To those who feared that the Trump presidency would represent something of an extinction event for world peace, a quick look around the globe this week provides plenty of grim confirmation. The biggest trade war in almost a century has dominated the G20 Summit, led by the President’s decision to increase tariffs on China’s exports. He keeps making threatening noises towards the teetering government of President Maduro in Venezuela.
The initial spasm of diplomacy with North Korea has led to renewed tension, followed by diplomatic theatre this weekend of a meeting in the demilitarised zone between North and South Korea. On top of all this, bellicose US rhetoric towards Iran is being reinforced with deployment of naval and ground forces to the Persian Gulf. Trump’s presidency has reached a pivotal moment as Iran tests American patience to the limit.
The latest escalation of tensions between the US and Iran is deeply troubling. All the more so given that it comes at a time when Trump is facing so many other foreign policy challenges, all under the leadership of a president with a worryingly limited attention span, capricious interests and a firm belief in his own ability to get people to do things he wants them to do.
Any one of these would have been enough to absorb the full strategic attention of previous US administrations. Yet the US now finds itself sliding towards war with Iran as a result of a fight that it did not need to pick.
There is certainly reason for concern about the direction of US foreign policy, especially to long-standing admirers of the US like me.
But before ascribing all this to the inevitable culmination of the irrational militancy of an emotionally incontinent President, it is worth stepping back and looking at the context.
No one disputes that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – the 2015 deal agreed between Iran, the US, China, Russia, Germany, France and Britain, was far from perfect. It required Tehran to halt its nuclear weapons programme, but allowed it to continue uranium enrichment for civilian purposes while limiting the size of the stockpile it could hold. That delayed, rather than dismantled Iran’s nuclear programme. The overwhelming suspicion remains that Trump’s main objection to the agreement was a puerile one: the deal had been signed by Barack Obama.
Perhaps the constant switching from threats to sweet talk is part of a deliberate ‘mad man’ negotiating strategy to unsettle opponents
But all the parties to this flawed agreement, the culmination of more than a decade of negotiations, saw it as a risk worth taking. It lowered the immediate security threat in the region while the removal of some sanctions boosted the Iranian economy, strengthening the hands of moderates in Iran, including President Rouhani, thus creating diplomatic space for future dialogue.
In contrast, Trump’s withdrawal from the deal and his decision to impose draconian sanctions has already inflicted substantial damage on Iran’s economy, severely restricting its ability to export oil, denting Rouhani’s standing and strengthening the hand of hardliners.
Despite a deep recession and inflation above 40 per cent – including targeting sanctions at Iran’s Supreme Leader, his inner circle and military commanders – Tehran shows no signs of yielding to Trump’s pressure tactics, instead warning Iranians to prepare for greater hardships than those endured during the Iran-Iraq war 40 years ago.
The risk of miscalculation by either side is now worryingly high. The US says that its decision to strengthen its naval presence in the Gulf and to deploy B52 spy planes to the region is purely defensive. Even so, the reports that the Pentagon is drawing up plans to send 120,000 troops in the event of a conflict only heighten concerns that Trump is preparing for war.
Details of the sabotage of oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz still remain murky, but the shooting down of an American drone and the US cyberattack on Iranian defence systems are a reminder that in a highly volatile region, with numerous proxy forces engaged in multiple conflicts, it will never be hard for anyone who wants a war to find a pretext for one.
It also presents Trump with his most serious diplomatic test yet, which comes at a time when Tehran has been publicly snubbing Trump’s appeals for talks to resolve the stand-off.
Instead, the Iranians have revived the uranium enrichment plans that they had agreed to suspend under the nuclear deal until Trump pulled out of it.
Trump’s pressure tactics so far have not worked. It seems likely that Tehran is exploiting his reluctance to get dragged into a war when his administration’s attention is focussed on other priorities, such as China, Mexico and Venezuela. Trump is also deeply conscious that in an election year, the President who promised disengagement from overseas wars may find himself embroiled in a war he cannot win. It turns out that being President is different to taking pot-shots at President Obama from the sidelines.
Since becoming President, Trump has set about applying his deal-making skills to an extraordinary range of challenges. There is no treaty or international alliance that Trump cannot renegotiate to America’s advantage. But transplanting the art of the deal to the world of politics is not proving easy. The past two-and-a-half years have been more the art of the bluff – and a bluff that keeps getting called. Threats to unleash ‘fire and fury’ on North Korea quickly gave way to meetings in which Trump heaped praise on Kim Jong-un. China shows little sign of backing down in the face of an 18-month trade war.
Iran’s response to Trump’s pressure tactics has been to hole two oil tankers and shoot down a US drone. Despite the US being ‘cocked and loaded’, Trump called off military strikes.
He continues to send diplomatic messages via intermediaries calling for negotiations. Perhaps the constant switching from threats to sweet talk is part of a deliberate ‘mad man’ negotiating strategy to unsettle opponents.
But Trump risks becoming predictable in his unpredictability. Having had his bluff called so many times, his threats may be losing their potency. The burning question now is whether he is really willing to bear the costs, whether military or economic, that following through might entail, particularly so close to next year’s presidential election. That’s the problem with bluffing. Sooner or later, you may have to carry out your threats.