Trump’s Iran stance conceals foreign policy failures - GulfToday

Trump’s Iran stance conceals foreign policy failures

Michael Jansen

The author, a well-respected observer of Middle East affairs, has three books on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Donald Trump

President Trump with his top team members.

Donald Trump appears to have recognised the rising threat of a conflict with Iran when last Thursday he called for Tehran to “call me” and negotiate a “fair deal” to defuse the increasingly perilous situation. He seems to signal that a new agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme would end sanctions instead of insisting that Iran would have to comply with a dozen US demands outside the nuclear deal. These have been put forward by aides as conditions for the punitive US sanctions regime to be lifted. Trump indicated that he has had, on occasion, to “temper” regime hawks.


His call seems to indicate — until he changes his mind — that he is at odds with them on this issue.  His proposal coincided with the deployment to the Gulf of a US aircraft carrier group, long-range bombers, ships carrying amphibious landing craft, and Patriot missiles.  

His advisers claimed the deployment had been necessitated by secret “intelligence” reports that Iran and its “proxies” were planning attacks on the 5,200 US troops based in Iraq. Experts have dubbed these reports as “fake news” concocted by Trump regime hawks who make no secret that they want to engineer a US attack on Iran without considering consequences for the region.

A former unnamed Trump regime official told Al Monitor, “There is intel every day of random s**t from Iran. Mostly junk. Bolton turns every strand into ‘Gulf of Tonkin,’” a clash between a US ship and North Vietnamese patrol boats in international waters that provided Washington with the pretext to mount a full-scale war on Hanoi: a war the US lost.

The official continued, “We are pressuring Iran with a policy that sees pressure as an end in itself. The Iranians may well react, which provides casus belli to these nuts.”

The chief Iran hawks are security adviser John Bolton, an Iraq-war advocate, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and Vice President Mike Pence.  All are cheered on by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who has long pressed Washington to take military action against Iran which he claims, falsely, is using its nuclear facilities to build bombs.

Official policy of the US government is that Iran has to “change its  behaviour” in the region by ending its support for Hizbollah, the Palestinian resistance, the Syrian government, and Iraqi Shia militias as well as its minimal involvement on the side of rebel Houthis in the Yemen conflict. Giuliani, however, says he and many fellow citizens believe the Iranian government has “to go.”

Trump’s hawks are very well aware that once a military build-up reaches a certain level, Washington will have to make use of its assets. This is precisely what happened when, in 1991 and 2003, the US waged war on Iraq once it had sent critical numbers of planes, ships, armour, and ground troops to the region.

Although world public opinion opposed these wars, there was no possibility of the US withdrawing without launching a military campaign.   

The latest US deployment coincided with the announcement by Tehran that, in response to a new round of Trump regime sanctions, Iran would suspend the limit on its stock of enriched uranium in the 2015 deal agreed with six global powers.

Trump violated the deal by withdrawing a year ago. Under this agreement Iran pledged to dismantle most of its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting of all international sanctions. Thanks to malign US control of global finance and banking, sanctions have largely remained in place because the US imposes stiff fines on governments, banks and firms investing in or doing business with Iran.

While Iran has continued to enrich uranium to the low level needed for medical purposes and generating electricity, it has exported 98 per cent of its production, earning sorely needed foreign exchange.  Under Trump’s latest round of sanctions it will be nearly impossible for Iran to export for payment.

Consequently, the only way for Iran to carry on with activities agreed in the nuclear deal would be to dramatically reduce uranium enrichment to the point of nearly shutting down its nuclear facilities — which is, of course, the aim of the Trump regime.  Iran is not going to oblige.

The US build-up in this region is, all too clearly, intended to deflect domestic and international attention to major Trump regime foreign policy failures both in this region and elsewhere.

Pompeo’s recent visit to Baghdad to press the Shia-dominated government to cut political and economic ties with Iran has been rejected. Iraq depends on Iran for electricity, natural gas, refined oil products, food, vehicle spare parts, medicine and other goods.  Annual trade has risen to $12 billion,. Pilgrimages by Shias to both countries are worth $5 billion.

Trump’s reversal of his decision to pull 2,000 US troops out of northern Syria has caused confusion. Washington’s Kurdish allies fear they will be abandoned to Turkey which has promised to expel them from the border zone. Arabs living under US-backed Kurdish rule have protested and have made deals with the Syrian government.

Trump’s “deal of the century” to resolve the century-old Arab/Palestine-Israel conflict has been rejected by the Palestinians following leaks of the proposal in Israeli, Arab and international media. Trump’s ongoing effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government has, so far, collapsed, leaving that country in chaos and its people suffering from US sanctions and blockade.

The Trump regime’s re-imposition of sanctions on Cuba has not forced its government to change its policies. US sanctions on Russia have not altered its stand on Ukraine or compelled Moscow to pull out of Crimea.

Trump’s trumpeted opening to North Korea has flopped.  North Korea has not budged over dismantling its nuclear arsenal or programme and has resumed testing of short-range missiles to show its displeasure over Trump’s refusal to phase out sanctions.

