Some of Mattis’ former military colleagues said he had a 30-year-long obsession with Iran, noting, as one marine told Politico, “It’s almost like he wants to get even with them.”ĭuring his campaign and first months in office, Trump whipped up anti-Iranian feelings and consistently misled the public about what the nuclear deal entailed. Some of his top advisers were deeply hostile to Iran and known to favor a more confrontational approach, including his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn his CIA director, Mike Pompeo his chief strategist, Steve Bannon and his defense secretary, James Mattis. Well before his election, of course, Trump had criticized the Iran nuclear agreement as “the worst deal ever negotiated” and promised to put a stop to Iran’s “aggressive push to destabilize and dominate” the Middle East. Looking back, he now sees that this conflict probably became inevitable when he named his foreign policy team and first started to implement his new approach toward Iran. troops even further in what is already a costly and unpopular war-the very sort of “mess” he had promised to avoid. He is tempted to retaliate much more aggressively this time but also knows that doing so risks involving U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and the president is frustrated that previous air strikes in Iran failed to deter this sort of deadly aggression. Another dozen Americans have been killed in an Iranian-sponsored attack on U.S. It is September 2017, and the White House is consumed with a debate about options for escalation with Iran. That which takes place after that date is-at least at the time of publication-fiction. In the narratives that follow, everything described as having taken place before mid-March 2017 actually happened. It is possible that such a ghost would show him a version of the future in which his administration, after a turbulent start, moderated over time, proved more conventional than predicted, and even had some success in negotiating, as he has pledged, “better deals.” But there is a real risk that events will turn out far worse-a future in which Trump’s erratic style and confrontational policies destroy an already fragile world order and lead to open conflict-in the most likely cases, with Iran, China, or North Korea. The problem is that negotiations sometimes fail, and adversaries are themselves often brazen and unpredictable. But what if one could? What if, like Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Trump could meet a ghost from the future offering a vision of where his policies might lead by the end of his term before he decides on them at its start? History is littered with examples of leaders who, like Trump, came to power fueled by a sense of national grievance and promises to force adversaries into submission, only to end up mired in a military, diplomatic, or economic conflict they would come to regret. And whereas a failed business deal allows both parties to walk away unscathed if disappointed, a failed diplomatic gambit can lead to political instability, costly trade disputes, the proliferation of dangerous weapons, or even war. Moreover, putting the theory into practice requires the capacity to act judiciously at the appropriate moment, something that Trump, as president, has yet to demonstrate. After all, Nixon’s madman theory-designed to force the North Vietnamese to compromise-did not work. The problem, however, is that negotiations sometimes fail, and adversaries are themselves often brazen and unpredictable. It could be that Trump is simply staking out tough bargaining positions as a tactical matter, the approach to negotiations he has famously called “the art of the deal.” President Richard Nixon long ago developed the “madman theory,” the idea that he could frighten his adversaries into believing he was so volatile he might do something crazy if they failed to meet his demands-a tactic that Trump, whose reputation for volatility is firmly established, seems particularly well suited to employ. After decades of “losing” to other countries, he says he is going to put “America first” and start winning again. The core of his foreign policy message is that the United States will no longer allow itself to be taken advantage of by friends or foes abroad. Since taking office, Trump has continued to challenge accepted norms, break with diplomatic traditions, and respond to perceived slights or provocations with insults or threats of his own. What is clear, however, is that the impulsiveness, combativeness, and recklessness that characterized Donald Trump’s election campaign have survived the transition into the presidency. Just a few months into the Trump administration, it still isn’t clear what course the president’s foreign policy will ultimately take.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |