Tolerating Terror: The Democrat Approach to Iran

To grasp the Conservative approach to U.S.-Iranian relations, it is critical to understand the alternative. Recent Democrat administrations have had a consistent strategy with Iran: one that accepts both a nuclear Iran and Iranian belligerence. Instead of working to vigorously counter the Iranian threat, the Obama and Biden administrations meekly made concessions and allowed the regime to access critical resources. In turn, Iran used these resources to arm itself and their proxies. These administrations’ decision to tolerate terror and deal permissively with Tehran got Iran closer to nuclear weapons, propped up the Ayatollah’s regime, and fueled a terror network that stretches to the Mediterranean.

Iran’s covert nuclear program was revealed in August 2002, when dissidents exposed secret uranium enrichment facilities. This kicked off an international crisis. President George W. Bush labeled Iran part of an “Axis of Evil,” and the U.S. rallied allies to isolate Tehran. The U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions starting in 2006, and the U.S. and EU enacted sweeping financial and oil embargoes by 2010–2012. Iran’s economy suffered severely, losing over $100 billion in oil revenue in 2012–14. This economic squeeze brought Iran’s regime to the table—a sanctions success story from the conservative viewpoint. In 2013, Iran elected Hassan Rouhani, a regime insider seen as a “moderate” willing to negotiate relief, leading to interim agreements and the final nuclear deal in 2015. 

Iran in the Driver’s Seat: Obama’s JCPOA Failure 

On July 14, 2015, the Obama Administration and other world powers (P5+1) struck the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. The JCPOA offered Tehran broad sanctions relief in exchange for temporary limits on its nuclear program. In January 2016, Iran reconnected to the global financial system and regained access to tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets. With access to global markets, Iran’s oil exports surged back to near pre-sanctions levels.  

The Obama Administration and other Democrats believed integration into the world economy would moderate the regime. Instead, the sanctions relief empowered Tehran’s hardliners. Iran’s military budget soared from $9.2 billion in 2015 to $25 billion in 2017, as the regime funneled fresh funds to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxies. Iran also escalated ballistic missile testing, and it continued to arm militias from Lebanon to Yemen. Most alarming of all, the deal did not preclude Iran from eventually attaining a nuclear weapon. Opponents warned that the deal’s sunset clauses would merely delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Tehran’s supreme leader categorically affirmed the nuclear concessions were reversible if needed. In short, Obama’s JCPOA bought only a temporary cap on Iran’s nuclear program, while strengthening the regime’s capacity to wreak havoc in other domains (missiles, terror financing, regional intervention). Long-term security in the Middle East remained elusive.

The Obama Administration also brokered an infamous hostage deal with Iran. In exchange for American prisoners being released from Iranian detention, Obama agreed to send Tehran currencies worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The United States secretly dispatched an airplane carrying the cash to Iran.  While the administration initially denied that the money was for the prisoner’s release, subsequent reporting revealed the details of the arrangement. Critics blasted the deal as akin to a “ransom” that would incentivize further hostage taking.

Taking Advantage of Weakness: The U.S. and Iran Under Biden 

During his first term, President Trump delivered a series of decisive setbacks for Iran. He withdrew from the short-sighted JCPOA, trading sanction relief for a policy of maximum pressure. Trump also relentlessly targeted Iran’s terror network. One of his signature achievements was the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Soleimani had been a key architect of the Iranian terror network that was endangering U.S. interests and allies. His death signaled that no terrorist was safe from accountability.

Despite the success of the Trump policies, the Biden Administration and Democrats would return to the same failed strategies that Obama pursued. President Biden pledged to re-engage diplomatically and restore the JCPOA if Iran returned to compliance. The U.S. offered to lift many sanctions in exchange for Iran reversing its nuclear steps. Sensing U.S. eagerness, Tehran dragged out negotiations and raised maximalist demands. All the while, Iran’s nuclear program surged forward unabated. Still, the Biden Administration held off on new sanctions during negotiations and even allowed Iran’s oil exports to recover. By the end of 2022, it was clear that a return to the 2015 deal was unlikely—Iran had simply advanced too far and was unwilling to make concessions beyond the original JCPOA, which itself was expiring soon.

2023 brought no breakthrough; instead, Iran reached a dangerous status quo as a de facto threshold nuclear state. Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium grew to enough (if further enriched) for multiple bombs. In response, U.S. policy in 2023 shifted to a more containment-oriented approach: with formal JCPOA revival off the table, the Biden Administration quietly pursued an informal understanding to prevent escalation. By mid-2023, reports indicated Iran had slowed its 60% enrichment and released some American hostages. In exchange for the hostages, like Obama, Biden allowed the release of $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds. Critics again blasted this arrangement as a “ransom” payment that would incentivize more hostage-taking and inject the regime with cash. 

In October 2023, the Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas launched a brutal surprise attack on Israel, triggering a war in Gaza. Tehran publicly cheered the attack (while denying direct involvement). Iran’s proxy Hezbollah also escalated tensions on Israel’s northern border. The U.S. had to surge military assets to the Middle East to deter Iran and its proxies from widening the conflict. Notably, Iran’s newfound oil revenue (thanks to lax sanctions enforcement and high oil prices) enabled it to boost funding to groups like Hamas.

In a blow to U.S. leadership and prestige, China brokered a surprise détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the two restoring diplomatic relations after years of proxy conflict. While regional de-escalation was potentially positive, the fact that Beijing, not Washington, mediated it signaled diminished influence of the U.S. under Biden’s leadership. 2023 closed with no resolution in sight: Iran had not crossed the line into building an actual nuclear weapon, but it had accumulated the capability to do so quickly. The stage was set for a decisive moment ahead—as one analysis warned, “2025 will be a decisive year for Iran’s nuclear program.”

Lessons and the Path Forward

The Democrats' failure to contain Iran has had disastrous consequences. Iranian terror continues to threaten U.S. allies and interests throughout the Middle East. The money that Democrats allowed Iran to access funded nuclear and missile development. The Obama and Biden administrations' approach did not deliver credible diplomatic solutions. The path forward is clear: 

Pressure Works, Appeasement Fails: When the U.S. and its allies have applied robust economic and military pressure, Iran’s capability to threaten us diminishes. When sanctions were lifted under the 2015 deal, Iran’s regime nearly tripled its military budget and poured money into missile development and terrorism. The evidence is clear: Rewarding Iran with sanctions relief absent fundamental change only enables its bad behavior.

Credible Deterrence and Military Option: The only language the Tehran regime truly understands is strength. To stop Iran’s nuclear drive, the U.S. must make clear that all options are on the table, including military force.

Tighten and Enforce Sanctions: The conservative position is that no new nuclear deal should be signed unless it truly dismantles Iran’s enrichment program with no sunset clauses. Anything less (like the proposed JCPOA revival, which would still allow Iran to eventually expand its program) is a dangerous mirage.