You shall know them by their fruits. This ancient proverb reveals how to discern a person’s underlying motives. Look at what they produce—their deeds. How someone looks, even what they say, matters little in comparison to what they do.

This is a principle worth remembering when reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent interview with President Barack Obama, in which the president unwaveringly defended his belief that the Iranian nuclear deal will be a success.

The president’s policy on how to tackle Iran has been called “the Obama doctrine.” It is predicated on his personal conviction that Iran should be given an opportunity for diplomacy first; then, if this is not successful, the United States can still engage militarily. He intensely believes Iran is unlikely to attack America’s allies due to America’s overriding power.

In one journalist’s view, “With this doctrine, U.S. foreign policy adopts a more realist orientation, being less interventionist and more focused on deterrence and containment.”

But while this policy is being enacted, look at America’s deeds: It is effectively tripping over itself as it hastily pulls out of the Middle East. The notion that this is a result of a “realist orientation,” let alone that it reflects a genuine policy of “deterrence” and “containment,” is a fantasy.

Ruled by a radical Islamist government, Tehran is aggressively achieving regional hegemony. Israel and smaller Gulf states in particular are extremely vulnerable to Iran’s ambitions. That is doubtless a major reason why no less than 12 other Middle East nations have plans to develop nuclear energy, or have signed nuclear cooperation agreements. It is certainly why public discussion by Saudi Arabia and other nations about gaining nuclear capacity commensurate with Iran’s has been ramping up in recent weeks.

When Goldberg asked about this developing arms race, President Obama spoke as if he doesn’t even believe it is happening. “There has been no indication from the Saudis or any other Gulf Cooperation Council countries that they have an intention to pursue their own nuclear program.”

What makes him so confident? He says these nations know that U.S. deterrence is their best shield of defense. “[T]he protection that we provide as their partner is a far greater deterrent than they could ever hope to achieve by developing their own nuclear stockpile or trying to achieve breakout capacity when it comes to nuclear weapons, and they understand that.”

Yet with recent examples of overthrown governments such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen freshly in mind, these nations could be forgiven for wondering whether Washington’s shield was shut down for maintenance on those days.

The president says diplomacy must have a fair go. After all, there is always American deterrence to fall back on. But if your neighbor went nuclear, how much confidence would you place in American deterrence? It is easy for a politician in Washington to feel secure—he doesn’t live in the neighborhood. But if American deterrence fails, then it will be Israel and the Sunni Arabs who will feel the brunt of Persian hegemony.

The president asserted that Saudis wouldn’t pursue a nuclear program because it “would greatly strain the relationship they’ve got with the United States.” This is extraordinary faith in the loyalty of America’s allies, especially considering all that his administration has done to strain and fracture those alliances, and the increasing, demonstrable hostility toward the U.S. that Saudi Arabia and other one-time allies have been exhibiting.

As the P5+1 nations negotiate a proposal, the success of any such deal would require Iran’s total support and transparency. But here the train comes completely off the rails. Iran has an established, proven track record of stretching out negotiations and then derailing them. That is its “fruit.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency and the West have been in discussions with Iran over its nuclear program since 2003. Time and again Iran has breached resolutions, thrown out weapons inspectors, and continued a game of cat and mouse. The Iranians are already hinting the present deal may go beyond the June 30 deadline as they balk again at the prospect of having weapons inspectors actually inspect their weapons.

Fifteen years of failed negotiations tell us that while one side seeks a peaceful outcome, the other seeks the bomb. Iran is not interested in negotiations, peace deals or living alongside Israel. If it were, negotiations would have concluded years ago and Westerners would be sipping piña coladas in tourist resorts along the Persian Gulf.

