Trump And Iran

With the advent of the Trump Administration, relations between Iran and the United States have become increasingly conflictual to the point that a future war between the two countries is a realistic possibility. President Trump has unilaterally withdrawn the US from the historic Iran nuclear accord and has re-imposed the nuclear-related sanctions, which had been removed as a result of that accord. Reflecting a new determined US effort to curb Iran's hegemonic behavior throughout the Middle East, Trump's Iran policy has all the markings of a sharp discontinuity in the Iran containment strategy of the previous six US administrations. The regime change policy, spearheaded by a hawkish cabinet with a long history of antipathy toward the Iranian government, has become the most salient feature of US policy toward Iran under President Trump. This turn in US foreign policy has important consequences not just for Iran but also for Iran's neighbors and prospects of long-term stability in the Persian Gulf and beyond. This book seeks to examine the fluid dynamic of US-Iran relations in the Trump era by providing a social scientific understanding of the pattern of hostility and antagonism between Washington and Tehran and the resulting spiraling conflict that may lead to a disastrous war in the region.

The Iran nuclear deal was a crowning moment of international diplomacy, allowing the world to step away from the edge of a self-created abyss. Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from this agreement threatens to return the world to that precipice. Dealbreaker recounts how this deal was made, why it was broken, and what the consequences of that action could be. When the United States made the decision in the 1980s to deny Iran access to nuclear technology, Iran was forced to turn to the black market to get the material, technology and know-how required to meet its need for nuclear power generation, inclusive of the ability to indigenously produce nuclear fuel. The revelation of Iran’s secret nuclear program in 2002 set in motion a battle of wills between the Iranians, who viewed nuclear power as their inherent right, and the rest of the world, who feared the proliferation implications of allowing Iran access to technology that could be used to make a nuclear weapon. The United States and its ally, Israel, pulled no punches, using diplomatic pressure to impose crippling economic sanctions, and covert activities to sow disinformation, sabotage equipment and murder Iranian nuclear scientists in an effort to stop the Iranian nuclear program from going forward. Iran prevailed, confronting the United States with the choice of either going to war, or accepting the reality of an Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian nuclear deal was the result. But the deal had an Achilles heel—the disinformation campaign waged by the United States and Israel to paint the Iranian program as military in nature left a residue of uncertainty and fear that the detractors of the deal used to attack it as little more than a sham. Donald Trump decried the Iranian nuclear deal as a “failed agreement” and promised to tear it up if he were elected President. Trump prevailed in the election, and ended up being as good as his word, pulling America out of the Iranian nuclear deal on May 12, 2018. Dealbreaker explores the nuances of the Iranian nuclear program, exposing the duplicity and hypocrisy of American diplomacy, supported by Israel and abetted by Europe, that led to the need for the Iranian nuclear deal and eventually caused the demise of an agreement that was simultaneously “the deal of the century” and fatally flawed.

President Donald Trump has underscored containing Iran's sway as a key element in establishing a "strong and lasting footprint" in Syria as the United States moves toward bringing its Soldiers home. In pursuing this key American objective, this paper recommends that Washington take advantage of the "daylight" between Russia and Iran, and that it be American policy at all levels to work to expand it. This long-existing "daylight" was underscored in 2018 by calls in Moscow for Iran to withdraw its forces from some or all of Syria, and by Putin's positive regard at the summit in Helsinki with President Trump for Israel's security requirements.Russian acquiescence to U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iranian-associated and other forces in Syria reinforces the conclusion that backing a dominant Iran is not one of President Vladimir Putin's priorities. However, while he will not forcefully oppose the United States and Israel constraining Tehran, Putin will resist pressure to break totally with Iran and with the proxies Iran bankrolls and trains to fight in Syria. In addition, Russia's leverage on Iranian military and political activities in Syria is limited.Russia's solution to its own dilemma of restraining Iranian behavior in the region has been one of addition and mediation rather than subtraction. Moscow dilutes Iranian influence by working with other powers, including those most antithetical to Iran. Russia's relations with Israel are now arguably closer to a "strategic partnership" than those with Iran. Russia's dealings with Saudi Arabia correspond more aptly to an "oil axis" than the "Shiite axis" description used by some to characterize the ties between Moscow and Tehran. Russia's economic ties and diplomacy with Turkey and greenlighting of Turkish military action in Syria against Kurdish forces have also diluted Iranian leverage in Syria.America's imposing military capabilities and veto-wielding membership in the United Nations (UN) Security Council will provide it and its allies with continuing leverage on developments in Syria. Putin ultimately will not be able to count on U.S. acceptance of any deal that leaves Bashar al-Asad in place after a transition and new elections. Such an outcome would also dash Russian hopes of significant American, European, and regional contributions to the immense costs of reconstruction that lie ahead in Syria. Russia is unlikely to link its actions with the United States in Syria to U.S. policy toward Iran on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, or to U.S. sanctions on Russia.To attain the conditions that will make possible the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, the United States needs to maintain a properly resourced military presence on the ground and in Syrian airspace. Only if it does so will Russia regard the United States as the most important counterweight to Iran with which Moscow will want and will need to deal. Even after the April 13-14, 2018, U.S.-UK-French strikes on Syrian chemical weapons facilities, President Putin remained eager for talks with President Trump and addressed Syria at their summit in Helsinki. The Trump administration should therefore continue judiciously to engage Russia as the United States works toward the goals of assuring the defeat of the so-called Islamic State (IS), constraining Iran's malign activities, bolstering Israel's security, and deterring Syrian government use of chemical weapons, without conceding anything in advance on Asad's future or Iran's place in the region.

Russian acquiescence to U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iranian-associated and other forces in Syria reinforces the conclusion that backing a dominant Iran is not one of President Vladimir Putin's priorities. However, while he will not forcefully oppose the United States and Israel constraining Tehran, Putin will resist pressure to break totally with Iran and with the proxies Iran bankrolls and trains to fight in Syria. In addition, Russia's leverage on Iranian military and political activities in Syria is limited. Moscow dilutes Iranian influence by working with other powers, including those most antithetical to Iran. To attain the conditions that will make possible the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, the United States needs to maintain a properly resourced military presence on the ground and in Syrian airspace. Only if it does so will Russia regard the United States as the most important counterweight to Iran with which Moscow will want and will need to deal. Even after the April 13-14, 2018, U.S.-UK-French strikes on Syrian chemical weapons facilities, President Putin remained eager for talks with President Trump and addressed Syria at their summit in Helsinki. The Trump administration should therefore continue judiciously to engage Russia as the United States works toward the goals of assuring the defeat of the so-called Islamic State (IS), constraining Iran's malign activities, bolstering Israel's security, and deterring Syrian government use of chemical weapons, without conceding anything in advance on Asad's future or Iran's place in the region.

A decade after the 9/11 attacks, this groundbreaking book takes readers deep into rebellions against both autocrats and extremists that are redefining politics, culture, and security threats across the Islamic world. The awakening involves hundreds of millions of people. And the political transformations— and tectonic changes—are only beginning. Robin Wright, an acclaimed foreign correspondent and television commentator, has covered the region for four decades. She witnessed the full cycle, from extremism’s angry birth and globalization to the rise of new movements transforming the last bloc of countries to hold out against democracy. Now, in Rock the Casbah, she chronicles the new order being shaped by youthinspired revolts toppling leaders, clerics repudiating al Qaeda, playwrights and poets crafting messages of a counter-jihad, comedians ridiculing militancy, hip-hop rapping against guns and bombs, and women mobilizing for their own rights. This new counter-jihad has many goals. For some, it’s about reforming the faith. For others, it’s about reforming political systems. For most, it’s about achieving basic rights. The common denominator is the rejection of venomous ideologies and suicide bombs, plane hijackings, hostage-takings, and mass violence to achieve those ends. Wright captures a stunning moment in history, one of the region’s four key junctures—along with Iran’s revolution, Israel’s creation, and the Ottoman Empire’s collapse—in a century. The notion of a clash of civilizations is increasingly being replaced by a commonality of civilizations in the twenty-first century. But she candidly details both the possibilities and pitfalls ahead. The new counter-jihad is imaginative and defiant, but Muslim societies are also politically inexperienced and economically challenged.

The Islamic Republic has been struggling to reform itself for 25 years and each time the experiment has gone awry. Iran's revolutionary theocracy has evolved, but the most problematic aspects of its ideology and institutions have managed to endure since 1979. Can the Iran Nuclear Deal, an agreement crafted through intense dialogue with an old adversary, alter the essence of the Islamic Republic and its turbulent relationship with the world? In Iran Reconsidered: The Nuclear Deal and the Quest for a New Moderation Suzanne Maloney argues that the nature of the Islamic Republic amplifies the threat posed by its nuclear ambitions and animates the most tenacious opponents of the deal. For that reason, the fierce debate that has erupted in Washington over the deal hinges on the prognosis for Iran's future.

In the spring of 2019, U.S.-Iran tensions have escalated. The Trump Administration, following its 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA), has taken several steps in its campaign of applying "maximum pressure" on Iran. Iran or Iran-linked forces have targeted commercial ships and infrastructure in U.S. partner countries. U.S. officials have stated that Iran-linked threats to U.S. forces and interests, and attacks on several commercial ships in May and June 2019, have prompted the Administration to send additional military assets to the region to deter future Iranian actions. President Donald Trump, while warning Iran not to take action against the United States, has said he prefers a diplomatic solution over moving toward military confrontation. The Administration has expanded U.S. sanctions against Iran, including sanctioning its mineral and petrochemical exports during May-June 2019, placing further pressure on Iran's economy. Iranian leaders have refused to talk directly with the Administration, and they have announced an intent to no longer comply with some aspects of the JCPOA. U.S. allies and other countries such as Russia and China have expressed a preference to reduce tensions. Several countries, including Japan, Germany, Oman, Qatar, and Iraq, have sought to de-escalate U.S.-Iran tensions by sending high-level officials to Tehran for talks. An expanding action-reaction dynamic between the United States and Iran has the potential to escalate into significant conflict. The United States military has the capability to undertake a large range of options against Iran in the event of conflict, both against Iran directly and against its regional allies and proxies. However, Iran's alliances with and armed support for armed factions throughout the region, and its network of agents in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere, give Iran the potential to expand any confrontation into areas where U.S. response options might be limited.