Perhaps Washington would be so kind as to provide the rest of the world with a written statement explaining exactly what constitutes “American interests” in Iran, Iraq, and the rest of the ME.
11
I have never, ever believed for one moment that Iran wishes to construct a nuclear weapon. There is simply no need for Iran to possess such a capability. The risk of moving in such a direction are too great, and Iranian leaders know it.
What the Iranians *have* done is to convince the rest of the world that they in fact seek such a capability. That fear is what led the gullible John Kerry to prepare the JCPOA.
The JCPOA rewarded Iran for not doing what it never intended to do in the first place.
AND the JCPOA let Iran use its new found wealth to fund terrorism in the region.
It was a win-win for Iran. No wonder the Iranians are upset that the US pulled out.
2
A US strategy based on Iran as a rational actor is doomed to fail because Iran is not rational, it is religious. The nation’s power is concentrated in the hands of the Ayatollahs and they function on faith and belief, not rational thought. There is no Trump style negotiating with true believers who are convinced they have an omnipotent supernatural force on their side.
Our government is tipping in the same direction, although beholden to a different belief system. So, we have two delusional opponents playing checkers in the dayroom of the sanitarium.
May Allah be with you... and have a blessed day.
3
Trump does not care about the Middle East or whether Iran gets the nuclear bomb. He cares about looking tough, appealing to his base and winning the next election. Iran could test a nuke tomorrow and Trump would happily blame 'weak' Democrats for it. He would be happy if Iran got the bomb, if it increases his chances of winning re election.
8
Funny -- as in odd -- that no one in this "administration", not the president, vice-president, secretary of state or national security adviser, has articulated an Iran strategy.
So we're supposed to accept the administration's "strategy" in an op-ed from someone who no longer works there?
The mindlessness of this is really destructive to any thinking person.
8
No, Mr. Goldberg, Americans by and large don’t believe the narrative that Iran is ‘sponsors terrorism’ especially when the brutality of Saudi Arabia is on display every day. The Mullahs may not be perfect, but clearly they’re better than fundamentalist Wahabbi groups supported by Riyadh. Or ISIS for that matter. Engage Iran; they offered support to the US after 9/11. Stop pushing this tired old warmongering attitude.
9
Dream on, Mr Goldberg. You have had no success so far. Sanctions can be avoided by determined states, and Iran is very determined. The Iranians will not fold like the Vietnamese..whoops. Wrong war! We haven't won a war of regime change since 1945. We will never succeed at that in an area of completely non Western values. Plus ca change.
2
Uh huh. Iran has reduced the time to break out and American troops are in weaker position in the region. Trump is as successful with Iran as he is with North Korea.
Time to reassess the chaos and ad-hoc inaction/inaction Trump delivers with evangelical hubris.
6
Maximum pressure "could" bring Tehran to the table. And it COULD make Iran desperate enough, or angry enough to fight.
Trump made a poor calculation, and a rash calculation with Soleimani. Until the downing of the Ukraine flight, it looked like the killing had done more to unite the Iranians agains the U.S..
And Trump can't resist strutting and demeaning others when he thinks he's won. That's exactly the kind of thing that leads adversaries like Iran to decide not to suffer a loss of face.
Iran still has considerable military forces in the region and they are not likely to give up on nuclear now. Even without a functioning weapon, a dirty bomb would be a serious threat.
"Maximum Pressure" is a clumsy tool. Wielded by a clumsy president. In a situation that demands now, more than ever, finesse.
2
We are supposed to believe that Trump has a 'strategy' for dealing with Iran?
We are supposed to believe that our nation has a 'strategy' for dealing with Iran?
bwahaaaaaaaaaa..........
EVERYTHING - literally EVERYTHING the US has done with regards to Iran has been a disaster. Instead of admitting our failures and acknowledging the blowback from our actions, we double down on failed policies.
The neo-cons responsible for the mess in Iraq have been pushing for war against Iran for 30 years. The Project for a New American Century (a conservative think tank) pushed for regime change in 12 countries, using US military force to install 'friendly' governments in countries to insure a cheap supply of raw materials - especially oil.
6
1500 protesters killed? please cite that source....its not that i have any empathy for the Iranian government, but i never trust articles that throw out unconfirmed and inflammatory statistics to make a point they should be able to make with more accurate ones.
2
“To his credit, President Trump recognized those traps for what they were and exercised strategic patience. “
It seems I am in some Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole as Trump and patience are mutual incompatible in my world.
His killing of General Soleimanni is an example of this. Killing an aged general who is rapidly replaced by younger more competent generals is an own goal.
Trump thinks Iran is like ISIS.
Meanwhile Europe is cast adrift.
1
Do any of these elitist (and I suggest racist) so-called thinkers from the right-wing ever, EVER really try to understand Iranian motives?
Do they never remember that this is the nation that battled the far better equipped Iraq to a draw?
Do they not believe that ANYONE but televangelists are actually convinced to the bottom of their souls that THEY are doing God's Work? Because the Ayatollahs believe that, to death and beyond.
Do they not understand the Iran may step back, but never, EVER back down and the neo-cons' constant idea that they can bully them into doing so just never works?
If you believe you are God's Tool, doing God's Work, even unto death, you can't be cowed, you can't be bullied, you can't be forced.
Yet the Trump "bully your deal partner till they submit" is his only "Art of the Deal"--when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It failed for him repeatedly in business. It has failed for him repeatedly in foreign relations for the last 3 years.
It has failed with Iran and will continue to fail with Iran.
Because Trump and the neo-cons constantly fail to EVER understand other nations' needs and national security they will always fail, as they failed in Iraq, in China, in Afghanistan. And in Iran.
4
How many Iranian innocents must die before we can claim a "maximum pressure" campaign is a success? Same question re Venezuela and elsewhere.
2
I stopped reading when I got to this point and realized the author had lost touch with reality.
“To his credit, President Trump recognized those traps for what they were and exercised strategic patience.”
1
Well if nothing else the West has gained Alireza Firouzja. On this issue, Trump has been more effective than Obama. Luck favors the bold.
Yes, just like the ringing success of Trump's Venezuela strategy.
How does Iran "negotiate" with the most dishonest leader in the world? How can they trust the word of a pathological liar during his tidal wave of lies and crime? And Iran knows that public US policy for decades has been to destroy its government and get control of its resources. No sane Iranian can negotiate with Trump and expect not to be ripped off and ruined.
4
So Iran had already essentially negotiated to cease producing enriched uranium for at least 15 years, until Trump tossed the agreement to which they were adhering (at least as far as everyone else could tell). Now you think you can force them to renegotiate and have faith in Trump to uphold any agreement. This is pure Trumpian propaganda. The NYT may feel obligated to provide alternate opinions, but at least make sure it is not nonsense.
1
Rubbish. Iran and Iranians are willing and ready to suffer materially but will not bow to the demands of the US. The US does not understand this because Americans do not understand the meaning of sacrifice.
3
The idea that Iran would “act rationally” by negotiating with the liar who unilaterally broke the agreement already in place is surreal, to put it mildly.
Iran has no reason to think it would be different this time.
2
If this article is any indication, "the Foundation for Defense of Democracies" sounds like a front for Netanyahu and his extremist policies. Starving a nation of 80 million so that Netanyahu achieves his goals through Trump would make sense to very few people in the world. I'm sure Russia and China enjoy this spectacle and are ready to help Iran against the big narcissistic bully.
2
Those sanctions on Venezuela should be kicking in any moment now. And North Korea. Why, it’s only been 60 years for Cuba, and they’re at the brink, amirite.
Trump’s Demonizing Iran and sanctifying the right wing Israel government and the Saudi monarchy is another example of his obsession with rewriting the Obama years.
2
Killing the terrorist Soleimani was a good thing.
What to do next:
1. Go to Iran's oil customers and offer to sell oil to them for less than what they're paying Iran. As an incentive, I'd tell these oil customers that if they don't go along with our request their products get boycotted by the US. Iran's inability to sell oil and earn foreign currency should kill Iran's economy and result in the overthrew of the Iranian dictators by regular, normal Iranians themselves.
2. (a) I get Iran suspended by the UN. First of all, Iran's government is illegal. The unelected, illegitimate, religious-fanatics who rule the country acquired power by throwing out the last government by force. If the Mafia took over Italy by force would anyone recognize the Mafia as Italy's legitimate government and allow them to sit in the UN? I think not. Same thing here.
(b) Iran advocates for the annihilation of Israel, a legitimate fellow UN member, even by use of nukes. What gathering would countenance the call for the destruction of a fellow member.
We should petition the UN to order Iran's suspension until such time as they have a legitimate, responsible government.
3
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies? That think tank has nothing to do with promoting democracy, just look at our current administration and its friends around the world. You could count the number of liberal democracies among them on one finger and have a finger left over. The democraticly elected government in Iraq wants our military out but the Trump administration is threatening them with "maximum pressure" sanctions if they are forced to leave.
3
Maybe Trump can hack Iran’s phones.
1
"Strategic patience." That was Obama's strategy vis-a-vis North Korea. Who know that Trump is copying Obama?
1
or not.
Tell that to the almost 200 people on board the Ukrainian airliner shot down in the confusion over the US missile assassination of Suleiman!! Maximum pressure is another word for madness without regard for civilians’ lives!!
1
This alleged "strategy" will be just as successful as his North Korean one or his Ukraine adventure. He knows nothing about anything and hires people just as ignorant as he is.
2
Iran was at the table and moving in a positive way before this fool trump blew it up.
trump is the self serving guy we all know who creates a mess so he can take credit for cleaning up a mess he himself created.
A classic morally bankrupt conman,
3
How many minds have been wasted by now attempting to superimpose a doctrine, a plan, a rational basis for the virtually random firing of neurons in Donald Trump’s brain? How many more have been spent and discarded attempting to contain the damage from the man’s erratic, narcissistic, megalomaniacal execrations?
There is no ‘plan’ - there is only posturing, photo-ops, reality tv episodes, sound bites, to play on Fox News and to quote on right-wing blogs and talk shows. Aside from that, there are gatherings of bellowing, red hatted mobs euphemistically called “Trump rallies” - which threat to turn into lynch mobs from one moment to the next as our ostensible “President” fans the flames. “They’re coming for your guns!” he hollers, pouring gasoline on the fire as armed extremists gather to ‘march peacefully for their rights’ in full military regalia — when the reality is a law that would ‘limit’ each adult citizen to the purchase of one gun per month.
A “President” would say ‘cool your jets.’ This one hopes for an explosion he can use to his advantage. It costs him nothing, it’s free publicity - the only price is the continued existence of a peaceful, orderly, democratic society. About which he could care less.
The stars in the heavens have been placed there at random, yet we see constellations there. Trump’s ‘plan’ is no more real than those constellations, composed of randomly placed balls of burning gases.
2
What a load of nonsense. Like Cuba, we'll be hearing about how close Iran is to folding for the next 50 years.
1
Not sure there are any leaders left in the world stupid enough to try to negotiate with the liar in the White House. Not like he really is a businessman, or that he ever understood the concept of a binding contract.
1
A disaster waiting to happen!
Wait. It’s happening. Trump does nothing but shoot from the hip.
2
Great strategy because We are the Exceptionals after all. God’ s Chosenest People.
What do these ancient civilizations think? That they are going to be around forever?
Not when we’re done with them.
We already reduced to rubble Mesopotamia, the “cradle of civilization”.
Iran - your next !
2
Sounds like Putin is following the same playbook.
1
Trump is a fool. Iran is not a homogeneous society whose government easily represents all of it’s people. It is an oligarchy dominated society of people who live differently and in a balanced tension but loss of social order could lead to extreme violence. Observe the persistent loss of life during protests. Destabilizing Iran will tend to favor the rigid totalitarians over all others. Trump is like a man trying to fasten wood with nails using an eight pound sledge hammer.
1
I thought Iran had already been "brought to the table" byt the Obama administration and John Kerry.
1
Oh come on, Trumps 'strategy' if you want to call it that is simple, Obama built it, so Trump has to destroy it....the man is a fool
2
Yeah. Crazy Donald has a strategy. Crazy like a fox!
1
" Unlike the 2015 Iran deal, which was a fragile nonbinding political agreement subject to the ebb and flow of American politics, Trump could offer to submit a binding treaty to the Senate for ratification."
