It is no longer a secret that the fate of the nuclear agreement signed by Iran with the 5+1 group {the US, Russia, China, France, the UK and Germany} is uncertain.

The next month could have some answers to the current questions about the fate of this agreement, as US President Donald Trump must submit his administration's views on Iran's compliance with the terms of the nuclear agreement. Trump is scheduled to report to Congress on October 15 whether or not he considers that Tehran complies with its obligations under the nuclear deal.

Trump may be moving away from his previous anti-agreement positions. After pointing out that Iran has violated the spirit of the agreement, Iran made the mistake of giving him a free gift, following the North Korean approach. The Iranians decided to conduct a new missile test amid international consensus to condemn Pyongyang's violations of international treaties and agreements on arms control and nuclear proliferation.

Following Iran's recent missile test, President Trump said that the nuclear agreement with Iran was no longer important. "Iran just test-fired a Ballistic Missile capable of reaching Israel.  They are also working with North Korea. Not much of an agreement we have!" he tweeted.

The timing of the test reflects a deep misjudgment by the mullahs of Iran. The challenge this time is not against the United States; it is a challenge to the international community that is concerned of the possibility of a devastating war between the United States and North Korea. The US president accused Iran of destabilizing the Middle East, calling it a "depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed and chaos."

The mullahs of Iran are following the footsteps of Kim Jong-Un, who is about to cause a nuclear war in East Asia. Tensions rose to the point that South Korea asked the United States not to initiate a military strike against the North Korean regime.

The situation for Iran is now clear even for the major powers that defend the nuclear agreement. No one can defend the agreement anymore while it is being jeopardized by the reckless mullahs who think that by defying the US, its president will eventually have to yield to Iran. They forgot that the North Korean threats served for nothing except almost causing a nuclear war.

The lesson Iranian decision-makers should learn is that no one will let Iran finish its missile project and become another North Korea. It will be either more sanctions or a break of the nuclear deal by the Trump administration and back to square one. If the Trump administration tells Congress that Iran violated the nuclear deal, Congress will impose new sanctions on it and the agreement will cease to exist.

It is true that the nuclear agreement does not ban the missile program, but the UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which ratified the agreement, calls on Iran not to undertake activities to develop missiles that can be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The spirit of the deal also suggests that tensions in relations with the other party that signed on the agreement should be avoided.

Another point is that Iranian officials claim that Iranian missiles are not designed to carry nuclear warheads. But in fact, the missile systems can be adjusted to carry nuclear warheads as long as the basic technology is available for the operational effectiveness of the missiles.

In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of the importance of continuing the nuclear agreement with Iran, saying breaking the agreement would be a grave mistake, and that not respecting it would be irresponsible. After the speech, he stated that the agreement is insufficient in the light of developments, especially Iranian missile tests, which means that France is going to support pressuring Iran into signing extra terms to the nuclear agreement.

In fact, the United States and Western countries can resort to sanctioning Iran, because lifting sanctions concerned the nuclear program and not the missile test, but the mullahs see the deal from a strange perspective, and consider that any sanctions means the collapse of the agreement.

The issue is similar to the conflict with North Korea. The United States is a party to the two conflicts. It faces two regimes with the same aggressive tendencies. Perhaps the important differences are the weapons capabilities that make the IRGC threat to US forces unimportant. Almost certainly, the nuclear agreement is no longer the subject of full agreement among the signatories.