As the June 30 deadline for an Iran nuclear deal looms, Washington faces the possibility of a catastrophic failure in negotiations unless it backpedals on key promises made by United States President Barack Obama.

The immense size and complexity of the current sanctions have put the Obama administration in a bind. President Obama must decide where to draw the line between nuclear and non-nuclear sanctions, because he promised that non-nuclear sanctions would not be lifted in a nuclear deal. But can the president fulfill such a promise while also upholding his assurances to Iran?

Promises, Promises

Desperate to secure a deal with Iran, President Obama has reportedly promised $150 billion in relief funds. But here is the problem: Even if all nuclear sanctions were relieved, Iran still wouldn’t be able to access the full $150 billion worth of sanctions relief because other non-nuclear sanctions would prevent it.

For President Obama to keep his word to Iran, he must remove non-nuclear sanctions. But to keep his word to the public, he must renege on his $150 billion promise to Iran—jeopardizing the nuclear deal.

A History of Sanctioning to Be Unwoven

Non-nuclear sanctions have been enforced since 1979, when a coup overthrew the shah of Iran and led to the destruction of the U.S. Embassy. In 1984, Iran was officially designated a “state sponsor of terror.” This brought with it a host of new sanctions. Over the decades hundreds of governments, companies and individuals have been sanctioned as a result.

Recent non-nuclear sanctions include:

This history creates an interwoven blanket of sanctions that must somehow be separated piece by piece: sanctions for nuclear activity, sanctions for ballistic missile research, sanctions for terrorism, sanctions for human rights violations, sanctions even for money laundering.

These non-nuclear sanctions maintain the pressure on Iran’s economy, denying it the possibility of receiving the $150 billion of relief promised it.

One company in particular highlights the conundrum Mr. Obama is facing—the Iranian Central Bank (icb). When sanctions first hit the bank in 2011, the results were instantaneous: Iran exploded with inflation, industrial output went up in smoke, and cash reserves were vaporized.

If Iran is to have any hope of attaining its promised $150 billion, the sanctions on the icb must be lifted. The bank is crucial to Iran’s economy. The U.S. even tried to avoid sanctioning the bank because it feared sanctions would send the Middle East oil market into a tailspin. It was only when Iran was inches from obtaining nukes that sanctions were slapped on the icb.

But this is where things really get tricky for President Obama. The icb today is caught up in the web of sanctions. But it wasn’t sanctioned for its role in Iran’s nuclear program. Granted, the sanctioning dealt a blow to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but the sanctions were based on non-nuclear actions from Iran. The U.S. had accused the icb of money laundering, funding ballistic missile research, financing terrorism and supporting Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. That makes these sanctions non-nuclear.

So what is President Obama to do? He can’t deliver on his $150 billion promise unless companies like the icb receive sanctions relief—that is, non-nuclear sanctions relief. This flies in the face of his promises to avoid such action.

Is the president expected to relieve sanctions on such companies—turning a blind eye to their involvement in terrorizing and destabilizing the Middle East?

If Obama Keeps His Word to the Public …

Granted, the deal is not signed yet. There is still time for the president to come up with a new solution and try to avoid reneging on his word. But what if the time comes and President Obama backpedals on his promise to Iran?

It doesn’t take much imagination to foresee the ayatollah’s railing accusations against the “great Satan.” Iran could easily accuse Washington of causing the failure of the nuclear deal—and walk away.

In such a scenario, the president would have let his most desired foreign policy achievement—reconciliation with Iran—slip through his fingers. But after more than a year of hard-fought negotiating, Obama has shown time and time again just how eager he is to secure a deal, even if it means appeasement after appeasement. So who do you think the president will keep his word to?

If Obama Keeps His Word to Iran …

There are two reasons why President Obama would be likely to keep his promise to Iran—relieving non-nuclear sanctions.

First, there is the aforementioned point. Obama does not want to see negotiations fall apart and his foreign policy legacy crumble along with it.

Second, Obama is infatuated with Iran. Ever since Hassan Rouhani became president, Mr. Obama has worked feverishly not only to negotiate with Iran, but establish a policy of regime preservation.

America has borne witness to multiple opportunities to bring about regime change. In 2009, more than a million anti-government protesters swept onto the streets of Tehran. But while the president supported “Arab Spring” revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya, when it came to Iran he remained deafeningly silent.

Then there were the sanctions. Iran’s economy was crippled—driven to the ground by the weight of sanctions, its currency hyperinflating—and President Obama chose to reduce sanctions on the world’s major state sponsor of terror.

So what happens if Mr. Obama keeps his word? Inevitably, Iran’s more nefarious groups, proxies and programs will benefit.

According to a Congressional Research Service Report issued in April by Middle East specialist Kenneth Katzman:

Sanctions have constricted Iran’s ability to procure equipment for its nuclear and missile programs and to import advanced conventional weaponry, but have not halted Iran’s provision of arms to the Assad government in Syria, the Iraqi government, and to pro-Iranian factions such as Lebanese Hezbollah or Houthi rebels in Yemen. Sanctions have not altered Iran’s repression of domestic dissent.

If Iran was capable of doing these things despite sanctions, what more could it do with $150 billion?

Furthermore, the irgc controls many of the banks and companies that could soon experience sanctions relief. So securing a nuclear deal with Iran could now mean sanctions relief for known terrorist groups. But this is of little consequence to the man who claims that additional funds to terrorists is not a cause for concern; after all, they’ve been doing those activities “despite sanctions.” (For more, see “President Obama’s Remarkable Defense of the Iran Nuclear Deal.”)

Motives

The truth is that any sanctions relief automatically benefits Iran’s regional ambitions. An empowered Iran means a more aggressive foreign policy—something neighboring Arab nations fear almost as much as a nuclear weapon. It also means stronger and more active proxies. Hezbollah and the irgc stand to make immediate gains should Iran receive its $150 billion. Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program will quickly receive the long-lost funding from banks and other companies that were once its lifeblood.

The Trumpet has long forecast the rapid rise of Iran to a position of regional dominance. A decade ago, few would have thought Iran would be as powerful as it now is, but—based on the irrefutable prophecies found in your Bible—the Trumpet knew otherwise. Our articles and booklets repeatedly highlight prophecies that warn of Iran’s sudden rise to regional dominance as the “king of the south.” Today Iran has more sway over the Middle East than it has had in decades. And in less than a month, the rise of Iran could be further empowered by America. It really comes down to one decision.

So does President Obama endorse such motives by injecting $150 billion into Iran? Or does he backpedal, jeopardize the negotiations, and potentially lead Iran to pull out of the nuclear deals? Either outcome is grim: a potential nuclear-armed Iran tomorrow, or a cashed-up Iran ready to significantly advance its regional aspirations.

With the June 30 deadline looming, it is time to choose.