In an apparent attempt to make the ongoing Iranian nuclear discussions as awkward as possible, Iran made some questionable decisions this week. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard detained and fired shots at a cargo ship (the Maersk Tigris) and “harassed” another (the Maersk Kensington), both of which were flagged by the United States (and therefore under the protection of the U.S. Navy) in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the Revolutionary Guard detained the ship on court order because it had previously been involved in some “rather peculiar activity,” which seems to be a reference to a 2005 incident in Dubai.

It has now been reported that thanks to the extremely odd occurrence, the U.S. Navy will be escorting every U.S. flagged commercial vessel through the strait. The measure is said to be precautionary and in place to avoid an “international incident with Iran.” As these issues occur, and if Iran does indeed persist, then arguments against the current nuclear discussions — which are already a source of enough contention here in the United States and abroad without all of this extracurricular activity — with Iran are given more credibility.

The weight of this nuclear deal is already evident as Zarif said Friday that the United States “will risk isolating itself in the world if there is an agreement and it decides to break it,” in response to promises from members of Congress to stop the measures from passing in the United States.

While the actions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (taken at the instruction of the Iranian government) and the proposed plan for a nuclear program in Iran are not directly related, the fact that we don’t seem to be able to predict Iran’s actions is disconcerting. The guidelines of the nuclear plan very much hinge on the ability of the West to trust Iran will play by the rules, and suffice to say, Iran is giving us very few reasons to trust it will act in accordance with the agreement.

On top of harassing cargo vessels, which are under United States protection, Iran and Russia entered into a rather upsetting deal together — a deal that will send missile defense systems to the Middle Eastern nation that could feasibly be used to protect its nuclear facilities should it be decided those facilities need to be destroyed. Iran feels justified in its purchase of weapons systems that have purely defensive purposes, but when we take this recent string of actions and consider them as a whole, we see a picture of a nation that we may need to be wary of trusting.

Final decisions regarding the nuclear deal will not be made until June, so there is plenty of time for this mess (because that is how this culmination of situations is most aptly described) to be sorted out and the tentative relationship among Iran, the United States and indeed the world at large to be moved onto more stable ground.

But if the framework of this deal is not in the best interest of the United States and its partners, then no deal and continued sanctions will serve us better than a bad deal of which Iran can potentially continue its nuclear program and ignore the checks and balances which the United States is attempting to negotiate. If Iran does not show we can anticipate consistently agreeable actions, then how could we trust Iran to follow the guidelines of even the most well-reasoned nuclear agreement? Simply put: we could not.