Trump is not responsible for Iran’s aggression

Por Bobby Ghosh

As nuclear negotiations between world powers and Iran draw to a close, the Biden Administration is ratcheting up pressure on…Donald Trump!? In the face of Republican outcry against reviving the 2015 deal, the White House is poised to reframe the discussion in Washington over the Vienna talks by blaming the previous president for ill-advisedly pulling out of the deal.

Twice in the past week, State Department and White House spokesmen diverted reporters’ questions about the negotiations to talk about Trump withdrawing from the 2018 deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). acronym in English).

Jen Psaki, the Administration’s press secretary, described it as the root of all the Islamic Republic’s malign activities: “None of the things we’re seeing right now — Iran’s increased ability and capability, the aggressive actions they’ve taken through proxy wars around the world — would be happening if the former president hadn’t recklessly pulled out of the nuclear deal without thinking about what could come later”.

As a political tactic this is cunning: it gives President Biden a ready-made excuse for the two most likely outcomes of the talks. If the administration makes significant concessions to revive the JCPOA, such as agreeing to lift some economic sanctions before Iran returns to full compliance with its terms, then the White House can claim that Trump’s precipitous withdrawal left it with little choice.

If, as seems more likely, the talks fail and the Islamic Republic continues to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, then it would be Trump’s fault for removing the restrictions imposed by the original deal.

But as a foreign policy strategy, it’s only half smart: It gives the Iranians a ready-made excuse — Donald Trump — for their increasingly dangerous violations of the JCPOA and their aggressive behavior in the Middle East. For US allies in the region, it indicates the administration has a limited view of the threat they face from Tehran.

There is certainly an argument that the regime might not have increased its nuclear program, at least not openly, if the 2015 deal was still in place. But as Israel and the Arab states of the Levant and the Persian Gulf know from painful experience, the Iranian threat predates Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The proxy wars Psaki refers to have been waged since the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979, when the new theocratic regime in Tehran began supporting armed groups throughout the Middle East.

Over the next three decades, he built a vast network of proxies and partners, ranging from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza to the Houthis in Yemen and various militias in Iraq. These were used as fifth columns to foment conflict within Arab societies, as well as to threaten Israel.

Even before the JCPOA was signed, a Houthi-instigated civil war in Yemen had attracted a Saudi-led Arab coalition; Hezbollah and Iranian troops were massacring Syrian civilians to prop up the Syrian regime of dictator Bashar al-Assad; Hamas was in permanent disputes with Israel; and Iran’s proxies in Iraq had killed hundreds of US troops.

Meanwhile, at home, the Tehran regime was developing ballistic missile technology and building up its military and paramilitary forces.

The 2015 deal, pursued by the Obama administration, was limited to one element of the Iranian threat: a nuclear program that Tehran claimed was entirely peaceful. The deal was meant to prevent the regime from acquiring nuclear weapons for a couple of decades, in exchange for the lifting of UN and US-imposed sanctions. But it did not require Iran to give up its destabilizing activities.

Critics of the deal worried that an unfettered Islamic Republic would become more aggressive and assertive. They were right: In the two years that the JCPOA was in place, Iran increased military spending in the country, especially on its missile program, and increased support for its proxies.

Trump’s critics are right to point out that his reckless abrogation of the deal did not end these activities, but the reimposition of sanctions certainly curtailed Iran’s access to money and ammunition. It is not hard to imagine how much more damage Hezbollah or the Houthis would have done, or be capable of doing, had they had more money and advanced weaponry from Tehran.

In any case, it is ludicrous to suggest that Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA increased Iran’s aggression, let alone caused it. While the Biden Administration’s new message might work in Washington, it won’t work in the Middle East.