Trump, Iran have hit pause, but the struggle hasn’t ended

Watching President Donald Trump give his Iran speech on Wednesday, my mind flashed back to a visit to Tehran just before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Senior Iranian officials were openly nervous — fearing they would be next after Saddam Hussein on America’s hit list. They whispered about the need for a deal with the U.S. A few weeks after the Iraqwar began, Iranian reformers contacted Washington to propose a “grand bargain” in which everything was on the table: Iran’s support for terrorism, its nascent nuclear program, even its threats to Israel, in return for an end to sanctions and U.S. guarantees that ruled out regime change.

That overture was ignored, and President George W. Bush proceeded to denounce Iran as part of “the axis of evil.” Much has changed since then, with Iran’s nuclear program much further along and its regional power immensely enhanced since the failed 2003 war.

Yet I was listening for signs that Trump might try to leverage Qassem Soleimani’s killing into talks between Washington and Tehran. There were hints, but the substance headed in a very different direction.

Which is primarily why I believe we are only in a lull before we enter Phase Two of the post-Soleimani “war.”

Although both sides chose not to escalate militarily — with Iran apparently aiming retaliatory missiles so that they would avoid harming U.S. soldiers — new longterm battle lines are being drawn.

This isn’t a war in conventional terms. On Iran’s part, the paramount goal in Phase Two is to drive U.S. forces out of the region (whichwas Soleimani’s ultimate objective), thus enhancing their regional power.

The Iranian effort will center first on squeezing Iraq to send American troops home. The Iraqi parliament has already called, in a nonbinding vote, for U.S. forces to leave, but the final decision will be up to a weak acting prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi.

Iran will no doubt task its proxy Shiite militias within Iraq to make it so difficult for U.S. forces to conduct their missions that they are largely confined to bases (without causing casualties). If American soldiers are forced out, Tehran will then dominate Iraq and Syria, and pro-Iranian militias will come to dominate Iraq’s army. Soleimani’s dream will have been achieved.

Trump’s goals are more contradictory. Although he made clear he doesn’t want another military conflict, he repeated demands that Iran totally abandon its nuclear program and regional role.

Yet therewas little sign, despite Soleimani’s death, that the White House had a new strategy to force Iran to obey.

However, there were intriguing hints in Trump’s speech that he is seeking cover to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq (also indicated in a leaked then retracted Pentagon letter).

Trump called on NATO allies, along with Russia and China (all signatories to the Iran nuclear deal he withdrew the United States from) to “break away from remnants of the Iran deal.” And he said he’d ask NATO “to be much more involved in the Middle East process.”

But those allies aren’t likely to join an ultra-hawkish U.S. effort pushing for regime change. Britain, France and Germany had begged Trump to negotiate a followon nuclear deal with their help while retaining the old deal, but he rudely rebuffed them.

Nor will NATO members, often insulted by Trump, send more of their troops to Iraq to help him please his electoral base by bringing his troops home. Not when Trump refuses to even inform them when making key decisions in the region.

And forget Moscow or Beijing helping.

So Trump must decide. If he wants allies’ help, he must heed their concerns about a new nuclear deal. And if he wants to negotiate with Tehran (with slim chances), he must send skilled diplomats to conduct backdoor diplomacy, not set policy by tweet.

And he would have to convince Tehran that regime change wasn’t his goal.

Meanwhile, he needs to stop threatening Iraqi leaders with sanctions. Instead he should finally invite Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi to Washington and discuss supporting Iraqi factions who want U.S. troops to stay.

Iran is playing three-dimensional chess, which requires strategic thinking by the White House. Not the same kind of thinking required to play golf.