I Ran So Far

For a man who’s knowledge of foreign affairs is so limited that he thought he was meeting with the “President” of the Virgin Islands, as if a foreign country (yes it is a US territory, and its chief executive officer is a “governor”), the ramifications for Donald Trump’s latest foreign policy moves can be quite terrifying. When offered an easy approach without the risk of war, violence or the escalation of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or, alternatively, hideous and unwinnable conflict, the President ignores his most professional diplomatic and military advisors to embrace a foreign policy of dangerous confrontation that accelerates violent conflict as a most-appropriate endgame.

We’re still standing after decades of confrontation with two nuclear powers we never trusted and tried to disarm (with zero success): the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. We didn’t think that they should have had nukes but after many years of stand-offs, we accepted their nuclear status, negotiated mutually-imposed treaty-restrictions and relied heavily on MAD (mutually-assured destruction) as a viable deterrent. That’s pretty much what North Korea has asked us to do.

We did not threaten the USSR and China with total demise if they continued to test nuclear weapons and the platforms to deliver them. We can tolerate this situation. The world knows that this stand-off system works, which is why there is so much more global repugnance to Trump’s threats against Kim Jong-un than against Kim’s own nasty rhetoric. Kim’s words that sound an awful lot like the utterings of the Soviet leaders of old. The above photograph is of Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, banging his shoe on a desk to decry Western imperialism at a 1961 meeting at the United Nations, the same man who said: “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.”

There are few world leaders who believe that any level of sanctions or threats will dislodge Kim Jong-un’s existential grip on maintaining North Korea’s nuclear program. Even though the average North Korean subsists on a mere 1100 calories a day, knowledgeable analysts – feeling strongly that Kim is not half as crazy as the US press makes him out to be – believe he would let millions of his people starve to death rather than let go of a weapons system that he passionately believes is the only force keeping him in power. Acceptance and tolerance would have a much bigger impact on defusing these risks, but Donald does not know any path but bluster and antagonistic threats that he cannot carry out without unacceptable civilian losses.

And so it is with the Iran six-party UN-driven nuclear accord (the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” – JCPOA). Far from perfect, the accord has produced one unequivocal result: stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons-grade enrichment system. It did not stop their deployment of Hezbollah and other Iranian military forces to foment their cause all over the Middle East. It has had no impact on limiting their missile testing program or other upgrades to their military.

But even within Israel’s conservative government, there are occasional reluctant but sufficient admissions that stopping Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was an unexpected success. Behind the scenes, they’re no longer so sure they want to get rid of the accord. All of the other signatories to JCPOA believe that while new negotiations to address the “other” Iranian issues are justified, they do not want the agreement to be scrapped. And as Donald Trump threatens a unilateral withdrawal of America’s acceptance of that accord, some nations in the world hope that this somehow could be turned into an impetus for Iran to work to resolve the other issues. To others, it is simply one more sign of a rogue nation where its word is meaningless.

What Donald Trump did do, ominously on Friday the 13^th, was to refuse to certify to the Congress that Iran was in compliance with its obligations under the accord… even though Iran apparently had in fact met the letter of that treaty. The President “announced he would not certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal and vowed to terminate the agreement if its ‘many serious flaws’ are not tackled… [adding] We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror, and the very real threat of Iran’s nuclear breakout.’

“The president said he was directing his administration to work with Congress and allies to address problems with the deal ‘so that the Iranian regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons.’ Trump said the deal’s sunset clauses, insufficient enforcement, and ‘near-total silence on Iran’s missile programs’ need to be addressed, or he would nix the accord… Trump also unveiled his administration’s more comprehensive – and confrontational – strategy toward Tehran, saying it would be aimed at dealing with the ‘full range of Iran’s destructive actions,’ from its nuclear and ballistic missile programs to its backing of actors stirring instability in the region.

“The Treasury Department, as part of the announcement on Friday [10/13], enacted tough sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps for providing support to terror groups and for the activities of its external operations arm, the Quds Force — which was previously designated in 2007 under the same terrorism executive order as the IRGC on Friday. The Trump State Department, however, has not put the IRGC on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.” The Cipher Brief, October 13^th.

