For all of Donald Trump’s differences from his predecessor, during the presidential campaign he largely followed the same footsteps as Barack Obama when it came to to foreign-policy. They both agreed that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were poorly managed and they both had similar visions for trade with Europe. One area where the two couldn’t be further apart however, is Iran.
In fact, one of President Trump’s most divisive acts was upending a piece of flagship legislature put into place by the previous administration. The nuclear agreement with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was referred to by Donald Trump as the “worst deal ever.” The Foundation for Defense of Democracies CEO, Mark Dubowitz notes that unlike President Obama the current administration’s rhetoric regarding Iran has been far from sugar-coated. Learn more about Mark Dubowitz here.
President Trump had little interest in being diplomatic with Tehran. As he promised, the nuclear deal was ended and sanctions were brought back, but for the most part his administration’s military advisors were able to deal with concerns about blowback in the Middle East and managed to contain Iran’s presence in Syria.
The relative success of President Trump’s controversial decision makes it even more bizarre what he did next. The announcement that the U.S. would withdraw all U.S. forces from Syria and reduce our military presence in Afghanistan left a lot of people shaking their heads for the consequences it would mean for our allies in the region. What’s more concerning though, is the effects the decision will have on the US’s efforts to enforce policies meant to prevent Iran from funding terrorism. Many experts suggest that it will only be a positive for the totalitarian regime.
The President’s threats against Iran were clear about what lines they needed to stop crossing – in short, supporting terrorist organizations in Lebanon and Palestine such as Hezbollah. However he did not state in what way these lines would be enforced. With a minimized military presence in the region the President has left himself few options to enforce his will besides sanctions, which Iran has shown little reverence for in the past.
The most baffling aspect of Trump’s decision to the experts is that it runs counter to the position held by the majority of Democrats and Republicans who believe the U.S. should maintain a military presence in Syria. For little cost and risk of US casualties our troops have provided a stopper against Russian aggression, as well as Iranian and ISIS aggressors, and served as back up to our European allies in the region. It’s unclear what the President’s long-term plan is, if he has one, but one thing is certain, so far it looks good for Iran. Stay in the loop as the story progresses.