Utter nonsense! The 2015 agreement, which included our ONCE-ALLIES, as it was NOT simply a bilateral agreement, as Goldberg would have us believe, included hard inspection requirements, requirement Iran had accepted and followed, until the traitor in the WH arbitrarily (it had been negotiated by President Obama, after all!) withdrew the United States, thus breaking our word, our bond, for NO reason, except his personal, small-minded pique.
"Might is right" was a favorite saying of Hitler, of whom our traitor in a documented fan. "Perfect".
Go away, Goldberg.
4
Okay, now please explain North Korea.
2
I will support attempts to get Iran to forego nuclear weapons when Israel agrees to do the same. Seems fair to me.
1
This is the definition of lipstick on a pig. There is no strategy. There are only the fancy words of an apologist. To continue to punish the Iranian people is not a strategy. It is a guarantee of further hatred of the US. Wake up. It is 2020. Our country has had nothing but failure in the Middle East to the near ruination of our economy and the deaths of thousands.
3
"Trump Has an Iran Strategy. This Is It."....Maybe somebody should tell him.
1
Here we go again. Trump's trademark "strategy" of beating his adversaries and rivals to a pulp by whatever means he can muster rears its ugly head again.
Forcing innocent Iranian civilians to endure poverty and misery just to satisfy the sick ego of this grotesque excuse for a president ought to be grounds for impeachment by itself.
We had a perfectly good plan with Iran. We should have let it play out. But Trump had to rip it to shreds so he could swagger and beat his chest in his twisted view of victory.
2
This is a president who spoke of brand new Sherman Tanks and Washington capturing vital airports. This is a president who told Prime Minister Modi of India he does not have a border with China. This is a president who in conversation with two heads of state of the Baltic Republics revealed he did not know the difference between the Baltics and Balkans. I don't know who you think you are fooling Mr Goldberg, but a person this ignorant and unread could not have formulated anything that any self-respecting geopolitical strategist could call a "strategy."
8
Mr. Goldberg’s rationalization and explanation of Mr. Trump’s maximum pressure strategy conveniently neglects a salient fact: what is the essential justification for this strategy? There is no congressional declaration of war with Iran to justify the increasing financial and economic weapons that seek to destroy the Iranian economy and bring down the state. Pearl Harbor in part was precipitated by Roosevelt’s ordering a total embargo of Japanese oil imports. Mr. Goldberg minimizes the likelihood of a direct war with Iran but then lists Iran’s asymmetrical attacks as if they would not continue, especially if Iran concludes that it is exetentiayly threatened by Trump’s strategy. How many Israeli casualties are acceptable in the Trump strategy if Hezbollah decides to terrorize Tel Aviv and Israeli cities with its missile inventory, or if Israel has to simultaneously defend its borders with Lebanon, Syria along the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West Bank settlements annexed outside of Jerusalem? What would be the economic cost to us of a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz and destruction of the Saudi oil refineries and oil fields? And most devastating, what would be the consequences of an Israeli nuclear strike against Iran because it was at war and exetentiayly threatened. Mr Goldberg is nothing more than an apologist for a short sighted and poorly conceived policy that is lacking in strategic thinking.
10
Mr Goldberg ignores history, principal, and good practice. The regime is not on the verge of collapse. Many argue the country was united by both the draconian sanctions, and the killing of Suleimani. Europe does not support the plan, but was extorted into the conspiracy (see Paul Krugman's column today). The idea that Mr Trump has a calculated, advised, coherent plan to do anything is not supported by observing his administration.
This is just Mr Goldberg towing the company line.
7
Obama's deal with Iran did slow their nuclear program some what. What Iran did with the repatriated cash was troubling. Shiite militias though out the Middle East are now much better armed especially those who took over Lebanon..
At least Trumps energy policies has made the US energy self sufficient.We would have been heavily dependent on their oil had Hillary won,She campaigned on banning fracking and likely would have ignored Irans military build up.
Since when is a sequence of impulsive actions considered a strategy?
What is likely going to happen is that Iran bides it's time until the election. They will add to their stockpile of enriched uranium to reduce the amount of time needed to build nuclear weapons. If Trump loses, the deal goes back in place and the world breathes a sigh of relief. If Trump wins, the Iranians go for a nuclear weapon and the US has to decide if it will wage an all out war against Iran to prevent them from getting a weapon or learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran.
3
Now it has been revealed that more than a dozen servicemen suffered traumatic brain injuries (Trump called them 'headaches' in the Iranian missile strike. Word of these injuries was delayed because...who knows the real reason. Could it be that Trump knew quickly but decided to lie and say there were no injuries so that he wouldn't have to make good on his threat of retaliation?
That would be in character.
4
One possible Iranian response to increased "maximum pressure": A rapid race to become, like North Korea, a nuclear power with a real capacity. to deter. In the 10 months before the US election that could be achieved. What a marvelous strategy.
4
I appreciated reading the column as it did highlight something that looks like a coherent strategy. Whether I agree with it or not is not relevant. But at least now I can read about developments and compare them to this strategy.
Should they deviate, as most commentators expect, Mr. Goldberg can write an update.
2
Trumpists continue to assure us that "maximum pressure" is working when it is not. Ask Kim about it.
5
@cec
Or Maduro.
Mr. Goldberg has presented a coherent statement of policy. One may agree or disagree with parts or all of this approach, but it does represent an actual policy.
Trump, on the other hand, has no coherent policy. One minute he may indeed be listening to Mr. Goldberg. The very next he is taking advice from that noted foreign policy expert Sean Hannity. He ordered the Suleimani assination on a spur of the moment whim, after boasting about it to various Mar a Lago hangers-on.
I find the neo-cons simplistic and dangerous. But they are not nearly as dangerous as the mercurial and petulant adolescent in the White House.
9
Iran had halted its nuclear program prior to Trump taking office. There was no need to take any action to prevent Iran from developing the Bomb, because they had already halted development. The ONLY reason that Iran undertook belligerent acts referenced in the article was in response to the unilateral and senseless actions of Trump in repudiating the existing multilateral agreement and imposing additional economic sanctions. So it was the U.S. that provoked the attacks by Iran by disavowing the deal with Iran (and also with China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and Germany).
Trump's actions are not a diplomatic strategy: it is simply an attempt to create conflict, hardship and war in the world for the perceived political benefit in the U.S. This is the core of the Trump foreign policy strategy -- personal political power and nothing else. It is this strategy that got him impeached.
12
Anyone informed on all the causes for WWII will recall that one contributing factor was the US pressure on preventing Japan's access to among other things, oil. Japan's military felt that there was no alternative and pressured the government for war against the US.
If the president wants war he is certainly doing what he has to regarding Iran. Considering that there was a valid and operating agreement and environment in place, confirmed by examination, it seems like the president wanted and needed an excuse to do more to get a "better deal".
If anybody knows what that "better deal" is, can they please speak up now?
10
So it hasn't ever worked. By adding the name Trump into the sentence you'll not get another outcome. We'd have to invade another one or sit down at the table. Shooting missiles is fun too.
4
Trump has never cultivated his intellect and he cannot think very well as a result. He has never shown any ability to negotiate but achieves his ends by a recklessly excessive use of force and by a careless breaking of agreements which have not produced what he wants. He has a legacy of mischief which intelligent people see as proof that he cannot be trusted. Mr. Goldberg is repeating the intentions of Trump not the likely results of his efforts. It simply reveals that like Trump, he does not work through problems he just acts and hopes for the best.
4
Any article that begins with "Trump has a strategy" is bound to be weak. Every insider account of the Trump administration highlights Trump's inability to process new information. Instead, he makes decisions on a whim. If he had a strategy, it might have begun with keeping a nuclear agreement in place that had the support of many countries. He killed that deal because it was an accomplishment of Obama's. That's not strategy; it's ego.
9
@stephen agreed Trump has not strategy just day to day survival mode.
I am deeply puzzled by the completely glib manner in which analysis of the type offered by Mr Goldberg completely fails to consider the effect of "maximum pressure" on the lives of the 81 million Iranian people. They are being driven systematically into a kind of attenuated poverty and subsistence level. I cannot really fathom the perfect moral vacuum required to accept, and beyond that, to blithely ignore the reality of this collective punishment. It is very clear that Iranians simply "don't count". Their suffering does not matter. And that is why the strategy fails - because the Iranians understand that basic reality. How could they not? Their government may be repressive, but the immediate cause of their suffering is Donald Trump.
11
@paul pedersen
More interesting too are the legitimate complaints about Maduro putting millions of Venezuelans into dire poverty.
But dire poverty is OK if the US is the agent of it.
Iran was at the table already. The result was called the Iran Nuclear Deal.
13
Remember 'shock and awe?' The idea was to explode so much ordnance on Iraq that they would, dazed and intimidated, give up to our superior firepower. Didn't happen, the Iraqis wouldn't give up, terrorism increased across the Middle East, and the chaos created a power vacuum that Iran filled, and later IS took over major Iraqi cities.
Now we have 'maximum pressure' rooted in the same arrogance, that if we just inflict enough pain these people will give up. It hasn't worked before, it won't work now. Iran restarted it's nuclear program and likely will never negotiate with us again. It's time for this country to look at methods other than intimidation to achieve its ends.
4
“The Iranian regime doesn’t need to trust America or Mr. Trump to strike a deal; it just needs to act as a rational actor to avoid collapse.”
A false premise that shows the author clearly doesn’t understand the Iranian regime’s martyr mentality. It is far from rational.
7
The premise of this op-ed article is that Iran "needs to act as a rational actor." Such expectations from an extremist theocracy whose actions are based on fixed, false beliefs is delusional. Iran will do what their fictional god tells them to do, which is nothing. And nothing good will come of it.
3
@JCX
True enough, just as every religious fanatic—Hindu, Christian, Jew, et al—acts of false beliefs.
But, it is good to recall that Iran had an agreement with the US, which Trump unilaterally broke.
It would be entirely irrational on the part of Iran to expect any more integrity from the US next time.
1
If the strategy is murdering officials and punishing the common people, the strategy is evil.
The ends don't justify the means.
3
"The recent regime-perpetrated murder of about 1,500 Iranian protesters demonstrating against the government’s austerity policy revealed a destabilized Islamic Republic increasingly afraid of its repressed citizens."
Unfortunately Iran is NOT afraid of it's repressed citizens, It just shoots them when they protest. So the losers in this game are the average people on the streets.
2
Any accidently strategy Trump has for anything he isn't personally enriched by is tantamount to counting on a broken clock being right twice a day.
1
"...a phone call from Tehran agreeing to negotiate without preconditions could likely follow."
Note the wording - "could likely follow", not "would".
This expert argues that our brilliant commander-in-chief did the right thing in tearing up a carefully negotiated agreement that Iran was honouring and then slapping extra sanctions on it.
What is Trump's word worth, O Expert? Let's assume, for fun, that Trump is able to get a new deal with Iran and get it ratified by the Senate. Are you saying with a straight face, O Expert, that Trump could be relied on to honour it? I don't think anyone would trust his word; he'd find some way to break the agreement, because that's what he does. Tariffs against Canada in the name of national security? Come on!
And yet this "expert" was on Trump's NSC!
5
This approach took down the Soviet Union, without a fight.
The diminished Russia arose in its place is a shadow of the USSR, and nowhere near the threat.
1
@Raz No, we did not cut off all trade with the USSR, make our allies cut off all trade, embargo their energy, break our agreements with them that they were adhering to, or any of the other things we're doing to Iran. Russia was a state-run oligarchy, with a Soviet economy that was bound to collapse. All we did was win an arms race with them they couldn't compete with.
6
@Paul G
How would you know if Iran was adhering to the nuclear agreement?
We did all the other stuff.
1
@Paul G
How would you know if Iran was adhering to the nuclear arms deal?
All the other stuff, we did.
1
The mercurial Trump has zero credibility in the Middle East, so why should Iran trust someone like that? If he believes maximum pressure is going to force Iran to knuckle under to his his demands, he doesn't understand the Iranians, the Islamic faith or basic human nature.
We keep hearing the mantra of Iran's "malign activities," but how about Saudi Arabia's malign activities? Shi'a Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia are bitter enemies living in a tough neighborhood. Trump's unbridled support for MBS and the Saudis is just another deal-breaker for Iran.
105
@Mark McIntyre When choosing sides it is always best to go with the stronger of two. The Sunni sect of Islam is far larger and richer than the Shia and it is the shia that does its utmost to cause instability and trouble in the Middle East. Trump is not, as you say, without credibility in the Middle East. In fact, he is not seen as the enemy by the majority of the countries in the region simply because what is going on is a long time holy war between the Shia and the Sunni sects and for the moment, Trump is the enemy of the Sunni's enemy and that makes him a friend.
