Former President Barack Obama delivered a strong defense of his 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, while also taking a subtle swipe at President Donald Trump’s more aggressive approach toward the regime.
In a newly released interview clip from a conversation taped in April at the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago and shared by The Late Show host Stephen Colbert, Obama reflected on the thinking behind the deal.
When asked whether military action was ever considered as part of negotiations with Iran, Obama confirmed that it was.
He explained that his administration viewed Iran as a serious threat, pointing to its nuclear ambitions, its record of domestic repression, and its support for terrorism. At the same time, he said U.S. officials believed military action should only be used as a last resort, not a first option.
Obama defended the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the Iran nuclear deal, saying it was designed with international partners to limit and monitor Iran’s nuclear capabilities through strict verification measures.
He emphasized that the agreement succeeded in reducing Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile significantly while still allowing a limited civilian nuclear program.
“And we pulled it off without firing a missile,” Obama said, adding that roughly 97% of Iran’s enriched uranium was removed under the deal.
He also argued that the agreement was supported by multiple intelligence assessments, including from U.S. and Israeli sources, and maintained that it was effectively working before the U.S. withdrawal in 2018.
Colbert pointed out that Trump had repeatedly criticized the deal and later abandoned it during his presidency. Obama responded with a brief remark: “Yeah, because I did it. Which is fine. That seems to be a pattern.”
Obama also pushed back on the idea that military action alone can solve complex international conflicts, warning that war often creates more problems than it resolves.
His comments come as debate continues over U.S. policy toward Iran, with sharp differences between diplomatic approaches and more forceful military strategies shaping the political divide.
About the Author