But what if Iran swallows hard, accepts the end of the accord, and turns over the decision-making to hardliners who desperately wish to resume their nuclear development program and just don’t care what sanctions they face? What if out of spite, Iran builds that feared nuclear weapon? Or even if Iran stays in the treaty, what if our European allies refused to participate in those additional sanctions, conduct more business with Iran… and by doing so force the US to apply those sanctions to them?

“General Michael Hayden told The Cipher Brief that people in the Departments of State and Defense – who did not think ‘walking away from the deal’ was in the best interests of the United States – likely worked to find ‘a way that he could make a tough speech but essentially leave the deal intact.’

“Trump’s announcement — driven by a U.S. law that requires the administration to notify Congress every 90 days about whether Iran is living up to the deal — opens up several potential scenarios. Members of Congress could introduce legislation to re-impose sanctions, the administration might focus on supplementing or reworking the accord in partnership with European allies, or the pact could ultimately unravel if the U.S. withdraws.

“The immediate effect of Trump decertifying Iranian compliance is that he tosses the issue back to Congress, giving the House and Senate a 60-day review period in which party leadership can decide whether to introduce a bill to reinstate sanctions…

“In a joint statement released Friday [10/13], British Prime Minister Theresa May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and French President Emmanuel Macron said they ‘stand committed’ to the agreement and its full implementation. ‘At the same time as we work to preserve the JCPOA, we share concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities that also affect our European security interests,’ the statement read.

“The European Union’s Federica Mogherini also said in a statement that Trump has no power to cancel the accord. It ‘is not a bilateral agreement, it does not belong to any single country and it is not up to any single country to terminate.’

“‘We cannot afford, as international community – as EU for sure – to dismantle a nuclear agreement that is working and delivering, especially now,’ she continued… Brookings’ Suzanne Maloney said decertification ‘will markedly undercut American influence with our allies around our broader priorities with respect to Iran.’

“‘Instead of co-opting the deep European investment in this agreement to generate new partnerships around addressing the real challenges that Iran poses to the region and its own citizens, Washington will have to engage in damage control with our key allies around the deal. It’s a profound waste of time and, more importantly, of hard-won diplomatic capital,’ she said.” Cipher Brief.

Indeed European leaders were quick to point out that Iran’s missile capabilities are currently able to reach that continent, leaving the United States well out of range. Trump’s playing fast and loose with the Iran accord truly is a much more immediate existential threat to Europe. “If the United States terminates the Iran nuclear deal or reimposes sanctions on Tehran it could result in Iran developing nuclear weapons and raise the danger of war close to Europe, Germany's foreign minister said on Saturday [10/14].

“German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel told Deutschlandfunk radio that Trump had sent a ‘difficult and dangerous signal’ when the U.S. administration was also dealing with the North Korea nuclear crisis… He said if the United States terminated the deal or if sanctions were reimposed on Tehran, it would give Iranian hardliners, who are against negotiations with the West, the upper hand…

“‘Then they might revert to developing nuclear weapons,’ Gabriel said, adding Israel would not tolerate that and ‘then we will be back where we were 10, 12 years ago with the danger of war relatively close to Europe.’… He urged the United States not to endanger the security of its allies and its own people for domestic policy reasons.” AOL.com, October 14^th.

Like the chaos that defines the workings of the White House today, Trump’s approach creates instability on almost everything he touches. He makes taking America’s word on anything a big risk for any world power. Who can trust us when we reverse course on a whim? And couldn’t we simply keep the JCPOA intact and still negotiate open issues with Iran? Why is bullying that motivates fewer and fewer people with every effort still America’s primary go-to foreign policy strategy. Mexico isn’t paying for that wall, and pulling out of NAFTA – which could be next – hurts American businesses and farmers as much as anyone.

I’m Peter Dekom, and these impact of these policy moves cannot be reversed in the foreseeable future no matter who might be the next president(s).