At least Trump has skewered hypocrisy on Iran
By rejecting the nuclear deal, the US leader has injected a welcome dose of cynicism into foreign policy
Donald Trump’s foreign policy is a step in the right direction. Is it perfect? No. Would literally any other Republican have made a better president? Perhaps. But Jeb or Ted or little Marco wouldn’t have broken so effectively from the foreign policy consensus of the Obama era as when Trump stood before the United Nations last month and said that America “can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return”. When he said that, he was looking at you, Iran.
The fate of the Iran nuclear deal is a good example of how the Trump doctrine differs from Obama’s. At first glance the deal, agreed in 2015, looked marvellous: the world lifted sanctions in exchange for Tehran abandoning a nuclear energy programme that could have been converted to military use. The UK Foreign Office says that Iran has given up 95 per cent of its uranium stockpile. Despite this, Trump has refused to recertify it and has asked Congress to review it. How can Trump be right and so many brilliant people all over the world be wrong?
The thing is that foreign policy – like economics – is capable of stagnating into orthodoxy. It was received opinion in the Seventies, for instance, that the best way to handle the arms race between America and the Soviet Union was to set agreed limits on nuclear stockpiles while expanding trade in oil and grain. Sound familiar? American politicians scored a diplomatic coup that won them votes at home, but the communists were playing a longer game. Détente gave the Soviets vital economic boosts while, under the cover of cooperation with the West, they expanded revolutionary struggle into Africa, Asia and the Americas. Disarmament wasn’t the goal. It never is for rogue regimes.
Obama’s foreign policy was based upon a similar premise of buying peace for a limited time. The Iran deal was predicted to give Tehran access to over $100 billion in frozen assets and allow it to sell oil abroad. The mullahs are now in the money, and, I’m sad to have to tell you, they’ve not given it all to CND. They’ve expanded their ballistic missiles programme, with some allegedly based upon North Korean design. Last month the Iranians unveiled the new Khorramshahr missile, which can travel 1,250 miles (ie, it can hit Israel) and carry multiple warheads.
If that isn’t bad enough, some restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme will actually lift after 2025. So while it’s accurate to say that Iran is complying with the letter of the Obama deal, it’s also likely that, thanks to this deal, Tehran will be able to rebuild its economy, expand its military and, at some point in the future, be in a far stronger position to build a bomb.
Why is it that Trump can see the folly of this deal and others can’t? A recent interview with Forbes magazine, one of the few to take him seriously, noted that Trump was never the kind of entrepreneur who creates a business that satisfies several stakeholders at once. He was a dealmaker, working on the assumption that for one party to do well, the other must get screwed. That’s why he’s a bad president when it comes to issues such as global warming or free trade: he cannot accept the idea that America making a sacrifice helps the world – and that this can help America, too. But his doctrine of aggressive selfinterest does inject a welcome dose of cynicism into relations with dictators who are even more cynical than Donald J Trump.
There are Trump supporters who say he isn’t being patriotic enough. Why, they ask, is the US raising troop numbers in Afghanistan or killing Arabs with drone strikes – just as Obama did? On the latter count, he could prove even more destructive than his predecessor, given how far he is willing to transfer decision making from the Oval Office to the Pentagon and CIA. With each civilian resignation or sacking, the White House, overreliant on retired generals, looks more and more like a military junta.
Trump has indeed concluded that complete disengagement from the Middle East would harm US interests: you can’t make America great again if it’s in retreat. But the proposed troop surge in Afghanistan is paltry and Trump’s alliance with the Saudis shows that he prefers to let strong men carve up the region rather than engage in nation building. As he told the United Nations: “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone.” In other words, Trump is trying to cook up a foreign policy that is more decisive than Obama’s but results in fewer American casualties than George W Bush’s.
The UN was reportedly horrified by Trump’s blunt speech. Bravo. One of the best things about the new president is that he pierces the decades-old crust of polite hypocrisy that surrounds global politics. The UN is full of envoys who praise human rights and peace while, back home, their rulers export terrorism and execute their opponents. The West should avoid war with them, yes, but good for Trump for not pretending they are angels or backing deals that throw fanatics a lifeline. FOLLOW Tim Stanley on Twitter @timothy_stanley; READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion