He opposed Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran but now Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) warned of a possible “crisis” if the deal is just torn up without replacing it with another option.

Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said January 6 that ripping up the deal would create a crisis.

“To tear it up on the front end, in my opinion, is not going to happen,” Corker told reporters attending an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor newspaper.

Trump criticized the deal during the election campaign, and several of his top advisers, including his nominee to head the CIA, are strident critics of engagement with Tehran.

The comments by Corker came after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned the incoming Trump administration against scrapping the Iran nuclear deal, saying it has made the world safer by leaving Tehran technically unable to build a nuclear weapon.

The Iranians have already violated the deal they made with Obama. In November they exceeded the limit on how much heavy water they could have.

This was not a first time offense. Iran was first found to have exceeded their limit on heavy water back in February. Iran has also been caught trying to strengthen its ballistic missiles program, which the U.S. claimed was in defiance of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

In addition to violating the nuclear accord and UN guidelines, Iran has captured 10 American soldiers and held a parade to celebrate. The country has also been accused of trying to intimidate the U.S. by flying a drone over one of our aircraft carriers.

Through all this, Iranian leaders have the audacity to accuse the U.S. of being the side to violate the nuclear accord.

From the very beginning, the problem with Barack Obama’s policy toward Iran was his willingness to make deals with them at all. In 2008 his campaign sparked controversy by suggesting he would meet “unconditionally” with Iran.

What sort of “crisis” is Corker imagining? How is abiding by a deal unilaterally any better than scrapping it? When one side is wholly untrustworthy, a “better” deal is just as likely to be violated. A deal that is only honored by one side is not a deal at all. There is no way to make a “better” deal with pathological liars.