Goldberg asked the president how he can reconcile the “venomous anti-Semitism” of the Iranian regime with the idea that it “is practical, and is responsive to incentive, and shows signs of rationality.” The president essentially played down Iran’s anti-Semitism, saying its leaders “use anti-Semitic rhetoric as an organizing tool. At the margins, where the costs are low, they may pursue policies based on hatred as opposed to self-interest.” But, he said, the U.S. is keeping the costs of anti-Semitism and expansionist ambitions high through the use of the sanctions (which Washington seeks to remove) and “the military option I’ve made clear I preserve” (which Washington has demonstrated that it has absolutely no intention of using in any meaningful way).

For good measure, President Obama managed to remind Goldberg that Iran doesn’t have a monopoly on anti-Semitism: European leaders have been guilty and, besides that, “there were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country”—the United States! So, the thinking presumably goes, why single out Iran as uniquely horrible for such attitudes?

On top of that, the president concluded, Iran’s leaders are actually less interested in lashing out in irrational anti-Semitism than they are in “maintaining power [and] having some semblance of legitimacy inside their own country.” Their real motives are economic, not ideological, he argued.

This deal the president is negotiating is poised to relieve sanctions against the Iranian Republic, flooding Iran’s cash-strapped economy with about $150 billion. Many are concerned that money will be used to further the leaders’ ambitions of funding terror and extending Iran’s power in the Middle East. Just look at what Iran is already achieving on a tight budget—and imagine the nation with a steroid injection of $150 billion.

But President Obama—ever the believer in the mullahs’ rationality—believes instead that the ayatollah will spend the money on making life better for Iranians.

Goldberg relayed his skepticism on this point. President Obama responded: “Well, I don’t think [Treasury Secretary Jack Lew] or anybody in this administration said that no money will go to the military as a consequence of sanctions relief. The question is, if Iran has $150 billion parked outside the country, does the irgc [the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] automatically get $150 billion? Does that $150 billion then translate by orders of magnitude into their capacity to project power throughout the region? And that is what we contest, because when you look at the math, first of all, they’re going to have to deliver on their obligations under any agreement, which would take a certain period of time.

“Then there are the mechanics of unwinding the existing restraints they have on getting that money, which takes a certain amount of time. Then [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani and, by extension, the supreme leader have made a series of commitments to improve the Iranian economy, and the expectations are outsized. You saw the reaction of people in the streets of Tehran after the signing of the agreement. Their expectations are that [the economy is] going to improve significantly. You have Iranian elites who are champing at the bit to start moving business and getting out from under the restraints that they’ve been under.”

The president acknowledged that some money could fund terrorism, but said the ayatollah’s primary concern is to improve his nation’s economy.

The question remains, why should Western nations allow $150 billion into the Iranian economy? And what proof exists that Iran will spend that money strengthening the economy instead of on weapons and terrorism? Nothing but wishful thinking.

To know what Iran will do in the future, look at its past. Look at the fruits.

President Obama actually acknowledged several of what he called Iran’s “destabilizing activities”—its missile program, shipping weapons to Hezbollah, “sending agents into Yemen,” and “other low-tech asymmetric threats that they’re very effective at exploiting.” But in his view, none of these are reasons for denying them sanctions relief. Why?

Because these are activities “they’ve been doing despite sanctions” (emphasis added).

Yes, the Iranians are sponsoring terrorism and creating problems—but since they’re doing these on a limited budget, we should relax the economic punishments.

By what logic does such thinking operate?

Lessons from thousands of years of history have shown: Don’t negotiate with people who want to kill you. Certainly don’t empower them with riches. Yet this is at the foundation of the nuclear deal.

But is there more to it than mere failure to discern Iran’s underlying motives? Again, we must judge by fruits. The current U.S. administration has established a pattern of actions that align with the interests of the leaders in Tehran and that run counter to the interests of Israel and even of the United States itself. Read Brad Macdonald’s May-June 2015 Trumpet article, “America’s Chamberlain?”

The only real way to discern a situation is by the fruits. Understanding biblical prophecy and looking at Iran’s history, combined with the president’s alarming policies, we can know with confidence that this deal will end in catastrophe.