3
@Mark McIntyre
How about Saudi's malign activities? Are you serious?
Riyadh is a geostrategic ally of the US.
Last I checked, Iran is not.
1
@bellicose It is unfortunate that you stated "a long time holy war between the Shia and the Sunni sects." The war between the two brother Hashim and abed Shams dated long time before Islam. After the inception of Islam, the competition for power was given religious dimensions. However, the founders of the four Sunni schools supported a position of Caliph to those who were descendants of Prophet Mohamed and Ali (Shia branch) rather than their cousins the Abbasid. Furthermore, you indicated that Shia created most of troubles in the Middle East. Anyone who has a little understanding of politics in the region knows that all Shia area, until recent years, were managed by Sunnis.
6
Trump and Mr. Goldberg have to realize that we are not the only country that has interests in the Middle East. China,Russia,France,Germany,Great Britain and Malaysia are also interested and do not want war or any limited conflict that results in stopping the flow of oil from the region.Trump brags about our energy independence forgetting that these other countries need Middle Eastern oil.
Obama and the countries just mentioned already brought Iran to the table....peacefully.It was a good beginning,not perfect,but a good start.All the major powers signed on to the agreement which is often forgotten.There were sanctions in place before the agreement which were tough enough.Liberal and secular forces were beginning to develop in Iran.In todays world a military victory is not a victory at all.Just the beginning of a long and dangerous occupation with no end.If G.W. Bush did nothing else,he taught us that.
Trump has shown his great and imaginary strategic thinking ability with Mr. Kim of North Korea.Mostly talk.It is often said that the president of the US is the most powerful man in the world.With Trump at the helm,that becomes less true every day he is in office.
4
Authors who attempt to explain the "Plans" and "Strategies" of the current occupant of the White House are just being silly, as there is no "there" there.
Does any thinking person believe the current occupant of the White House knows a single fact regarding Iranian culture, history and politics? The answer is "of course he does not, nor does he care." I sincerely doubt he could even find the country on a world atlas.
The fingerprints of Mike Pompeo are all over our chest-thumping approach to Iran specifically and our Middle East (non)policy in general.
Danger has always been just around the corner in our approach to the countries and conflicts in the Middle East; I am very fearful that a misstep by the current occupant of the White House will be catastrophic.
3
I would give your "strategy" some credence if I thought the guy you're crediting with having it could articulate what it is beyond a couple of phrases; Trump and strategy do not belong in the same sentence. The "strategy" you claim is based on what ifs and eventualities that nobody can predict with any degree of certainty, and until now I see a lot of heat but little light. Beautiful photo ops and bloviating about wonderful loving relationships but no significant change on the ground (N. Korea is one glaring example) Face it, Trump remains all sizzle, no steak
2
Those Trump steaks, man...
Perhaps the author should remember Millennium Challenge 2002, the war games where US forces took a beating against a Persian Gulf foe.
Until the games were “reset”.
The Iranians know that the vast majority of US citizens are not willing to go to war with Iran, thus threats of military action are empty. US citizens of all sides want to rebuild our country not destroy and rebuild yet another country.
1
Sanctions don't work, case studies Cuba, Iraq, Syria, Russia, et all. They just make things more difficult for the citizens of those countries, because even though the negative economic effects do affect their growth, they always find a way around sanctions, that stimulate black markets, contrabands, money laundering schemes, and corruption. The author's simplistic proposal, does no take into account the religious, cultural and political forces in Iran that would object and not even seriously consider, capitulating to foreign sanctions, especially from the US, because doing so would result in internal strife, discord and probably the end of the regime.
4
sounds like the same kind of thinking that has never worked in the past in the Middle East, or in the case of North Korea, a country which successfully developed nuclear weapons over the objections of the entire world.
If the US tries to negotiate by strong-arming, imposing sanctions and wrecking the Iranian economy, a just agreement can't be reached. Based on history alone, but on his personality in particular, Iranians have to assume that Mr. Trump is lying to them during any negotiation and that none of the promises of the US will be honored. So what is the point for them in negotiating? Of course they'll try to develop the bomb, as only then can they actually have a real sit at the table. Once they have it, they might even one day join the security council, a perk seemingly reserved for nations with nukes.
In the meantime, they'll just wait, as they have for decades. Not being a democracy, they are able to stay the course over any dissent and opposition in their country - while in the US, priorities and policy will change every 4-8 years.
1
Mr. Goldberg. show me evidence that this ever rose to the leve of a 'strategy' rather than ad hoc reaction to events, with the only goal being to appear 'tough' to his 'base'. *That* is Trumpism so far, in every realm where he isn't simply signing off on what Mitch McConnell wants.
2
No. Trump had a strategy: pull out of a working deal so he could continue his agenda of undoing Obama's legacy.
As for changing their leadership, or changing their "behavior", there is a much more pressing need for a change of behavior and leadership right here at home.
Many months remain for him to continue his destruction of our country; I do not know if we will make it. If he has many months plus four years, we're finished. He will destroy our nation, our democracy and our planet.
5
Over 50 years ago, the United States embargoed the communist regime in Cuba and cut it out of the US-led international economy. Cuba, with a much weaker economy than Iran, has not changed much in the past half century. The US approach was, and still is, an utter failure. Why should Iran be any different?
3
Problem: the author projects the values of western civilization onto The Iranian Revolution. But the mullahs do not subscribe to those values. Instead, they have a totally different set of values. Devotion to Allah, respect for history, shame vs. pride, independence, etc.
Trump and his “strategy” fundamentally ignore this reality. They will never agree to talk with him because he is the worst infidel, and he has insulted them repeatedly. They will wait him out for as long as he is in office.
110
@David
Incorrect. This is NOT about values. Its about raw power.
And THAT is something the Iranian leadership most definitely understands.
5
@David they dont respect history. they try to wipe out anything pre Islamic rule in Iran.
They wont be able to wait him out with economy falling even more with a possible 4 more years or after with another R in power after that.
@David agreed, who in their right mind trusts Trump?
8
Iran "cannot win a direct military confrontation with the United States", surely, but war isn't direct anymore. If there is armed conflict we'll be once again fighting at the end of a long, long supply line; we'll likely be alone since Trump inspires zero loyalty among our friends; and we'll be up against a topography that isn't flat, open, and simple desert, but which is mountainous, variegated, and most important, theirs. The Iranians won't need direct engagement to make dramatic gains. And the Strait of Hormuz? Yeah. Theirs.
80
@Next Conservatism - Yeah, Neocons have learned absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, from Chickenhawk George's on-going quagmire in Iraq.
Iran's just trying to keep from being squished being between the Sunnis who want to eradicate them as infidels and the (R)s who like to use 'em as the enemy-du-jour punching bag in order to distract the "uneducated people" who support them.
6
@Next Conservatism you realize there are wars/battles between doing nothing and all out invade and regime change? Nobody is talking about invading with land troops
34 American soldiers have traumatic brain injury due to Trump's recklessness in his attack on Iran. 176 innocent lives were lost on a flight leaving Iran. Imagine how much more damage Trump could cause by his belligerent actions in the future. Strategy?
Hardly.
127
Mr. Richard Goldberg is misguided. He supports a President who rejects a rational foreign affairs policy in favor of an old fashioned the bigger and meaner actor forces the smaller and weaker actor to beg for terms which will assure it's survival, yet he claims that the policy is simply to compel the smaller and weaker actor to be reasonable. It totally ignores the reality that Iran is willing to kill 1500 people complaining about the hardships they are suffering is far from the rational response that he asserts will cause Iran to act like he thinks it should. Like Trump Goldberg is confused and does not seem to appreciate with who he is trying to convince into doing what. Trump's policy is to hammer the other party until they beg for relief and agree to anything in order to relieve the pain. It's empty minded and clumsy.
2
Alas, Trump is blinded by his preferred outcome of a complacent Iran with little to no influence in the Middle East. So he only considers strategic options that he believes will lead to this outcome and dismisses all other options. What he neglects to realize is that outcomes are influenced not only by your decisions but also by the decisions of other players and by chance events. No outcome is ever predetermined. Despite being a “stable genius” Trump has a very limited understanding strategic decision-making.
2
We've betrayed every single ally we had in this effort just to erase Obama's name from the record and risk great proliferation and even the use of nuclear weapons. Great strategy. Destabilize the world, give more credence to ISIS and their ilk, let Israel dictate all terms, weaken European alliances, punish the people of Iran, starve them further just as we have done to the people of Cuba. What a freedom-loving nation we are, so helpful to everyone's hopes and dreams. Thanks for enlightening us.
4
If Mr. Trump accomplishes anything positive in foreign policy, which I doubt, it will be strictly by accident. His approach is impulsive, undisciplined, uninformed and, almost always, destructive.
5
But it plays great on Fox News, in Riyadh, and the rubes in Peoria lap it up, which is the real Trump objective.
Trump's strategy in Iran is to do whatever the Saudi prince tells him to do.
4
Sometimes Trumps actions have positive effects. That does not mean he has any strategies whatsoever. Sometimes you can fix a television set by kicking it. That doesn’t make you a TV repairman
1
There's one thing the mullahs in Iran are masters at: survival
They will outsmart and outlast Trump and come out stronger with a weakened US presence in the region, and crushed chances for reformers in Iran to rise to power after Khamenei.
All thanks to the stable genius and people like Mr. Goldberg who will never learn from the history.
5
@Sha Very different world now. Social media is a big factor, along with the news available on the internet. The mullahs are exposed for the charlatans they are. The people of Iran can see the aggression of Iran across the middle east and know that money spent to that end is not benefiting them economically. I think the mullahs are in trouble.
Trump? Strategy? In the same sentence? Sorry, but no. I'm not buying that Trump has a "strategy" for anything other than TV ratings. Having a strategy is predicated upon the possession of the capacity for critical thought. That leaves Trump out.
3
Trump's strategy seems like the chess equivalent to making every effort to take the pawn in front of the king your first objective in a game of chess, not factoring in any other moves of the other player.
In other words, it's a strategy of someone who a vague understanding of the rules, but zero tactical knowledge.
2
This approach took down the Soviet Union, without a fight.
The diminished Russia that rose is in its place is a shadow of the USSR, and nowhere near the threat.
2
Hardly. The name changed but Putin’s Russia is more dangerous than the old Soviet Union.
1
I can hear Frank Sinatra in my ear singing, "My Way." The apparent steps listed by the author all seem so sensible. I mean, what could go wrong? We are bound to prevail. I see this column and cannot help to recall the certainty of Rumsfeld & Cheney. Rumsfeld, "We don't need massive numbers of troops. We can do it with a small force." Cheney, "They will meet us in the streets as liberators." Keystone Cops!
6
The wars we fight in the Middle East should have taught this and every administration something. We will ‘win’ every battle we fight but we will never win a war. Afghanistan beat us and the Soviet Union. Iraq was a loss. We leave countries decimated and with people we don’t like running the show. If Iran chooses to fight, they will suffer and they will win. Why can’t we learn this lesson?
6
We just got a memo from our boss.
Company objectives:
Safety first
Leadership
Teamwork
Communication Accountability
Tragically, our government is failing in every single area...
The endless wars, no leadership or clear objectives, no teamwork, no effective communication, no personal accountability...
7
The government in Iran is replaced by force and the leaders must flee or face the animosity of adversaries. There is no peaceful transition to a more liberal and amenable form of government in that country. First there will be chaos and then there will be a struggle between factions which will not agree to cooperate freely with their adversaries. Law will not assure a liberal and orderly transition of power. The most powerful and ruthless will end up in power. It will be the Revolutionary Guard. Their leader will compel people to accept his rule.
1
This isn't even wishful thinking. It is fantasy.
It imagines Iran is teetering on regime collapse like the Soviet Union, and with a bit more push we can just have it all.
That is never going to happen again, not least because we betrayed our friends in Russia and those who tried to deal with us in Libya, Iran, and elsewhere. We poisoned that well.
Anyway Iran is not the late-Soviet state desperately pulling back to avoid total collapse. Iran is winning in Yemen and Iraq and Syria and Lebanon, not losing and falling back.
This fantasy has an address, and it isn't in DC. It is a fear strategy in one country's domestic politics, that has nothing to do with US politics, nor Iranian reality, nor anybody's foreign policy.
15
@Mark Thomason
Pray tell, which friends did we betray in Russia, Libya, and Iran, and how did we do it? Eager to hear.
Sad to see all these ill informed and unpatriotic responses to Goldberg. The US has used its power and global reach with repeated success since 1945. We brought peace and unity to Korea. We saved Vietnam from communism. Our economic blockade wiped out communism in Cuba. Without our support for democracy in places like Chile, Argentina and El Salvador there could have been violence and repression instead of the rule of law. Just look at how our support for Saddam helped him keep peace with Iran, and how our fight against him a few years later brought peace to Iraq and how it also sustained our progressive allies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We've been such a force for good in helping replace Egypt's popularly elected President with the noble Sisi. I just can't understand why you folks think we won't have another success with Iran, especially since we've given them so many reasons to like and trust us over the years...
26
For Doug G. from San Francisco: very little of what you said about countries all over the world is correct. The communist party controls Vietnam. The Cuban people are not at all free. El Salvador is awash in gang violence and still has right wing vigilantes. Peace in Iraq? Where on earth do you get your news and analysis? In the 17 years since Bush bombed Iraq with shock and awe in 2003, Iraq has seen daily explosions with dozens killed. That is still true today. The only difference is that Iran and the Shiites today have the upper hand in Iraq. People are dying and desperately protesting in the streets in Chile. Decades of US military intervention and meddling has hurt countless people the world over. In all of these countries and more. Trump and the scary few non-expert advisors he has (like Kushner, who is an expert in running huge low rent apartment complexes and in collecting back rent from poor renters) only continue to make the Middle East and the world a more dangerous place. Especially for people who are not white. Whatever Trump is trying to do vis-a-vis Iran, I can see no strategy beyond trying to monopolize fleeting news cycles, I think Iran will continue to surreptitiously exact harm on the US and other allies using their proxy power, and the country and people will simply suffer and outlast Trump. All the while they’ll be gearing up their nuclear program. Trump has made us all so much less safe. He is present danger and menace.
1
@Doug G
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
2
@Doug G
Droll.
A very ironic depiction of post WWII history.
3
The major virtue of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran was that it envisioned a stable state of relations in the future. Mr. Goldberg, and apparently Trump, seem content with a perpetual state of war, or at least forceful subjugation, of Iran.
This vision, BTW, is consistent with an the imperialists' vision of the world as a place full of brown people than need to be brought to heel. It invariably leads to unstable international relations.
We need leaders that can answer the question 'what about the day after tomorrow?' Mr. Goldberg is clearly incapable of answering that question. Mr. Trump has no interest in it.
22
@Justin War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
--Orwell, 1984
Sound familiar?
Trump's Iran strategy was developed in Israel, specifically by Netanyahu with the collaboration of Kushner and Pompeo.
Trump's Iran strategy does nothing for the American people .... except the possibility of sending them into a war.
26
Yes, it has been 60 years for Cuba's embargo, just keep waiting.
Let people starve and suffer for decades, no one will mind.
If I recall, only one country has used nuclear weapons against civilians, pretty sure it is not Iran.
14
It has been widely reported that the Trump administration coerced the Europeans into invoking the mediation clause of the JCPOA with the threat of auto tariffs.
3
Starving people to death and having maximum pressure are not a strategy that takes into consideration geopolitical aspects and American national interests. Trump is under influence by the Evangelical Christians (e.g., Pompeo, Pence, etc) and Netanyahu and his supporters in Washington. Subordinating American national interests to serving a religious belief amounts to unpatriotic action. The best course of action to take is to leave the Middle East to its people so that they can manage their affairs. Since our intervention in the region, we have inflicted widespread death and misery.
11
Do you seriously think that Iran can start to negotiate now without its government collapsing immediately. Why would a rational actor do that?
3
Yes, If they simply behave as logically as we think they should, as we would if we were in their shoes, surely they'll come to their senses and cry uncle. Indeed, look how well relentless pressure has worked with Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela.
8
Trump has a track record and it's terrible. Why should his extremists' Iran "policy" be any different?
10
Richard Goldberg says Iran doesn't have to trust Trump. That's good, because Iran DID trust the United States in a major multi-lateral treaty not to produce nuclear weapons, and Trump is punishing them harshly for doing so. Goldberg claims it's simpler for Iran to "act like a rational actor" and submit to Trump. That worked so well with Venezuela and North Korea and China, but I must point out two things that I would not expect a Trump National Security Council member to be familiar with.
1. The government of Iran is not a rational actor, not even close. They are religious fanatics with martyrdom complexes. And they are a people that considers itself one of the great powers of the earth (I would not agree, but they are many times the regional power that Iraq ever was).
2. Even if Iran was a rational actor, no rational actor would ever submit to Trump as you describe. Trump will just take more and more and will never keep his part of the bargain. It's his nature. Hitler was similarly unreliable in negotiations and it worked, and worked, and worked again, until it didn't work, resulting in considerable unpleasantness.
12
This will call for a master negotiator, NOT TRUMP.
4
Trump has no strategy for Iran or anything else. He is incapable of planning or telling the truth. He said no troops were hurt in the attack on Iran's leader, but in reality 34 soldiers have traumatic brain injury. This is quite a bit more serious than a head ache.
9
That sounds like a foreign policy strategy that you could hatch in a barroom over a few pitchers of beer, which is about the level of Republican intellectual discourse at this point in history.
10
Iran does have its own version of a maximum pressure campaign available to it if the US behavior becomes intolerable. It can shut off world oil, and then let the rest of the world's freak out deal with the US. China, India, Japan, South Korea, and even the EU would be stricken with economic depression just as serious as what the US has inflicted on Iran.
Nobody has the stomach for a land war to occupy Iran. That won't happen. The Romans learned not to try that. Nobody has found that tolerable, for reasons of geography and population that are unchanged.
So how would the world escape Iran's maximum pressure? Force a deal, the deal that Trump sabotaged. That is all Iran wanted in the first place.
And no, Iran's "malign" activities are not going to stop. In the end, they'll win with those too. It is the Saudi royal family that would be swept away, along with the other little royal outposts. The Syria War is lost, and the US is never going to reverse that. The "malign activities" argument is screaming into the wind of changes already ongoing.
11
Does the person with the strategic patience and long-term planning create the highest volatility among the Cabinet members in the history of Republic intentionally or as result of his impulsive behavior and extremely short fuse?
7
This assumes there is any thought at all by the current administration. I think we have seen enough from this gang to know there is no"strategy" . They just try to get through the day.
8
I would very much like to believe that this is true, but I don't think anyone believes Trump is capable of "strategic patience."
Likewise, the author seems to overlook the fact that, while Iran could not win a "conventional" war against the US, nor would it conduct one. It is fully capable of cyberattacks for which we are woefully underprepared.
5
Any cyberattack would quickly go to a conventional rain of missiles on Iranian infrastructure. Any nation knows a response to a serious cyberattack would not be limited to computers. I would guess that is why that is why, outside of attacks against movie studios or unimportant targets, no serious attacks have occurred by anyone outside of some ransomware against inept city governments. Cyber war is a great tool once you are at war. It is not a tool to inflict damage without incurring real casualties. IEDs are effective asynchronous warfare options. Cyber isn’t.
Trump's Iran strategy has a very specific name.
It's called the bullying.
That's probably the only thing keeping the Iranian regime in power.
When you have a foreign enemy, then nobody has the will, the time and opportunity to focus on the domestic problems.
4
Trump doesn't have ANY Iran strategy.
What the author stated in the opening paragraph is a carbon copy of the same policy deployed by the White House over the last four decades, thus guaranteed to fail.
But, if the President needs a good strategy he should call me.
By the way, do you know what is far worse than a strategy that failed over the last four decades?
That would be the one failing over seven decades, something similar to the North Korean one.
Repeating the same steps while expecting different kind of outcome is the very definition of insanity.
How else would you define our inability to have a peace deal with Cuba, Iran and North Korea?
The only thing those three countries with completely different religious, ethnic, racial, geographic and political background is the endless confrontation with the White House.
I don't think those people have anything against the fellow Americans because they have probably never met us.
6
Just get out of Iraq and Syria and Saudi and Afghanistan and Turkey and Yemen and Qatar and Somalia and Sudan ....
We have made a mess everywhere. It’s not us making the mess , but we certainly are contributing.
We could cut the military budget to 0; , develop electric cars and alternative fuels and get out of the oil for arms drug deal we have been in for 70 years that has kept us dragging around the Middle East getting into trouble.
4
The author's scenario seems extremely overoptimistic. Experience with North Korea makes it clear that a regime so inclined can hold out for a very, very long time despite near total isolation from the rest of the world. Iran has a long way to go before achieving North Korea's dubious status and has far deeper resources with which to make mischief in the region and further afield. As an aside, President Trump could hardly have planned for the downing of the Ukrainian airliner, an event that turned public anger in Iran from Soleimani's death back to the government.
None of this suggests that President Trump's strategy, if that's what it is, has a high likelihood of success.
5
How'd that work in North Korea?
Cuba?
China?
Would the US let itself be dragged to the negotiating table in a position of weakness? Or would we strive to wait until our negotiating position become stronger?
Please show me an example where a policy of non-military oppression led to a successfully negotiated treaty.
10
Letting Iran get away with wounding, in some cases quite seriously (many TBI victims are crippled for life), American soldiers, undermines the strategy. It tells Iran it can get away with almost anything.
We need to respond by taking out major Iranian assets, starting with the facilities for launching those missiles that wounded Americans, and both down their support chain and up their chain of command.
Otherwise, next time it will be worse.
3
Trump could offer to submit a binding treaty to the Senate for ratification. Good god, do you know the effort this would take? Trump doesn't do effort. He doesn't do anything.
10
I would encourage Mr. Goldberg, and anyone else who feels a maximum pressure strategy on Iran is a good thing, to watch Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown - Iran from 2014. The people of Iran were kind, gracious, and held no ill will toward America or the West. It is my fear that Trump's maximum pressure strategy and his reneging on the Iran nuclear deal will make enemies where there were none previously. Given Trump's penchant for lying and reneging on deals, why in the world would Iran ever agree to any type of agreement with the U.S. while Trump is still in office? The more likely scenario is that Iran will wait out Trump's disaster of a presidency and work out a deal with the U.S. when he is out of office.
14
@Art ** one of his best shows
2
@Art Neocons simply don’t care about human rights or international law. Their number one priority is taking orders from a foreign power, this case Saudi Arabia- a regime whose brutality is fully on display to the world.
1
In 1953, we overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government, putting the Shah in power. Although he modernized the country, he also killed anybody who disagreed with him, until the people finally rebelled and threw him out in 1979. Then the Iranians took 44 Americans hostage--note, they didn't behead them or torture them. All were released within hours of Reagan's inauguration. There followed a war between Iraq and Iran, in which we financially supported Sadam Hussein (who used chemical warfare, which we cosponsored). And now, after forging an agreement with Iran, which Iran was honoring, we canceled it. So, is it any wonder that Iran's long-range plan is to get us out of the Middle East? Is it any wonder they don't trust the US--the one agreement we finally reached, Trump broke. Iran knows it can't fight us head to head, and also knows that we aren't going to invade Iran, simply because Americans are sick of invading countries and getting stuck there. Iran will continue to chip away, through proxy attacks, an airbase here, a drone there, making life difficult for us. And since they have nowhere to go, and we're always the interlopers, they will simply outlast us.
18
Trump has no strategies, just impulses. And because everything he does is perfect he proclaimed the Iranian missile attack which left dozens of servicemen with traumatic brain injuries a total nothing, just to burnish his perfect image.
10
While Richard Goldberg is selling sanctions against the Iranian people as an alternative to war, we might note that that was the way the rulers sold sanctions against the Iraqi people.
In reality, it was a ruse -- a prelude to war. The government has a long record of lies and deception -- its modus operandi.
Yet, a careful reading of the article reveals the great evil of the U.S. government. We know from previous reporting by the NYT that the sanctions are hitting innocent Iranians.
The attempt to justify hitting innocent people, as you might have guessed already, is based on the implicit premise that the ends justify the means. This is their evil ethics.
This "ethics" is used by evil people who try to "justify" the nuking of Asian children, or flying planes into the World Trade Center. We have absolutely nothing to discuss with those who believe in these evil ethics.
Note the equivocation in the use of the word "Iran." We might ask, does "Iran" refer to the government, or the people? With equivocation, Goldberg tries to "justify" hitting the innocent Iranian people.
That's an old trick. For instance, it was used by Nazis against Albert Einstein when he criticizes the Nazis, and the Nazis in turn accused him of being anti-German. He then refuted the Nazis by noting the distinction between the government and the people.
