This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, September 6, 2017.

I'm Keelb Brown.

UN Ambassador Nicky Haley recently detailed some reasons that might provide the

president with some cover should he decide to remove the US from the Iran nuclear deal.

But what happens after that? Cato Research Fellow Emma Asford says many of the arguments Haley presented are disingenuous.

UN Ambassador Nicky Haley gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute where she talked about the

Iran deal, sort of what compliance looks like for Iran and and to what extent

the United States should or should not remain in the deal.

And she makes sort of a distinction here to say that we're not actually by looking at merely the specific elements of the deal

and judging Iran to be compliant with those elements that we're missing something.

What does she think that we're missing and is her assessment fair?

Nicky Haley makes this really very well put together argument but it's a very broad argument and she

says that you know the Iran nuclear deal the JCPOA the joint comprehensive plan of action

is just one of the elements that we should be looking at when we

consider whether the deal upholds US national security interests and so rather

than viewing the deal as just a narrow non-proliferation agreement,

that is to say it was meant to stop around getting a nuclear weapon

and it's actually done a good job of preventing around from getting a nuclear weapon,

she says we should consider all of these other

things. We should consider Iran's regional security actions. We should consider

their missile tests. We should consider whether they're compliant with UN resolutions

on arms trafficking on funding of terror groups

...