The mask is off: Trump is seeking war with Iran
Trita Parsi warns that President Trump is intent on wrecking the nuclear accord with Iran by October with false claims of non-compliance and launching a war against that country.
SOMETHING extraordinary has happened in Washington. President Donald Trump has made it clear, in no uncertain terms and with no effort to disguise his duplicity, that he will claim that Tehran is cheating on the nuclear deal by October, the facts be damned.
In short, the fix is in. Trump will refuse to accept that Iran is in compliance and thereby set the stage for a military confrontation. His advisers have even been kind enough to explain how they will go about this. Rarely has a sinister plan to destroy an arms control agreement and pave the way for war been so openly telegraphed.
The unmasking of Trump’s plans to sabotage the nuclear deal began in mid-July when he reluctantly had to certify that Iran indeed was in compliance. Both US intelligence as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency had confirmed Tehran’s fairplay. But Trump threw a tantrum in the Oval Office and berated his national security team for not having found a way to claim Iran was cheating. According to Foreign Policy, the adults in the room – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and National Security Advisor HR McMaster – eventually calmed Trump down but only on the condition that they double down on finding a way for the president to blow up the deal by October.
Prior to the revelation of Trump’s Iran certification meltdown, most analysts and diplomats believed that Trump’s rhetoric on Iran was just that – empty talk. His bark was worse than his bite, as demonstrated when he certified Iran’s compliance back in April and when he renewed sanctions waivers in May. The distance between his rhetoric and actual policy was tangible.
Rhetorically, Trump officials described Iran as the root of all problems in the Middle East and as the greatest state sponsor of terror. Trump even suggested he might quit the deal. In action, however, President Trump continued to waive sanctions and admitted that Iran was adhering to the deal. As a result, many concluded that Trump would continue to fulfil the obligations of the deal while sticking to his harsh rhetoric in order to appease domestic opponents of the nuclear deal as well as Trump’s allies in Saudi Arabia and Israel.
But now, assessments are changing. The tangible danger of Trump’s malice on the Iran deal – as well as the danger of the advice of the ‘adults in the room’ – became further clarified towards the end of July as tidbits of the reality TV star’s plans began to leak.
How to wreck a deal
Recognising that refusing to certify Iran would isolate the United States, Trump’s advisors gave him another plan. Use the spot-inspections mechanism of the nuclear deal, they suggested, to demand access to a whole set of military sites in Iran. Once Iran balks – which it will since the mechanism is only supposed to be used if tangible evidence exists that those sites are being used for illicit nuclear activities – Trump can claim that Iran is in violation, blowing up the nuclear deal while shifting the blame to Tehran.
Thus, the advice of the adults in the room – those who are supposed to restrain Trump – was not to keep the highly successful nuclear deal, which has taken both an Iranian bomb and war with Iran off the table. Rather, they recommended killing it in a manner that would conceal Trump’s malice and shift the cost to Iran.
According to The New York Times, the groundwork for this strategy has already been laid. US Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Corker calls this strategy ‘radical enforcement’ of the deal. ‘If they don’t let us in,’ Corker told The Washington Post, ‘boom.’ Then he added: ‘You want the breakup of this deal to be about Iran. You don’t want it to be about the US, because we want our allies with us.’
This is a charade, a rerun of the machinations that resulted in the Iraq war. It doesn’t matter what Iran does or doesn’t do. If it were up to Trump, he’d never have accepted that Iran was in compliance in the first place. He admitted as much to The Wall Street Journal: ‘If it was up to me, I would have had them [the Iranians] non-compliant 180 days ago.’
Sounding supremely confident of the ‘radical implementation’ strategy, Trump added that ‘I think they’ll be non-compliant [in October].’ In so doing, he further confirmed doubts that the process is about determining whether Iran is in compliance or not. The administration is committed to finding a way to claim Iran has violated the accord, regardless of the facts – just as George W Bush did with Iraq.
Potential to backfire
But Trump’s confidence may be misplaced on two levels. First, abusing the inspection mechanisms of the deal may prove harder than Trump has been led to believe. The inspections are the cornerstone of the deal, and Iran’s ability to cheat on the deal is essentially non-existent as long as the integrity and efficiency of the inspections remain intact. But if Trump begins to abuse the mechanism to fabricate a conflict, he will end up undermining the inspections regime and actually enhance the ability of those in Iran who would like to pursue a covert nuclear programme. Precisely because of the commitment of Europe and others to non-proliferation, they are likely to resist Trump’s efforts to tinker with the inspections.
Second, by revealing his hand, Trump has displayed his duplicity for all to see. That includes the American public, whose anti-war sentiments remain strong and are a key reason they supported the nuclear deal in the first place.
The American public knows the Iraq playbook quite well. Trump’s own supporters remain enraged by the disastrous war with Iraq. They know how they got played. It’s difficult to imagine why they would allow themselves to get played again by a president who has left little doubt about his intent to deceive.
Trita Parsi is the president of the National Iranian American Council and author of Losing an Enemy – Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy. This article is reproduced from the LobeLog foreign policy blog (lobelog.com).
*Third World Resurgence No. 321, May 2017, pp 25-26