The NYT deserves praise for publishing Goldberg's article for it illuminates the evil nature of the government he willingly serves.
12
Do all of Trump’s advisors live in an alternate universe? This is the same ludicrous strategy which the US military used in Vietnam. There was no way to break the Vietnamese will to be free as they fought for a hundred years or more and never gave up. The Iranians will never bend to the US’s bully tactics and surrender once again to being forced to accept a new Shah. Push people far enough and they will fight to the death. Trump and his enablers are pushing for a fantasy where Trump is king of the the world. What they and the rest of the world will get is a totally destabilized Middle East with war every where you look.
8
Does anybody really believe that Trump knew anything more about the Iran nuclear arms deal than that it was achieved under Barack Obama? Does anybody really believe that Trump knows anything more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts than that, from President Carter onward, the United States attempted to take a somewhat neutral stance while always assuring Israel had our support? The man knows nothing - we all know that. He postures and blabbers inanities and that's the extent of his "policy making."
11
The big problem with this entire argument is fundamentally: to what end? If the whole point of Trump tearing up the JCPOA and forcing Tehran back to the negotiating table was to stymie their nuclear program, then what was really accomplished? Iran has reneged on its previous commitments and has become a more violent actor as a direct response to this "strategy". The hope of striking some sort of "deal" is frustratingly esoteric. The administration has not attempted to explain what they're hoping to accomplish with such a deal, or how/if it would be materially different than the JCPOA. This entire op-ed reads like Mr. Goldberg is trying to throw a dart and paint a bullseye, especially the euphemistic description of Mr. Trump's return to strategic patience". To my eyes, this strategy seems more like a flex than any specific means to an end.
4
As an Iranian-American with family in Iran that has suffered under the oppression of Islamic theocracy for more than 40+ years, I can unequivocally say that President Trump has had the most coherent and effective policy towards effectuating a change in behavior and, hopefully and eventually, a regime change that the people of Iran and the rest of the world are yearning for. Maximum pressure is a success and has destabilized the regime and has changed their risk/reward calculus to US advantage. The Obama appeasement model with billions of frozen dollars sent on pallets to Tehran directly went to fund terrorists all over the Middle East has proven to been a failure.
2
Go away Mr. Goldberg. We are not still involved in the Great Game. 41 years and all you can offer us is more of the same.
10
Who knew that an Iran Strategy would be so difficult?
5
It is absolutely absurd, given Trump's actions over the past 3 years, to suggest that he has a well thought out, long term plan for anything concerning international relations.
Perhaps Pompeo has one. But whether Trump will follow it is very open to question.
Trump has shown himself to be strictly a shoot from the hip guy, and his urge to "shoot" seems tied more to titillating his base than anything designed to accomplish anything.
1
I can not imagine that "President Trump recognized those traps for what they were and exercised strategic patience."
Trump could find Iran on a map of the Middle East.
5
More likely, Richard Goldberg has an Iran Strategy that he has cobbled together out of Trump's incoherent tweets and inconsistent actions, and is rebranding this Strategy as being Trump's thinking in the hope that he won't be remembered for serving under a lunatic. I'm not such a stable genius as to be able to predict just how Trump will undermine Mr. Goldberg's kind efforts efforts. I just know he will.
7
Your analysis of Trump's "strategy" is dead wrong. Trump has no strategy, because he is incapable of thinking strategically. He simply isn't intelligent enough. He's just reacting to whatever Iran does that irritates him. He's behaving like the schoolyard bully he has always been--punch first, count bodies later.
It never fails to amaze me how conservatives in general and Republicans in particular give Trump WAY more credit than he deserves. Trump talks tough because he's a blowhard. He had General Suleimani assassinated not for some complicated Machiavellian gambit, but simply because he wanted to kill someone, to show the world was a "tough guy" he is.
Over and over, Trump has demonstrated that he has NO CLUE when it comes to international diplomacy or negotiation. Kim, Putin, Xi, and Duterte play him like a fiddle because they stroke his ego, whereas Johnson, Macron, and Merkel expect him to behave like a rational adult. Trump is incapable of being subtle or patient. He wants to turn over tables and drop bombs. Either he gets his way, or he takes his marbles and goes home. No wonder the rest of the world no longer respects the United States. They see Trump for the spoiled baby that he is.
"The establishment" has to wake up to the fact that Trump is a human hand-grenade with the pin pulled. He does not read, he does not plan ahead, he does not think long-term--he simply grabs whatever shiny object he sees at the moment. He's incompetent. Stop defending him.
9
"Trump" and "strategy" are mutually exclusive terms.
Trump is a reactionary go with his gut in the moment sort of personality. Which is why he often even baffles Republicans in congress.. as well as his own administration.
He is also prone to be influenced to action by whoever talked with him last.... a sure sign of a weak mind.
7
Richard Goldberg and his ilk have never successfully advanced a diplomatic, non lethal, destabilizing militaristic solution to any issue confronting the United States of America. Quite the contrary, their efforts and those of their fellow travelers like John Bolton have destabilized, both directly and indirectly through increased violent and deadly interactions that have cost significant American lives, 100's of thousands of lives throughout the Middle East and today threaten every American citizen through their irrational blood lust to preserve their own power and prestige. Shameful.
5
There is much more immediate profit in war than in peace.
Confucius probably didn’t say that, but he should have. The US has never figured out how to end the economic sugar high of WWII.
Sorry, I give Trump credit for nothing! The Iran deal was not "flawed" as you and Netanyahu may say. But was hammered out by people much wiser, and smarter then trump, i.e., Germany, France, Britain, US-Obama, China, etc....It stopped the development of nuclear capabilities by Iran. Withdrawing from it and imposing sanctions was ridiculous! Sanctions are a form of violence. It hurts the average person, makes it so they cannot get food or medicine. Sanctions do not hurt the people on the top running the country nor does it make them "rise up" and overthrow the government. It just makes people desperate and desperate people are a security risk wherever they are. This kind of foreign policy leads to suffering and misery and violence...Another reason to vote trump OUT in 2020!
5
Your/Trump's strategy will unite Iran and make war more likely.
4
Neither Iran, nor any other country (or most collections of countries) can defeat the USA militarily. That’s irrelevant. Hizbollah sent Reagan packing with his tail between his legs after 2 suicide bombings. The list goes on from there. American tolerance with lives lost without good reason is really low.
3
Republican rubbish.
The agreement negotiated by Obama and abrogated by Trump because the black man's achievements must be sent down the memory hole had the Iranian nuclear program in a box for fifteen years. We could send in all the spies and monitors and drones we wanted. In 1980 the consensus of all the foreign policy experts was that the Soviet Union would last another 100 years. It was gone by 1989.
Trump will not get a better agreement, he will only end up getting a nuclear armed Iran. They learned the lesson from Iraq and from Kim: the United States, especially under Republicans, is never to be trusted, its bellicosity knows no limit, and the only thing that gives Republican warmongers pause is nuclear arms and the means to deliver them.
The world will pay for Trump's racism which is the only reason for trashing a decent agreement that Iran was complying with. And why does the Times publish this bunk? One wonders. Let Murdoch and the Fox Propaganda Network give these miscreants a forum for their lies and disinformation.
10
This guy is an "expert"? Perhaps, in Trumpian propaganda.
"To his credit, President Trump recognized those traps for what they were and exercised strategic patience."
I guess this is a satirical piece? Trump doesn't recognize anything or exercise anything. He just stumbles from one event to another. The only reason we are not at war is that Trump, like all bullies, is actually a coward. This maybe, for the rest of us, his only redeeming quality.
4
What a goofy analysis. Bringing down another volatile fanatic Mideast regime without a clear plan for it’s post regime governance.
3
I'm leary of opinions from staffers from neocon, pro-Likud "think tanks" that constantly beat the war drum. They are hardly the objective Middle East analysts and policy promoters they profess to be.
3
It seems to me that Trump's "strategy" is more likely to isolate the US from the rest of the world, especially from the EU. His general incivility, cluelessness about diplomatic protocols, aggressive trade disruption, and unpredictability all combine to render the United States an untrustworthy ally. I can only imagine that every statesman and stateswoman in Europe is hoping that Trump tanks in November and that the international community can get back to intelligent discourse instead of disruptive bloviating.
195
@Bill McGrath Isolate from who? the previous policy of giving in to whatever Iran wanted isolated USA from allies that actually live in the region and have to deal with Iran like Saudis Arabia, UAE, Israel etc. Easy to make policy from EU when you're not surround by Iranian proxies
5
@Eric
The previous policy was not to give into whatever Iran wanted. Hardly.
10
Trump and Goldberg know absolutely nothing about Iran, its culture or its history. This screed by Goldberg exposes this astonishing ignorance. Here are just a few of the mistaken ideas, that have clearly informed Trump's disastrous and dysfunctional Iran policy.
1. Maximum pressure will not work with Iran. Iran has suffered under "maximum pressure" from external forces for more than 200 years. First it was Russia and Great Britain in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Then the United States after World War II. Iran always resisted, and always survived. It is a matter of national pride, and a cultural characteristic of the nation.
2. Iran is already prohibited from developing nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which it, the United States, and about 200 other nations (not Israel, India, Pakistan, or North Korea) are signatories. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)was an agreement to promote confidence that Iran would adhere to the NPT, which it has, and continues to do.
3. Iran has a robust internal economy. It is painful to be cut off from the dollar-dominated international economy, but Iran can easily survive an economic siege.
4. Iran will NOT lose a military conflict with the United States. Goldberg and his ilk seem never to have looked at a map of Iran, which is as large as the whole Western U.S. and has over 40 million citizens of military age.
Trump's strategy is bankrupt. It will fail miserably.
6
@William O, Beeman Thank you, Dr. Beeman, for your pithy analysis. I disagree only slightly--Iran would lose in a military confrontation with the US, but so would we.
Nobody would win.
Interesting article because one presumes the author speaks with the administration's approval.
This 'strategy' is questionable on a few points:
1. To the world community, the American regime is also reliable. Reneging on the nuclear agreement; illegitimate tarriff policy; callous disregard for allies; and the President's willful ignorance about pretty much everything international has isolated America. Nobody of any relevance will join in any American military conflict with Iran. By choice, this administration stands alone.
2. Neither the US nor Iran can 'win' a conventional war. It is impossible for the US to occupy Iran; killing civilians while bombing sites that will be rebuilt in a few months will only serve to further alienate the US.
3. Removal of the existing regime in no way guarantees the following regime will be 'better'. There is, again, no American follow-on strategy to military conflict. The USA will be held responsible by Iranians and the World for all that follows.
4. The risk of major de-stabilisation of ALL the Persian Gulf is very high. Again, the USA will be held accountable for whatever follows in the wake of this 'foreign policy'.
The 'trap' the author speaks of is not of Iranian making. It is the folly of humans who believe that war is the solution to the inevitable differences in us all.
Has nothing been learned from Iraq?
7
Punish the Iranian people till they rise up against their own rulers. What a modern, 21st century approach to world relations, and so well supported by such a long history of strategic success. But it does leave out a few alternative consequences, like Iran's closer ties to China and Russia to remove American influence from the region, and the world community tiring of US bullying by empty threat and strangulation.
384
I’m always surprised by the assumption that a revolution will bring a more pliant government to power. The two unspoken premises are that the current government is beyond reason but the next one will be better,
34
@Stu Look at Republican's past successes at regime change and the mess the Bush Administration made of the Middle East. All they want is another war to keep the military industrial complex humming. It's deplorable to use our US military and taxpayer money starting more wars not to mention all the innocent civilians who will lose their lives.
44
@Stu American influence from the region was removed starting with Obama pulling out of Iraq and him letting Russia take over syria. The policy of giving Iran everything it wants (appeasement) didnt do much good for people who actually live in the region. ask iraqis, Syrians, Israelis, Saudis, etc.
5
It is not surprising that a point of view of this kind would be proposed by the Foundation for Defense of Israel. Even if it is based entirely on wishful thinking and projection the way similar arguments in then run up to the misguided invasion of Iraq was. To be sure I have no doubt Mr. Goldberg truly loves Israel and would love, more than anything, to advance its interests. That is not the question. The question is have similar positions proposed by other members of the FDI or similar individuals increased Israel's security? Or worked well for our interests independent of Israel.
