President Trump takes on the Middle East – Iran
Brian M Downing
No newly-elected president has caused more anxiety and speculation than Donald Trump. His hastily proposed polices and mercurial temperament worry foreign leaders and fellow Republicans alike. Many US foreign policy experts have publicly declared him unfit for the presidency. Some, it must be noted, were confident that Afghanistan could be swiftly modernized and that the UN would see through a rapid transition to democracy in Iraq.
Trump once called for even-handedness in the Palestinian issue, but that was swiftly followed by harsh criticism of the Iranian nuclear deal, a centerpiece of his opponent’s achievements. This has raised the question of how the next president will treat with Iran and if greater tensions, if not much worse, are in store. Is he a bellicose ideologue or a pragmatic businessman?
The Iranian nuclear deal
The 2014 agreement is an executive agreement and not a treaty, hence it can be put aside. As much as a president might dislike the 2014 agreement, as much as his national security team might agree, their range of responses is limited. Annulment by an American president will not end or lessen support for peace with Iran around the world.
The US can keep in place its own sanctions on Iran. This means little as American firms have not been flocking to Tehran for trade talks, chiefly because of concerns that congress will respond punitively. Foreign firms, including those of staunch American allies, began signing deals with Iran before the ink dried on the agreement.
President Trump will have the power to ratchet up conflict with Iran. IRGC ships already make threatening approaches to US naval vessels in the Persian Gulf, and a firm response from a US destroyer or fighter aircraft could raise tensions that might spiral into armed conflict.
The anti-Iran states
The Israeli government has long called for the destruction of Iranian nuclear sites. The dismantling of centrifuges and export of enriched uranium has done little to reduce hostility, though it must be noted that Iran has not always respected the deal’s terms on heavy water and missile tests.
The government’s hardline isn’t universally held inside Israel. Many generals, security chiefs, and nuclear specialists have opposed conflict. Indeed, they’ve constituted a formidable opposition to calls for war over the years. These figures see the present government as rash and authoritarian, and are seeking to build popular support to bring about a more centrist government.
The Saudis and their Gulf allies see rising Iranian-Shia power and will also welcome greater hostility between Washington and Tehran. But Sunni perceptions of Iranian-Shia ascendancy are shaped by sectarian hatreds, not sound judgments. Their perceptions are sent on to Washington by defense contractors who sell billions of dollars of weaponry in the Gulf.
A fresh look at the region will suggest that calls for US action come from countries who are unable to do so themselves and who want the US to do their work for them. The issue of advancing US interests scarcely registers in the calculus.
The Russian response
The most important world problem the new president will face is the aggressive resurgence of Russia, challenging the US in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Increased hostility between the US and Iran will give Russia a golden opportunity to challenge the US’s determination and ex[and its own power.
Iran and Russia have moved closer in the last year. Russia has delivered its S-300 air defense system and deployed, albeit briefly, SU-34 fighters and long-range Tu-22M bombers to an airfield near Hamadan. It can one day sell Klub ship-killing missiles to Iran, thereby making American naval vessels, including aircraft carriers, highly vulnerable to the supersonic weapons. The US has recently developed a new SeaRAM system to defend against them, but ships are likely still vulnerable to swarming tactics designed to overwhelm defenses. The US might have to suffer the indignity of backing down.
Russia will recognize an opportunity to drive a wedge between the US and its European NATO allies. Where the US sees dire threat, many European countries see thriving trade. European allies are still smarting from ill-starred, US-led ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are at the very least concerned with the incoming president.
The business-oriented president may be less bellicose than his campaign rhetoric augured. He might see no percentage in exacerbating tensions with Iran. Seeking better relations through trade might be more possible than generally thought. It would be consistent with the outlook of pragmatic businessman and also with the planters and merchants who shaped America’s foreign policy in its early years.
Copyright 2016 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.