A better deal also would not have removed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in 2025. That “sunset clause” is overlooked by the agreement’s proponents, who stress that Iran has so far complied with the deal. But why wouldn’t Iran comply right now? In a mere eight years it can reactivate its nuclear plants and rapidly enrich enough uranium for dozens of nuclear bombs. Instead of blocking Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, the agreement paves it.

Supporters of the agreement further assert that it curbs Iran’s funding of terrorism and its threats against other states. Just the opposite has happened. With billions of dollars in sanctions relief, the regime is solidifying its rule over Syria, Iraq and Yemen, tightening its stranglehold on Lebanon, and increasing its bankrolling of Hezbollah and Hamas. And, in flagrant defiance of the United Nations, Iran is developing and testing intercontinental ballistic missiles that can carry multiple nuclear warheads. Meantime, the ayatollahs have pledged to destroy Israel and, ultimately, America. Rather than reducing the likelihood of war, the agreement has made many wars inevitable.

In 2015, the agreement’s promoters insisted that the United States could no longer maintain an international front against Iran and that sanctions, set up to last indefinitely, would soon unravel. Now they predict that the international community will not follow America’s lead in withdrawing from the deal and reimposing sanctions. Worse, they warn, Iran might use the opportunity to evict United Nations inspectors and ramp up its nuclear program.

All of these assumptions are false.

Had American sanctions on Iran remained in place in 2015, companies would have had to choose between doing business with the United States, the world’s top-ranked economy by gross domestic product, and Iran, ranked 27th. That same stark choice will confront businesses if sanctions are reinstated.