1
trump's "plan" is shortsighted. It may work for now, but what is needed is a long term solution. Economic warfare is no better than military warfare. Trying to force negotiation by bringing people to their knees is not a plan. Do you think those people in Iran who are hungry or lacking in medical treatment bec of US sanctions are ever going to forget that? Would you forget it if another nation's sanctions resulted in the death of your loved ones? Trying to pressure with sanctions is not new and the US has been trying to pressure Cuba for 60 yrs. It hasn't worked.
That is a brainless, short term fix. this is the 21st century.
Might doesn't make right.
We will have enemies in the Middle East forever.
152
If trumps destabilizing behavior made USA an international pariah subject to international sanctions, it would be trumps fault, not the international community.
I know you are going to say the sanctions were American, they were international before Obama nuclear deal because Iran’s behavior is so completely unacceptable.
Yes by all means lets bring down the regime and replace it with Al Qaeda & ISIS. A failed state with 85 million people that have no country. That's a great strategy. .. Hey you know what Mr Goldberg, they already were at the table. And serious people worked for two and half years to get a good agreement and a positive relationship started. But Netanyahu & his lap dog Pompeo they don't like it, for their own crazy reasons. So here we are ... nowhere.
275
@Doctor Woo Iran was a secular country before the Supreme Leader took over. How are the current leaders of Iran not worse then ISIS and al quada? Compare how many people Iran proxies killed in Syria to ISIS and it is not even close. Iran regime is even worse since they have access to nuclear technology and actual militarily technology, .
3
@Eric And once again the US is responsible for the situation on Iran. We overthrew an elected Iranian government with the Shah because we didn't like the fact that they had nationalized their oil production. The Shah instituted a repressive regime soaked in the blood of his own people and that's what led to the uprising against him and our interference as well as today's animosity between our two nations. Just because the country was "secular" under the Shah, doesn't mean it's anything to be proud of, especially because we enabled his tyrannical regime.
11
@Eric And the US meddling was responsible partly for ruining that secular country, in Iran and in Afghanistan.
2
Iran "cannot win a direct military confrontation with the United State," but I don't think there is a realistic possibility that the US can enter a direct military confrontation. I don't think there is a US appetite for war with Iran. So I would fear that the Iranians might discount the threat of an actual war. I think the strategy Mr. Goldberg is describing assumes that, given sufficient provocation, the US would go to war. After the disaster of Iraq I am not sure there is anything that would make war with Iran a realistic option.
Mr. Goldberg also says of the Iranian regime "it just needs to act as a rational actor to avoid collapse." I don't think we can rely on a religious dictatorship to "act as a rational actor." Saddam Hussein didn't act as a rational actor. That didn't work out so well for him but it was also disastrous for us.
87
@Tor Krogius - Thanks to our president. WE are the ones who are no longer acting rationally.
That's the crazy thing about what's going on. If we assume Iran is not rational, and now we aren't either (clearly our president will not be reined in by anyone), is the world really safer today?
53
@Tor Krogius. One could argue that Iran has been acting as a rational actor. We've invaded the countries on either side of Iran, labeled Iran as a member of the axis of evil (and invaded the other one of that axis that doesn't have nukes), gulf states can't normalize relations with Iran without Saudi Arabia moving to punish them, and a record our part that isn't going to exactly foster trust. No surprise they'd resort to asymmetrical conflict and work with the limited options for allies in the region. And I'm not sure what "acting rationally" in the minds of those like Pompeo means—regime change and unilateral disarmament?
31
@Tor Krogius Trump is hardly a rational actor either. That is what scars the rest of the world, particularly those countries whom where traditional American Allies.
10
What use is it to get them to the table? The US will not engage in nation-building, only nation-destroying.
Hardliners will either chose to fight to the end, or come to the table and lie. Moderates are forced out by the hatred towards the US. The end that is more likely is civil war within Iran, or a war they start to "wag the dog".
The US strategy is maximum pressure. But Trump's end goal is not for the current government to reform slightly. It is for the death of the current government and for a magical future government akin to the Shah.
It sounds wonderful to say the US will defeat Iranian opposition by withholding trade. But ll we really do is make them poor. It is remarkable to hear US farmers talking about how they support the Trump tariffs because they realize that national objectives call for them to suffer economically, while we assume that Iranians will never endure economic hardship.
They will endure that economic hardship. There may be protests, but Iran will endure. And likely pursue nuclear weapons. And like eventually fight regional wars ... because young, dissatisfied Iranians need to fight somewhere, and it is better to fight externally.
A strategy needs more than a nebulous goal. A strategy should be a feasible series of actions that have a probability of a positive result.
187
Even if Trump could be relied on to maintain the strategy Mr. Goldberg outlined, it is based on a flawed assumption: “The Iranian regime doesn’t need to trust America or Mr. Trump to strike a deal; it just needs to act as a rational actor to avoid collapse.” The Iranian regime is driven by religious zealotry and hate (“Death to the American devil!) - on what basis does Goldberg think rationality comes into play?
While Goldberg and those of his persuasion wait for the mullahs to start thinking like they do, to “come to their senses” and behave the way a western “strategist” believes they should, Iran may well sprint towards nuclear armament, eventually achieving a position of strength where American military and economic might will have even less coercive power than they do now.
In that case, instead of building on the foundation of mutual interest that Obama established, Trump will have succeeded only in further destabilizing the region and the world. North Korea would welcome another nuclear power antagonistic to the United States.
4
Here's the problem, Trump does not care what the final outcome is of a negotiation as President. He just cares that he is able to put his name on it and declares its the best thing ever just like everything else he owns. In the end to him it doesn't matter whether its good or bad or like most of his negotiations almost no change at all. It only matters that he can declare it the best thing ever and enough people will buy that.
12
@J.P.
International "relations" in the service of shoring up the base.
"to gain maximum leverage ahead of negotiations"
All fine and dandy....but what do we want to achieve from negotiations?
There isn't a strategy unless the US has identified its own goals and what it is willing to give up in negotiations to achieve those goals.
But Trump has none of that, and that's why he can't close a deal.
That's why the negotiations with China and North Korea have failed. Both of them are at the table, but nobody at the USG can close a deal. So the negotiations putter along, or don't.....nobody knows the status of NK talks, including NK. A mess.
12
For someone who worked on the National Security Council, Mr. Goldberg's editorial is frightening. Frightening because most of it is untrue. Iran, according to third party observers was faithfully complying with the Nuclear Weapons deal even after Trump trashed it. The reality is that Trump withdrew from the deal because it was an Obama accomplishment that was working.
27
Goldberg of course, coming from the right wing think tank he works for, ignores a salient fact, that the US, working with allies we actually had back then, put stiff sanctions on Iran that got them to the negotiating table and by all indications worked to stop Iran's nuclear weapons development. Iran's economy didn't crash because of Trump's actions, Iran's economy was already crippled by the sanctions put on it by the US and its allies, before Trump got into office. He calls the Iran nuclear deal "nebulous", but there were real verifications in it.
The other question I have, if the tough guy tactics of 'maximum pressure' will work, how come it didn't work under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II? How is it that when Obama took office, Iran had its nuclear program going, had the resources to do it, and also that whole time had been a major bad actor? Goldberg and the other chickenhawks have been claiming this for years, yet the reality is it didn't work. The scary part is, Iran at this point can accelerate its nuclear program and they were close enough that they could end up like North Korea, where they are in a position of strength again, one that oil used to guarantee them. An Iran equipped with nuclear weapons is a major threat to US interests, including Israel (even though Israel has nuclear weapons, do you want to see Israelis killed by a first strike if the Ayatollah decides to give nuclear weapons to one of their proxies?)
16
Yes, let's do everything we can to tie Iran closer to Russia and China. And to tie every other nation we disagree with to those two autocracies.
Isn't that why we sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and all over the Middle East -- to strengthen their connections with Russia and China?
19
Yeah, like that strategy has been working so well in Cuba. I've traveled in that country recently and it's heartbreaking to see the effects of our Sanctions on a country and its people. All the siege mentality tactic has done is make Cuba seek aid from our foes (Russia, now China), and double down on its resistance, while cutting US investors out of the now burgeoning investment partnerships in Cuba by all the other nations that have found they're able to crash the embargo's restrictions, with no consequences other than being half owners of some fabulous new hotels, resorts, and other businesses in that country.
Iran is not Cuba. It's much much larger, has a rich history and culture going back thousands of years although like Cuba it's not invaded or attacked another nation for territorial gain in over a thousand years. It has a strong military that it's clearly demonstrated can powerfully fight off an attack from outside, such as when Iraq invaded them.
15
@Entera I definitely agree with you. I abhor Iranian government and what it has done to that beautiful country and intelligent, educated, and brave Iranian people. But if Trump and his bully of administration think that by imposing maximum sanctions they can bring Iran to negotiation table and stop it from developing nuclear power, they’re mistaken. Iran has survived 40 years of sanctions and will do so again.
Iranians detest their government, but are patriotic and love their country, and will die before letting another foreign country determine their fate. It has been done to them by Europe and America over and over and will not let it happen again.
Iran and America were gradually salvaging their relationship after signing up the nuclear deal, but again, because the deal was one of Obama’s most important accomplishments, Trump had to destroy it out of his hate for Obama. Consequently, world is a far dangerous place than before Trump.
1
The author suggests we should be acting in the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia, who arguably have legitimate concerns about Iran's regional behavior----while the United States has never been threatened in any way by Iran. In fact, Iran has been threatened by the US for decades without ever harming us in any way. This is the most transparently incorrect logic, but sadly typical of the current administration. Any thoughtful observer can see that the only "strategy" Donald Trump has ever followed is self-enrichment at everybody else's expense.
17
@James You are correct. And of course Netanyahu loves US messing with Iran, has always wanted to drag the US into any conflict with Iran to fight Israel's battles for them. Netanyahu should be voted out like trump. Old brain like these two will make it impossible for Iran, US or Israel to live in Peace.
1
@James That's because the article doesn't discuss any strategic goals besides forcing Iran back to the table.
1
Actually, the Trump "strategy" does seem to be working. You can see the regime fraying. As they say, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
1
@Yo: You are half right. Iranians were losing faith in their religiously led government up until Trump attacked. They still have little faith in it but when attacked one defends one's country with the tools at hand. Trump actually strengthened the Iranian ayatollahs grip on Iran. BUt that is Trump's style.
1
@Jeff Actually not. The Iranians shot down a Ukranian airliner because they were so rattled. And then they lied about it setting off massive protests. That significantly weakened the ayatollahs' grip on power.
Mr Goldberg, seems to me that you are selling your strategy in a wrong place.
To convince readers of the NYT first you should explain why the former strategy was torn apart (are there any reasons,we are really curious), and why US allies are so angered by this move (how do you plan to convince THEM again).
The second part (believe me I supoose all people here wish you well) is a bit harder: how do you plan to ensure that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or some other college dropouts will support it in their TV shows?
9
If we assume Iranians aren't real people that would likely respond in the same way we would if a hostile foreign power, led by a belligerent and inept leader applied maximum pressure on our country ...you might be right.
Of course they are real people and you are therefore likely wrong. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but people will act to protect their pride and your power is limited.
This is how avoidable wars get started.
14
@HereToday The republicans and Goldberg have never met a war they did not love! Why have a deal that was working when you can start an uprising?
1
Please refrain from publishing opinion pieces in the future from Trump apologists. Opinion pieces from Mr. Goldberg and Senator Cotton are unvarnished attempts to provide justifications for President Trump's impulsive warmongering. By publishing this rubbish, the Times lends them and their authors a patina of credibility. The New York Times and the American media made this mistake during the lead up to the War in Iraq. It should not make the same mistake again.
20
@Zachary Hammond: I strongly disagree. Regardless of one's opinion of Trump, it is important to know what he (or, at least, his advisors) are thinking. I am fully competent to read articles like this and come to my own conclusions, unaffected by any "patina of credibility" that publication in the NYT may give them.
3
Trump’s strategy has driven our natural allies to start to weaken one great, non-military source of American power....the US dollar as the reigning international currency.
The effort so far is bearing small fruit, but once the process is underway, it will only get larger. The US has proved itself an untrustworthy country, after all.
3
I have dozens of family members who live in Havana and Santiago de Cuba on the eastern side of the island.
The Trump regime's steady tightening of the already draconian 60-year-old economic and trade embargo has had one significant effect: it has made life infinitely harder for my family and millions of other Cubans.
Yes, the Cuban government has shown itself incapable of creating a healthy economy. It is mostly to blame for economic mess.
The embargo was imposed to foment popular unrest, which would in turn lead to the overthrow of the government. But all it has done is make Cubans suffer unduly.