And, Trump’s policy of more than doubling tariffs on Chinese goods is not only likely to launch a trade war with the world’s second largest economy but also risks a global recession. His tariffs are certain to result in US consumers paying at least 25 per cent more for purchases of the wide range of Chinese imports from clothing to washing machines. China has retaliated by reducing imports of US agricultural produce, harming US farmers. His China policy alone could bring about his defeat in next year’s presidential election.

Related articles

Majority of US voters support the deal with Iran

US presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to return to the 2015 agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions. Instead, President Biden sticks to the dangerous and destructive policy dictated by Donald Trump who withdrew from the deal in 2018 and slapped 1,500 punitive sanctions on Iran.

Biden hesitates although 54 per cent of registered US voters support a deal while only 20 per cent oppose; among Biden’s Democrats the number is 70 per cent backers and six per cent opponents; among independents 50 per cent support and 30 per cent do not; and 41 per cent of Republicans are in favour against 35 who are not.

Since Biden’s own positive rating is currently a low 41 per cent against 56 per cent negative rating, it would seem it would behove him to re-enter the deal. The main obstacle is Tehran’s insistence that the US must lift Trump’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a “foreign terrorist organisation,” making the IRG the world’s sole national army to join a host of armed non-state actors.

The text, a somewhat amended version of the original document, has been ready for months and awaits finalisation. Why then is Biden procrastinating and prevaricating? He faces stiff opposition from domestic anti-Iran lobbyists and legislators and Israel where the government rejects the deal. In both countries military and intelligence experts are, however, in favour. They hold, correctly, that Tehran has made great strides in developing both nuclear expertise and output since Trump pulled out, prompting Iran to gradually reduce its adherence in retaliation.

Instead of being limited to 3.67 uranium enrichment Iran has 43 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium: this is a few steps away from the 90 per cent needed for a bomb. Instead of having a 300 kilogram stockpile of 3.67 enriched uranium, Iran has a stock 18 times larger of uranium enriched above the 3.67 per cent level permitted. Instead of carrying out enrichment with old, approved centrifuges, Iran has employed advanced centrifuges.

Instead of abiding by the stringent monitoring regime put in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has been slipping surveillance. Until Iran began to breach the regulatory regime, it was the toughest on earth.

Nevertheless, Iran has pledged to revert to the deal once the US re-enters and to halt enrichment above 3.67 per cent, export all but 300 kilogrammes of the permitted 3.67 per cent of material in its stockpile, revert to old centrifuges which have been warehoused, and re-engage fully with the IAEA monitoring effort.

Opponents of the deal argue its “sunset clauses” will expire by 2031, thereby ending restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities. This may be addressed in the new deal.

However, they also contend it fails to curb in Iran’s ballistic missile programme and sup- port for Lebanon’s Hizbollah, Yemeni Houthi rebels, Iraqi Shia militias and the Syrian government.

Since these issues are outside the purview of the 2015 deal, Iran rightly rejects including them in its successor. Tehran has also made it clear that they can be discussed directly with the US once Biden re-joins the deal and sanctions are lifted.

After months of trying to get the external issues incorporated into the nuclear deal, the Biden administration conceded that this is impossible.

On April 29th this year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told lawmakers that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign had failed and “produced a more dangerous nuclear programme” while Iran stepped up involvement in regional affairs. These post-Ukraine war remarks suggested that the Biden administration was ready to return to the deal.

However, the administration continues to blow hot at one moment and cold another. Last week Washington may have blown up the deal. At the 35-member IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna the US — along with acolytes Britain, France, and Germany — secured the adoption of a resolution critical of Iran over its inability or refusal to account for traces of nuclear material at three undeclared sites found by IAEA monitors in 2019 and 2020.

The resolution, which received 30 votes in favour — with Iran and Russia voting against and India, China and Libya abstaining — urges Iran to co-operate “without delay” with inspectors after IAEA director Rafael Grossi reported he had not received a “technically credible” explanation for the presence of particles.

Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi pointed out that uranium “contamination” was possible “in a country as vast as Iran.” He also suggested “human sabotage” by Israel which is blamed for repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinations of Iranian scientists.

Iranian officials are suspicious due to the fact that former Israeli Prime Minister Bin- yamin Netanyahu instigated visits by IAEA inspectors to one of the three contaminate sites at the village of Turquzabad near Tehran. IAEA monitors took soil samples and concluded that there were “traces of radioactive material” at the location which may have been used for storage as there were no signs of processing. How did Netanyahu know there were samples at this site?

Although the IAEA still has more than 40 cameras which will continue to operate at Iran’s enrichment facilities, Grossi stated Tehran’s action mounted to a “serious challenge.” He warned that in three or four weeks the agency would be unable to provide “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s activities. “This could be a fatal blow” to negotiations over the nuclear deal, he stated.

He also warned that Iran is “just a few weeks” away from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. However, Iran halted work on weaponisation in 2003 and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly stated that Iran will not manufacture nuclear weapons as they are prohibited by Islam.

Kelsey Davenport of the “independent” Washington-based Arms Control Association told the BBC that in ten days or less Iran could transform its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into the 90 per cent required for weapons. She said, however, that manufacturing bombs would require one or two years.

If Biden continues dithering the deal could die, further destabilising an already unstable region.

Michael Jansen, Political Correspondent

12 Jun 2022