| | | | The Real Risk in Trump's Iran Gambit | | Trita Parsi is author of "Losing an Enemy -- Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy," and President of the National Iranian American Council. The views expressed are the writer's own. This is a guest op-ed for Global Briefing, which will return with its regular newsletter tomorrow.
It's still unclear whether Donald Trump's expected decision to decertify the Iran nuclear deal will lead to the total collapse of the agreement. But the truth is that decertification is only half the story. The bigger threat to the deal is Trump's apparent intention to ratchet up pressure in the region on Tehran. Doing so risks not only scuppering the agreement, but putting the U.S. and Iran on a collision course that could result in outright conflict.
We're only seeing "the calm before the storm," Trump said cryptically last week. Was he talking about North Korea? Or Iran? The uncertainty over the answer to that question goes to the heart of what is really the biggest flaw in this imperfect, but still highly successful, agreement. While many in Washington bemoan it for not having completely eliminated enrichment in Iran (an impossibility) or for not somehow permanently punishing the country (also an impossibility), the real flaw is that negotiators never foresaw someone like Trump becoming President of the United States.
Much energy was spent on preventing Iran either cheating or withdrawing from the deal. However, far less energy was put into insulating the deal from a TV reality star turned president whose agenda appears to consist largely of trying to undo the achievements of his predecessor. As a result, despite eight reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming Iran's compliance with the agreement, and despite U.S. intelligence and senior members of the Trump administration stating that Iran is in compliance, it seems likely that Trump will decertify Iran this week, although stopping short of calling on Congress to snap back sanctions.
Some see in this approach a way of salvaging the agreement. They argue that decertification alone is not enough to kill it. Congress could, for example, choose not to reinstate sanctions, leaving Trump with the political benefit of no longer having to certify Iran's compliance, while avoiding an international backlash by killing the deal and running the risk Iran restarts dormant aspects of its nuclear program.
But this analysis misses a key point: It is not only the reinstatement of sanctions that threatens the deal, but the Trump administration's desire to "push back" against Tehran in a way that some senior Pentagon officials believe both Obama and George W. Bush failed to do. If only, the thinking seems to go, the United States were to demonstrate its military superiority -- and willingness to use that might -- in a small confrontation, Tehran would have no choice but to back down.
This argument ultimately failed to convince the Obama administration because military planners were unable to offer convincing evidence that they had the ability to ensure that a "small" war would not morph into a much bigger conflict.
Trump, however, defines himself by taking the opposite approach to his predecessor on key issues. As a result, he appears intent on ditching the first element of what appears to be an interagency consensus recommending recertifying the nuclear deal, while embracing calls among officials to ratchet up pressure.
The problem with this approach is very simple: Trump has no effective lines of communication with Iran, severely hampering his ability to deescalate tensions, and significantly increasing the risk of a dangerous Iranian and/or U.S. miscalculation.
As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen put it: "Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran, so we don't understand each other. If something happens, it's virtually assured that we won't get it right -- that there will be miscalculation which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world...We've not had a direct link of communication with Iran since 1979. And I think that has planted many seeds for miscalculation. When you miscalculate, you can escalate and misunderstand."
Escalation without reliable avenues of communication and de-escalatory options risks putting the U.S. on a direct path to conflict, regardless of whether Congress snaps back sanctions on Iran. Under these circumstances, even the wisest and most competent of Presidents could easily find him or herself losing control over events.
Unfortunately, this is not a category that Trump falls into. And that makes the danger of miscalculation -- and war -- infinitely greater.
| | North Korea marks the founding of the ruling Workers' Party of Korea on Tuesday, prompting speculation that it might test another missile to mark the event. The anniversary comes just after Kim Jong Un promoted his younger sister, Kim Yo Jong, at a meeting of the ruling party. Anna Fifield writes in the Washington Post: "Analysts saw the sister's elevation as the latest sign that Kim Jong Un is trying to boost her standing in the regime. The Kim family claims its legitimacy through the 'Paektu bloodline' – the idea that their family has been destined, by a sacred Korean mountain, to lead the country."
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau begins a trip to the United States on Tuesday that will include a meeting with President Trump. "The Canadian side is entering this little summit with barely concealed animosity," writes Lawrence Martin in the Globe and Mail. "Officials will tell you – and indeed a case can be made – that Ottawa is facing the most protectionist American administration since the 1930s."
Liberia holds a general election Tuesday. Ruth Maclean writes in The Guardian that the election is poised to be the "first peaceful democratic transition of power in 73 years, though human rights organizations point out that much remains to be done to solve the problems of impunity for the country's persistent rape problem, harsh libel laws, and lack of accountability for war crimes."
Austria holds parliamentary elections Sunday that are poised to see Europe's far-right give another strong showing. Matthew Karnitschnig writes for Politico EU that not only do Austrians appear set to elect center-right candidate Sebastian Kurz, "a man of just 31, to lead the country; perhaps more significant is that for the first time since 2000, the anti-immigrant Freedom Party (FPÖ) has a good chance of joining the government." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment