Day: September 13, 2019
Confrontation intensifies
On September 12, The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington (AGSIW) hosted a panel discussion entitled, “As Maximum Pressure and Maximum Resistance Max Out, Where’s the Confrontation with Iran Headed?”. The panel consisted of Ali Alfoneh, Senior Fellow at AGSIW, Dina Esfandiary, International Security Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, and Kirsten Fontenrose, Director for Regional Security, Middle East at the Atlantic Council. The discussion was moderated by Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar at AGSIW.
Since President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, Washington has pursued a strategy of “maximum pressure,” largely through intensifying economic sanctions. Iran has responded with “maximum resistance,” mostly with low-intensity, and sometimes deniable, military provocations. Signs are growing that both strategies have maxed out and further escalation could lead to consequences unwanted by either side. Where do both parties go from here and can these strategies work?
Fontenrose argued that theoretically, the US policy of maximum pressure can work. The rationale beyond this is that every country has a finite amount of resources to dedicate to defense and domestic needs. The use of sanctions squeezes Iran and forces them to make difficult decisions. The US has a limited number of coercive tools. By maxing out sanctions, the Washington avoids using kinetic activities that could escalate potential conflict. Alfoneh and Esfandiary agreed that the US has not set clear goals for their use of sanctions. If the US established clear goals, Iran might respond in kind.
President Trump will benefit electorally if he is able to have a summit with Supreme Leader Khamenei. Alfoneh predicted that Trump will use increased tensions with Tehran to negotiate a deal that mirrors the JCPOA. By doing so, Trump would signal to his supporters that he can resolve global conflict. Esfandiary responded that Iran has no reason to trust the US. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, but the Trump Administration tore it up. Fontenrose agreed that trust building will be required before acceptable concessions can be made by either side.
Iran has few choices aside from continuing its low-level provocations. Alfoneh brought up an article published in an Iranian economic newspaper a month after the US left the JCPOA. The Supreme National Security Council outlined its strategy to counteract US sanctions. First, the impact of the sanctions will not be palpable because of trade deals with European countries and China. Second, Iran will limit the level of their obligations in the JCPOA. Third, if nothing works and Iran’s economy continues to fail, Tehran will provoke a crisis in the Persian Gulf. Iran clearly and publicly announced its plans and has followed through with the strategy.
The panel discussed the significance of John Bolton’s dismissal as the national security adviser. Fontenrose said that the Republicans will not allow Trump to choose someone who will threaten the election. Bolton’s hawkish tendencies could scare off voters. Brian Hook, the State Department’s point man on Iran, is on the short list of potential replacements. Hook is a known as a hawk in the international community and his appointment would signal to Iran that the US will continue to squeeze its economy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 13
NYT has a list of forreign policy problems for which the president wants to do deals and is surprisingly optimistic about the chances.
One reason an Iran deal might be possible is if this Daily Beast report is true. Is Trump really considering a $15 billion line of credit for Iran?
Meanwhile, Congress got its way as Ukraine aid was released.
But Senate appropriators want to cut and change US military aid.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Restraint and its challenges
Last night’s debate among Democratic presidential candidates spent relatively little time on foreign policy, maybe 10-12 minutes out of the two hours. But on some issues there appeared to a wide consensus:
- Bring the troops home, in particular from Afghanistan, sooner rather than later.
- Avoid using military instruments whenever possible and obtain Congressional authorization when it is necessary.
- Give more emphasis to civilian instruments of foreign policy, especially diplomacy and development.
- Enhance cooperation with other countries to deal with places like Venezuela and global issues like climate change and terrorism.
- Refocus attention on domestic welfare, including support for veterans.
This amounts to a policy of military restraint and diplomatic lead. The military restraint might appear close to what Donald Trump promised in his campaign, but it was always clear he would favor big increases in the Defense Department’s budget, little emphasis on diplomacy, and even less on development.
That is where the Democrats differ from Trump. The question is not whether they are sincere but rather whether it is practical. The US has led with its military in foreign policy for so long it is difficult for American diplomats to imagine anything else. And we are so thoroughly exposed militarily in so many places that it is difficult even to know where to start.
American withdrawal can create real problems, especially in the Middle East. Iraq is a classic case in point, but not the only one. Military withdrawal requires major diplomatic efforts to ensure that US interests are served and adversaries blocked from taking advantage. After 2.5 years of President Trump, the State Department is in terrible shape: many experienced officers have left, and those who remain are demoralized. While Secretary Pompeo has influence with the President, the organization is weaker than ever, which is saying something.
So restraint is the name of the game, but the ways and means of achieving it are not so clear.
Here is the bulk of the debate transcript on foreign policy.
PS: I realized after hitting the “publish” button that I ignored what the candidates said about China. None of it was enlightening. They mostly support the Administration–without every saying as much–on getting the Chinese to yield on trade. Some even said they would keep the Trump tariffs in place initially to help make that happen. Mostly they oppose Trump’s tariffs on our allies, which is good to hear, but still they aren’t far off his thinking on squeezing the Chinese.
RSS - Posts