Cuba poses no threat the U.S., and yet Washington stubbornly sticks to this twisted, failed policy.
Iran is an oil rich nation. It will keep selling oil.
Economic sanctions will do nothing of significance to modify Iran's behavior.
I would add that if at least seven other nations are already full nuclear powers, on what grounds do we demand that Iran not join the club? Israel has nukes so how do you make the argument that Iran should shun them?
10
This “strategy” is a carbon copy of LBJ’s and Nixon’s intensified bombing campaigns that were supposed to drive North Vietnam into submission, and we saw how well that worked.
Deja Vu all over again, and nothing gained from the experience.
14
I am among those who do not assume that Trump is capable of any strategic thinking. He simple does what his non-functioning guts tell him in the morning and by evening he tweets out a change in plans if he hears his gut rumbling.
It is people like Goldberg who try to explain Trump's incoherent 'strategic' plans to the public and make him appear that he is a 'very stable genius'
11
@Dreamer
If you refuse to hear anything Trump says, to believe anything he says and to deny he is capable of strategizing, well, that puts you in a cocoon of self-imposed ignorance.
Quite frankly, your inability to discern Trump's strategy is a problem of your own making.
1
Trump might very well be impulsive and thoughtless and maybe he simply stumbled into what now appears to be the best solution for Iran. However we got here, it's the best solution nonetheless. The 2015 nuclear agreement was premised on the assumption that the current regime could play nice with others. That assumption died a cold, hard death in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and beyond. Flush with cash, they became bolder than ever. At that point, the 2015 deal was kicking the can down the road with a rattlesnake. The notion that we're now on a path to war with Iran is nothing but hysterics. Iran would be crushed and they know it. It wouldn't take a land invasion (and we wouldn't attempt one) to destroy their infrastructure and make life utterly miserable for them. They're trapped. They might be able to lash out and cause some mischief, but everyone reading this will be going to work and taking their kids to soccer practice during a "war" with Iran. Iran is an illiberal, theocracy no longer governing with the consent of the governed. A tipping point is at hand. Nothing that makes the current comfortable should be undertaken. We need to be patient and steadily apply the choke hold until they tap out. It's coming.
2
Trump’s latest transgressions against Iran makes it obvious to everyone that Iran’s only chance of defending itself from US agression is to develop nuclear weapons. That’s a lesson that other nations like North Korea are also learning from Trump. Even if we get rid of Trump and elect a competent president, the world will never trust the US again. The world will always fear that we may once again elect an ignorant con man as President of the US. The world can no longer trust that we will honor our treaties and commitments.
10
"To his credit, President Trump recognized those traps for what they were and exercised strategic patience."
It's difficult to read this as credible, given that trump never demonstrates patience or expresses anything but knee-jerk gut reactions. I don't buy he has a strategy for anything that he can stick to for more than a week or two.
Like leaving the TPP, breaking the deal with Iran was a strategic blunder based on a deeply distorted viewpoint.
14
"The Iranian regime doesn’t need to trust America or Mr. Trump to strike a deal; it just needs to act as a rational actor to avoid collapse."
Maybe. But maybe Iran chooses to lash out instead of capitulating to the Great Satan. Green lighting Hezbollah to launch thousands of missiles at Israel, destroying the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil infrastructures, closing the Gulf by attacking shipping, unleashing terrorist attacks all over the world.
Putting all your chips on the belief that the mullahs will act rationally when cornered is kind of like putting all your chips on the belief that Donald Trump will act rationally.
9
I’m disappointed that the Times prints such a slanted and inaccurate an article from a Trump apologist, who is clearly trying to articulate a “strategy” based on Trump’s impulsive decisions. I’m no Mideast expert, but three things jump out at me.
1. Although not perfect, the 2015 agreement was by no means “fragile” or “no binding”. The only political “ebb and flow” was Trump’s insistence on undoing anything Obama did.
2. To put any kind of pressure on Iran we should act in consultation and collaboration with our allies, which of course Trump hasn’t done.
3. Dealing with Iran is not as simple as dealing with the government since there are many other actors, including their proxies in the Mideast and terrorist organizations.
It would be wonderful if this so called “strategy” is successful, but I fear that’s very unlikely.
3
The media mistakes its not knowing Trump's strategy with his not having one. He keeps them guessing like everyone else.
1
@AACNY Actions speak louder that words, Bases on trump's actions. He has no lasting strategy about anything. He works solely on impulse.
North Korea allowed it's population to starve to hang on to power.
China with it's great leap forward and cultural revolution.
Russia with the liquidation of the kulaks.
Venezuela is doing the same.
What makes the author think that a regime that must hang on to power or after losing it face the noose will gently let go?
3
hopefully we don't start war because lots of people could get harmed and, mr trump could make a treaty of peace
There are too many people in the tRump regime, and unfortunately even in the US Congress, whose loyalties are not with the US. Personal interest, Russia and Israel come to mind. These people are done harm to the US indirectly, but lastingly.
How about Americans stop meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation for starters?....... then maybe we'd have something to talk about with them. The columnist's view of negotiation is that it proceeds extortion. We'll stop putting the squeeze on Iran if they'd just give up their national defense strategy and let us install a ruler to our liking. We've already been down this road.
7
@Dan
Indeed, Iran’s enmity toward the US comes in large part from the US installation and support for the brutal Shah.
1
Let me get this straight:
When the President puts pen to paper and signs up to an international treaty, that doesn't mean anything unless Congress also decides to sign up.
When Congress decides that the United States will give Ukraine $400 million, the President has the power to ignore that decision. That would not be a reason for Congress to impeach him.
No! You cannot have your cake and eat it too. It's either one way, or the other, but not both.
2
@TD the only thing wrong with your analysis is that is is wrong. The Constitution clearly makes the President the chief executive, not a dictator. If the President of the United States does not like a piece of legislation, he can veto it but he can't refuse to enforce it once it becomes law. That is why we have an elected President instead of a dictator. Trump used the Office of the President in an effort to extort a foreign nation to create dirt against a political rival. IF Democrat did that you would be marching on Washington.
@Jeff
What I was trying to point out is how Trump's argument against his impeachment is exactly the opposite of his argument against the treaty with Iran. One day he says one thing, the next day he says the exact opposite. I guess you didn't understand what I meant to say. Did I express myself so poorly?
If Rich wants to defend Democracy maybe he should start at home. Trump is the biggest danger to Democracy that our country has seen since WWII.
7
Let's pose a not unreasonable analogy. There's a schoolyard bully in your high school. He comes from a family known to have a large arsenal of guns. The bully himself has been seen (legally) carrying weapons (he hunts). Nobody likes the bully, but everyone is concerned about what they MIGHT do if pressured to admit they're a jerk and clean up their act. So the teachers have had personal discussions with the bully, offering him carrots and sticks. He sometimes still causes problems but overall things are contained. But one very large and strong child in the school believes this is not adequate and it's not fair. This kid can't be allowed to continue the bad behavior! The child is strong enough to beat up the bully. Against the advice of all the teachers this child presses the bully to clean up his act... or else! What happens next? Maybe the bully cleans up his act, admits he was wrong and joins all the other kids in a round of Kumba ya. Or maybe the next day, week, month or year the child shows up at school with a weapon and starts shooting indiscriminately. Or maybe the bully takes other actions that are not as extreme but still cause pain and suffering.
@Dan: The problem you have with your analogy is that you blame the victim not the bully for the bully's actions.
No matter the harm, Iran will not
yield to American pressure. Iran's
relations with American have been
toxic. Not only overthrow of Mussadaq
in 1953 and imposing boy shah, a corrupt and incompetent,but support to Saddam Hussein during the war,supply
of chemicals and pulling out of
agreement(JACOP) will not persuade
Iran to negotiate. Their memories of
America treating them badly is a major
turnoff to negotiate with Mr. Trump.
3
So, Rich, what you’re telling me is that you can serve on the National Security Council with absolutely no clue as to the realities of geopolitics? Oh, of course you can, your boss was Donald Trump, the thinking man’s thinking man.
5
This may be one of the most preposterous articles ever to have been printed in the Times.
- There may well be a strategy - good or bad - for dealing with Iran, but Donald Trump has nothing to do with it. To develop a strategy one must have a sufficient number of IQ points, and some rudimentary knowledge of the subject. Donald Trump has neither.
Oh, and one must spend some time on the matter; he has probably spent a total of fifteen minutes talking to experts about Iran (too busy tweeting, playing golf, watching TV, holding pep rallies, keeping Republican politicians supine). And of course we know he hasn’t read anything about the country - since he can barely read.
- “...recognized those traps for what they were and exercised strategic patience.” Comical. Is there anything to suggest that ever, in his entire life, Donald Trump has exhibited “strategic patience?”
- Even if there is a coherent Iran strategy - developed by others - it seems obvious that all of Donald Trump’s decisions regrading Iran result from two things: impulse, and thoughts of “how could this benefit me?”
4
The Vietnamese refused to give in so why should the Iranians. The solution is to rid ourselves of Trump.
8
Maximum pressure and isolation applied to North Korea for decades has not lead to any success. Why would it work for Iran?
Besides, I don't believe the guy who acts as a spoiled brat all the time can "exercise strategic patience". Cult members tend to assign divine powers and features to their dear leaders.
3
This is absurd. Maximum pressure to what end? "...to dismantle its nuclear program and address its malign activities".
We had already achieved the first by pressure and negotiation. Why didn't we try the second by pressure and negotiation?
Absurd.
3
Sure, He has an Iran strategery.
Start War in case of re-election Emergency.
Seriously.
9
Trump’s actions in Iraq, the killing of Qassim Suleimani, resulted in the deaths of 176 people aboard the Ukrainian airliner. How can he sleep at night? And the next time it will be far worse.
2
@Gary Montgomery
To Trump they weren't "people" they were "others." The only person that matters to Trump is Trump. He probably sleeps well.
Mr. Goldberg's views are more like binding a foot so as to fit a shoe that is too tight. Like others within this administration, he is attempting to mold policy to fit the whims of an petulant autocrat.
Just how far can America get in a pair of such shoes?!
2
So quaint. Trying to fit a strategic spin to the irrational and self serving acts of a narcissist.
If it also wasn't so dangerous.
Apologists like Mr. Goldberg are part of what is wrong with this country.
4
Meanwhile, North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat.
1
@W.A. Spitzer: What made you believe that? North Korea still has the "Bomb" and the missiles to delivering it to the West Coast. Trump's grandstanding means nothing. Nothing has changed with regard to North Korea's nuclear weapons.
2
This strategy is like the person who plays chess move by move by move without fully understanding the consequences of their moves several moves ahead.
Bringing a lot of pressure is not necessarily bad. Heck, Obama did it with Iran and ended up with a deal. But Obama did it with a coalition of allies. Trump does it alone.
Trump also doesn't understand how Iran works. If maximum pressure and a hard life always worked, then N. Korea would be finished long ago.
To make any deal, they would need to trust (sorry Goldberg, but your line about trust doesn't make any sense) Trump and the US. Trump has shown over and over that he and we cannot be trusted. They're not going to give-in just to risk Trump or the next president ripping up the deal and demanding more. The leaders of Iran think that nothing will satisfy the US but regime change. The leaders who would have to make the decision ARE THE REGIME! They're not going to do that.
This is not strategy, it's foolishness and dangerous.
5
You actually imagine a phone call between Trump and the Ayatollah? Makes me laugh.
1
@peter bailey, I see the Ayatollah patiently treating Trump like the petulant child that Trump is.
1
If wishes were horses, poor men would ride.
2
Maybe if Iran had some dirt on Joe Biden, Trump would be willing to make a deal.
7
A "binding treaty" sign.ed by Trump is an oxymoron
3
Trump is a one-trick pony; the only technique he has in his repertoire is bullying.
2
All you need to know about this article is that Mr. Goldberg served on Trump's National Security Council.
5
"Trump Has an Iran Strategy. This Is It.
A campaign of maximum pressure could bring Tehran to the table."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Have you ever tried being a stand up comic?
We already had a great agreement, and he tore it up.
Perhaps you could also explain this master strategy.
"The White House reportedly credentialed a far-right news outlet, which has propagated anti-Semitism, so that members of the organization could travel to the World Economic Forum."
3
We can see that Goldberg is as insensitive as Trump is... "...sent... into a tailspin..." An unfortunate choice of words given that Trump's "strategy" is directly responsible for the deaths of the people on the Ukrainian Airlines flight.
