EDITOR'S NOTE: A Justice investigation has found that one section of this article includes plagiarism. 

The plagiarized section reads: "After investigating the missile launches, the White House indicated that it was preparing to implement new sanctions on Iran. Iran objected, claiming that such an action would represent an American violation of the nuclear deal. The regime also ordered its military to 'expedite development of the country’s ballistic missile program in response to new U.S. sanctions set to be imposed on Iranian defense companies,' according to a Dec. 31, 2015 article in the Wall Street Journal." This excerpt comes from a Jan. 5, 2015 article in Townhall.com, titled "Weakness: Under Iranian Pressure, the US backs away from new sanctions over illegal missile tests."

We have chosen to keep this article online because the opinions and arguments presented are original work. The plagiarized sentences are presenting empirical support for those opinions without rephrasing the information into the author's own words. The Justice condemns plagiarism in all formats.

For more information, please refer to this Letter from the Editor and this statement by the author. 

Several months ago, when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was discussed, proponents of the deal assured skeptics that it would constrain Iranian actions. The Obama administration and its supporters maintained that the deal would encourage Iran to collaborate with other countries and abide by international norms and laws, as well as moderate Iran’s government and actions. More importantly, the administration ensured that the deal would not impede the United States’ ability to deal with Iran for “unrelated” issues, such as abusing human rights, supporting terrorism or breaching arms restrictions. 

Yet the deal has had the exact opposite effect. Since the signing of the accord, Iran has only caused more unrest in the Middle East, engaged in increasingly provocative actions and has shown no signs of changing its dangerous behavior.

This outcome has become increasingly evident in recent months. According to Reuters, on Nov. 21, 2015, Iran carried out a medium range ballistic missile test — in breach of two United Nations Security Council resolutions — near Chabahar, a port city close to Iran’s border with Pakistan.

After investigating the missile launches, the White House indicated that it was preparing to implement new sanctions on Iran. Iran objected, claiming that such an action would represent an American violation of the nuclear deal. The regime also ordered its military to “expedite development of the country’s ballistic missile program in response to new U.S. sanctions set to be imposed on Iranian defense companies,” according to a Dec. 31, 2015 article in the Wall Street Journal. 

In response, and to avoid the derailment of a prisoner exchange, the Obama administration then backed off the sanctions, delaying them indefinitely and potentially setting a dangerous precedent of rewarding Iran and other actors for the release of American soldiers. After a massive sanctions relief was implemented as part of the JCPOA, sanctions on 11 individuals involved with Iran’s ballistic missile program were announced this past Sunday. These sanctions are significantly weaker than those that were lifted, which included the blacklisting of Iranian banks, limitations on Iranian oil exports, and a U.N. arms embargo.

On Jan. 9, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards conducted live-fire exercises near the Strait of Hormuz, only 1,500 yards away from the USS Harry S. Truman. According to Commander Kyle Raines, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, the ship remained in what the Pentagon termed an “internationally recognized maritime traffic lane” when the Iranian navy announced over maritime radio channels that it was about to conduct such an exercise — 23 seconds before it did so. At no time did the Truman stray into Iranian territorial waters. A U.S. military official added that Iran’s actions were “unnecessarily provocative and unsafe.”

Finally, on Jan. 13, 10 United States sailors were arrested for 16 hours after apparently accidentally entering Iranian waters due to a “navigation error,” according to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. 

Iran took the opportunity to spread anti-Western propaganda. Humiliating images of the sailors surrendering were broadcast on Iran’s state TV and then sent around the world. According to a Jan. 14 Daily Mail article, the images showed the soldiers huddled in a bare room while the female soldier was forced to wear a head scarf.

One of the Navy commanders was then recorded apologizing for the mishap while enjoying food with his fellow captives — an attempt to portray the humane treatment of the soldiers by Iran, the country that executed 1,084 people in 2015, according to a Jan. 12 Washington Free Beacon article. 

Yet instead of criticizing Iran’s actions, the Obama administration opted to thank Iran for eventually allowing the servicemen to return home. In a speech, Secretary of State John Kerry expressed “gratitude to Iranian authorities for their cooperation in swiftly resolving this matter.”

Earlier in an official statement, the Iranian navy claimed that Kerry even apologized for the “incursion” into Iranian waters, although State Department spokesman John Kirby denied the accusation on Twitter.

In many ways, the most integral contributing factor to Iran’s recent aggression is the United States’ limited response to Iran’s actions. The delaying of sanctions, the downplaying of exercises near U.S. military vessels and the apologizing for the arrest of United States soldiers have all shown Iran that the United States is unwilling to respond seriously to maligned Iranian behavior.

As political commentator Charles Krauthammer wrote last week in the Washington Post, “[the deal] has deterred us from offering even the mildest pushback to any Iranian violations lest Iran walk away and leave Obama legacy-less.” 

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that “we’ve been pretty transparent about this, and we’ve been transparent about the fact if we followed the advice of some of the Republican critics of the administration, we’d probably be in a bloody war with Iran right now over our sailors.” 

The Obama administration has stressed that it was due to the JCPOA that the soldiers were released peacefully. Because of the deal, according to them, Iran is willingly cooperating with the United States — the outcome the administration promised.

In reality, the administration could not be more wrong. There are stricter responses to Iranian aggression short of war, and Iran has been just as belligerent since the agreement, sensing that the United States will not respond harshly to its actions for fear that Iran will walk away, thereby ending one of President Obama’s crowning achievements. 

Iran will continue to test the boundaries of its actions. And until the United States sharply responds to Iran — not with military action but rather through the maintaining of current sanctions or the reapplication of harsher ones — Iran will continue testing the waters for the next decade while the United States balks at the ever-looming threat that Iran will walk away from the agreement if conflict arises. Creating such a precedent would be a crucial mistake. The United States should not allow Iran free reign for the sake of maintaining a presidential legacy. 

Iran fomenting unrest in the Middle East is one of the issues that the JCPOA was supposed to preempt. It did not. Iran is engaging in those exact actions — but this time with an exit strategy. And the United States is left looking humiliated and weak in the process.