with splits that have a distinct partisan/ideological correlation, though not breaking on party lines.

The US had a deal with Iran where they wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons, and we would ease back on the sanctions that were hurting their economy. Trump scrapped the deal, which (I presume) means the sanctions are going back in effect.

That's going to hurt Iran's economy (and, to a much lesser extent, the US economy as well). It's also going to raise international tensions.

Whether it's good or bad depends on your interpretation of whether Iran was keeping their end of the deal (the spirit, the letter, or both).

> The US had a deal with Iran where they wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons, and we would ease back on the sanctions that were hurting their economy.

Note that we did not agree to remove direct sanctions, only secondary sanctions (sanctions on non-Iranian entities doing business with Iran.)

The US might put the sanctions back in place, but I doubt the rest of the world will follow. Russia and China both signed trade deals to forge closer ties after the agreement.

There's no real way for the US to impose sanctions without international support, except on the finance side.

Everyone except trump and Netanyahu said they were. It wasn’t just good faith, thy had to agree to access as part of the deal.

This means they have much more freedom to pursue nuclear weapons research.

I think the Trump administration plans sanctions on multinational corporations that do business with Iran. This could affect financial markets, although it may already be priced in.

Now that North Korea is becoming more friendly, one only hopes he's not grasping at straws to create a military conflict to create a distraction from his personal issues.

Unfortunately for everyone but Trump, if he wants North Korea to be less friendly, it's not exactly hard to do so. :/

Scrapping the Iran deal when Iran was widely viewed as being in compliance would be a very good way to make North Korea less inclined to deal.

Title should be "Trump withdraws U.S. from nuclear agreement" or just "U.S. withdraws from nuclear agreement".

The distinction matters as this is something the U.S. (not just Trump) is doing. The rest of the world care less about who or what causes the U.S. to act this way.

One chart that I saw, indicates that the amount of business with Iran that the US does, is about $200 million dollars per year. The EU combined however, did about $25 Billion in trade with Iran last year. So it is much more significant to the EU than the US.

The US still has direct sanctions on Iran, which is why the US-Iran trade numbers are so low: very little is allowed. The nuclear deal only addressed the US’s secondary sanctions, which apply to the EU entities (and others) that are trading with Iran.

Somewhere Putin is laughing historically. This is all so easy for him

Hysterical laughter of historic proportion.

The irony beeing that iran, culturally is much closer to the west then all those "natural" allies in the region except israel. The few iranians i met where quite open minded, scientific endavouring and driven people. Very creative. They even have that messianic martyr streak that makes for such nice founder stories.

"For one year we suffered, wearing the cross of 16 h days- and then my company died, but on the third day, i pivoted and it ressurrected." the pull through narrative of the champions.

Iran is one huge memorial for top-down modernization gone wrong along with turkey and i presume very soon - saudi arabia. Turns out- that when some cruel elite percived as a outsider force inserts a ideology, the people will reject it quite violently and ralley behind whatever oppossition available.

The iran nuclear deal was a attempt to contain and prevent a local nuclear arms race. Which now will go into full gear i presume- israel has nukes, saudi arabia and iran will want them too - or at least join some retaliation strike pact like NATO. Which can be provided by any major nuclear force in the region. So lots of diplomats currently travelling and offering nuclear umbrellas.

The colonial era drawn states dissolve and entitys alligned by culture/religion re-appear. What remains are some mixed out of the way clusters for minoritys, a small kurdistan, syria and a very large iran(including most of the former iraq) with some proxy states, and a wahabi- power block. Turkey will be cut off from the wahabi-block and get stuck in something similar to vietnam.

Lots of the players will go for nukes to cement there conquered territories and enjoy the status of North Korea - in particular since the US seem to be on its way out into isolationism.

Russia supports iran currently by accident. Israel has chosen the lesser competent evil as ally and supports saudi arabia against iran- although the very same saudi arabia still propels most the religious narrative of the islamic oppossition to israels existance.

Its a great game, and the west is actually percived by now as a unreliable buisness-partner and dangerous - often absent replacable ally.

A good coherent strategy would be for the west to force its actual allies - not by propaganda or current ruler, but by cultural development direction( israel, kurds, iran) into a coherent block and leave the rest of the region to do what it always does, repeat past mistakes.

PS: North africa is turning into a bunch of warlords playing europe for ressources and bribes in return for holding refugees back.

Macron had it about right: Domestic reasons.

Also, Trump is more comfortable with as well as playing strong man. He doesn't want the U.S. to win; he wants to "win". If he could, I'm sure he'd scrap term limits, fair elections, and line up his kids for dynasty.

Finally, I'll mention that China's in the process of de facto purchasing Afghanistan. Not the political quagmire, but rather dominant if not sole proprietorship over the commercial interests. This will place them at Iran's border. And what's the name of that global trade "road" Xi is building?

The counterbalance there will be Russia, to the extent they can back up their military with the commensurate expenditures. Not a counter-balance that works in the U.S.'s -- nor Europe's -- favor.