2
What, exactly is Trump's goal with Iran? Nothing clear. The first paragraph of this piece makes that clear. "impose maximum pressure to gain maximum leverage," for what? There's no scheduled talks between Iran and America.
The agreement we had was a way to keep getting to the table and talk. Where pressure could be applied for a specific purpose. Max pressure without any stated goal is stupid.
2
What is this “could” nonsense? Silly.
1
I would have liked to read this article, but I started giggling helplessly at its first three words and couldn’t get any further than, “strategy.”
Sorry.
Donald Trump doesn’t have strategies, now or ever. He has tropisms, like a fern or flatworm.
2
Why would Iran possibly trust Trump?
2
There was nothing wrong with the treaty, except that he couldn't take credit for it. Trump's only strategy is to get reelected this year, so he needs to amp up the testosterone in his "psychophants" by killing people. Lately, the US is looking more and more like the Planet of the Apes.
2
Another C or D level player....
anyone that was or is in Drumbo's admin would never have been involved with a real presidency.
1
Why is it than when a logical strategy emerges from an analyst there is so much naysaying among the NYT readers?
@perry hookman: It all depended on what you think is logical. The treaty that Trump has virtually torn up was working well with inspections in place. Trump has no alternative plan. He never does.
He tore it up solely because Barack Obama successfully got Iran to make the deal. Now it is gone and Iran, with good reason, is back to distrusting the American Government.
2
So "strategic patience" is what we're calling this bull in a china shop reeling from one episode of the Trump show to the next? Like he's got a plan?
3
AS IF the Stable Genius had any actual **policy** about anything, beyond "Make sure everybody is looking at ME, is impressed by ME, and is reflecting back to ME that I am the greatest ever, in everything I do."
Oh and also, "Show that guy Obama that I'm better than he could ever be. And get my pal Vlad to tell me I'm doing a good job."
1
FakeDonald does not follow the classical OST - Objectivem startegy and Tactics process. He skips the time-wasting (?) startegy step. Heonly has tactics. The 200o year old Chanakya defined four stages of tactics - Negotiate, Bribe, bully and divide (opponents). FakeDonald uses Bully hard, harder, hardest, and then Bribe. His negotiations means surrender (sttle and pay) and claim victory. He has never won honorably in any negotiations. He has only outlasted his opponents wating period tosettle fpr less. Like the Chinese. But he has never won. And finally, he chooses to surrender toan ene,=my of an enemy - in this case Putin over Hillary. For this Bobe-spur patriot, winning is everything so Putin better than Hillary. Nation be damned.
1
After WWI, the Germans were deeply hurt by massive reparations, loss of territory, etc. Many historians note this as one of the leading factors that led to the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich. The lesson? The stick alone will backfire. There needs to be a carrot.
2
Probably Trump would be surprised by this author coining him as a "strategic thinker", which is the very opposite of what Trump is. This article is embarrassing in its sycophancy. Authoritarians the world over, from Putin to Kim via Erdogan, are playing Trump. I am in fact surprised the Iranians did not produce something similar (yet): a "deal" with Trump.
The sooner the orange moron can be moved out of power the sooner the US can start re-establish its soft power worldwide (won't be easy though).
4
This amounts to a long description of how excellent the Emperor's clothes are. Mr. Goldberg may have a rational plan for how maximum pressure might work on Iran, but he must go through the day with his plan held up in front of his eyes if he can't see Donald Trump for the febrile, irrational narcissist that he is.
It's terrifying to think that the Goldbergs of the world might help bring about a situation in which we are all relying on Donald Trump's rationality and negoiation skills to walk a tightrope between peace and catastrophic war.
Richard Goldberg is really trying to portray Trump as a “stable genius” and a great deal maker.
Who’s going to buy his “brilliant” arguments in defence of the current mess? Trump has no strategy. He merely follows his guts and acts on impuse.
It’s obvious that Goldbergy, Trump and others in dealing with Iran have no deep understanding of this country’s history and national characteristics
Most Iranians see their nuclear programme – for peaceful purposes – as a right for modernisation and development of the country.
The JCPOA was a successful deal no matter what Trump and his supporters say. Other world powers knew it was not perfect and they were monitoring the development so that they could assess it in future negotiations.
Trump has squandered so much diplomatic goodwill that it would be difficult for the administration to negotiate with other nations, like Russia over a new START and with North Korea over the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.
3
Trump seems to forget that the best way to unite a country is to threaten it from the outside. Trump has done more to unite Iran than it’s own politicians and were it not for the blunder of their own military shooting down the Ukrainian airliner would have set reform back years. Between Trump’s ego and Pompeo and Pence’s desire for the “end of days” it’s no wonder that the “Doomsday Clock” has been moved forward.
4
I think the author of this piece gives far too much credit to President Trump for having a coherent strategy in regards to Iran. Given a blank map of the world, I seriously doubt he could find the country. I'm just as sure he wouldn't be able to explain the difference between the Sunni and Shi'a factions and which one holds power in Iran. The man has shown time and again that he is completely incurious when it comes to the intricacies of the issues in the Middle East. Or just about any other geopolitical issue that doesn't involve golf or one of his rallies. Fortunately, he does have capable career military and intelligence officers and diplomats around him that will talk sense and sanity to him (although I'm sure there are a fair share of hawks who want the opposite). So let's give credit where credit is due. Donald Trump is not some mastermind playing global 3-D chess with his adversaries. He's more the unpredictable madman that is keeping certain belligerent leaders cowed because they're not sure what he might do next. And having a "strategy" like that shouldn't make any of us sleep better at night.
2
Mr. Goldberg, I feel, is inventing strategy to fit the non-strategic President. Nonetheless, this is something that Bush tried with North Korea, what the U.S. has done to Cuba. None of them capitulated—which seems to be what Trump (or, more likely, his influencers) are after. Demolish the Iranian economy and increase the suffering of its people—and where does that get us? I'd love to see the ruling theists replaced in Iran, but—after Bush II— we've already learned that regime change isn't easy; Isis anyone?
8
Others have dealt with relevant political political issues. But there is also the matter of international law. The author refers to the 2015 agreement as "a fragile nonbinding political agreement." In so doing , he confuses the definitions of a treaty in US municipal (domestic) law and international law. Under international law, all written agreements - even an exchange of notes or an executive agreement - come under the rubric of "treaty." For that matter, even an oral agreement, which would not constitute a treaty under international law, is binding. Perhaps the most basic principle of international law (conventionally stated pedantically in Latin) is "Agreements are binding."
25
Bring to the table for what? Trump has never offered an alternative too the existing treaty, other than to say "it was very bad."
While Trump could offer a treaty to the Senate there's no indication what it would cover that wasn't already discussed with Obama's team.
We should remember that Iran's nuclear energy program had been inspected by international agencies and was completely legal based on all international laws.
The message that Trump has sent the world is 'you cant trust the United States.' They abandoned treaties, unilaterally declare financial war, deploy troops where they are not wanted and are constantly seeking economic and military domination.
And through the sheer weight of US power we may achieve it, for awhile. And at every opportunity other nations will turn away from us. In the long run this will undermine American influence in the world.
14
Mr. Goldberg presents his own ideas on how to deal with Iran. The loose cannon sitting in the White House has already deteriorated our relationship with them drastically. He claims to be the world's best negotiator, but so far his "negotiating" has consisted of tearing up any agreements or relationship, announcing proudly that he's succeeded, waving tariffs and threats around wildly, accepting something less than we had to begin with, and declaring his success.
Iran's people, like Americans, love their country even if they dislike their government. The methods to squeeze Iran are only squeezing its people. Starving millions of people is neither the way to bring the country to the negotiating table--when you've already shown your complete untrustworthiness--nor to gain friends for the future.
14
A strategy is not discovered by measuring an outcome. This is a president who acts on impulse, does not read, cannot pay attention to briefings, and surrounds himself with sycophants. That's not a strategist. A man who depends on legal delays and the exhaustion of his adversaries is not a strategist. He's a gambler.
25
"The Iranian regime doesn’t need to trust America or Mr. Trump to strike a deal: ... "
I don't know what idealistic nirvana Mr. Goldberg lives in, but the whole idea of a "deal" is based on trust. Without it, there is a contradiction in terms.
No one in the whole world trusts Donald Trump or the United States any more! We only need look at the chaos in Libya, Iraq and the murders of their leaders to see the likely path for Iran.
After the mess Donald has created in our international credibility we're going to need at least a decade of Presidents with moral integrity to even start being credible on the world stage.
The US needs to pull out of ALL entanglements in the Middle East and start spending its $trillions on its own infrastructure and social problems. THAT is what Trump promised to do. But he just enjoys talking loud and waving his small stick on the world stage.
26
@DGP
Exactly!
Furthermore, sanctions are hurting the people, whilst those at the top whom they are intended to hurt actually end up profiting from them in many circumstances. Using sanctions as a regime change method doesn't seem to be working in Venezuela...just look at the situation there now - people are too hungry to even protest.
2
And on the other hand Trump does not have clear plan and rolled the dice on Soliemani which came close to killing American troops.He did not respond because we are in an election cycle which explains the late notice on injuries sustained.No real idea what the fallout from the assassination will be yet.And we do not know how our presence in Iraq will go either.Spin is in.
14
Betting everything on economics while declaring everything else an externality (what happens to Iran's people under this scenario, e.g.?) will fail, as do all short sighted, reductionist notions. No one can believe anything coming from this president or his administration. Not the Iranians, not us, not anyone. The smile on Putin's face grows wider.
20
@James Sterling Putin will, as he has in Syria and Turkey, ride into Iran and aid the regime, minimizing America's role in the ME even more. Geez, even our bosses in the ME-Israel and SAWEDI alquedia are working with Putin now.
@Ron: No, Putin will not aid Iran. The Iranians have a very long memory of all the times, that since the days of the Tsars, Russia has tried to take over Iran. The truth is that the Iranians hate the Russians but like Americans, despite the Trump Administration and the times that America has tried to destroy Iranian Democracy.
It was a pleasure to see Mr. Goldberg wrap strategy around a President who is quite clearly not a strategic thinker. And it just may be that his strategists are, in fact, running the show here...though it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that Mr. Trump would let anyone run.
The problem with this strategy, as presented, is that it assumes only two outcomes; war, or acquiescence by the Iranians. In fact, there are other outcomes that are equally likely and not positive from the US perspective. First among these, is that increased pressure and isolation will throw Iran more securely into the camp of one or more of our strategic competitor, most likely Russia. Poor policy by the previous administration has seen just that in Syria, where Russia's hand has been strengthened, and we are now faced with the possible loss of an anchor in Iraq.
So, while Mr. Goldberg's position it reasonable, the failure to address alternate - and equally likely possibilities - makes it far less convincing.
27
@Bill
Sometimes I suspect that some important decisions are influenced or shaped by talk shows of Sean Hannity, Russ Limbaugh or some other college dropouts.
18
@Bill I agree, we may get in war with iran but:trump could make a peace treaty that may help the situation
@Bill Ah yes, the failure to address all possible outcomes. The mistake made over and over in the USA's Middle East actions. The US backing the Taliban to defeat Russia, The US backing Saddam Hussein to defeat Iran. The idea that Iraqis would see the US as liberators in the Iraq war. Crushing sanctions in Iran turn its citizens against the US, not the Iranian government. I'm sure many Iranians despise their government, but that doesn't mean they see the US as helping their situation. In fact, it is probably making things worse.
5
How many times has maximum pressure worked in the Middle East? In this country, state, community, business or personal life? It certainly works in building long lasting resentment.
45
The question is, what do the average citizens of Iran believe? Do they believe the cause of their economic distress is their own leadership, or do they believe in their own leadership, and blame America for their economic distress? The answer to this will determine the outcome in Iran.
10
Points well taken. Still, maximum pressure to restrict Iran's access to financial success is far from being a panacea; meanwhile, the Iranian people are the one's suffering the consequences. No easy solution but war ought not be allowed, as it would destabilize the entire Middle East...that we started by invading Irak under false pretexts. Have we forgotten there is a way out, DIPLOMACY?
3
''A campaign of maximum pressure could bring Tehran to the table.''
Or another endless mid east war. A far more likely outcome.
40
@Lawrence
Maximum pressure seems to want the Iranians not to have a table.
3
In 1953 when Iran was about to nationalize their oil industry, the CIA and SIS coordinated an overthrow of Iran's duly elected President and installed a puppet leader, overseen by the Shah of Iran. How did that work out? 67 years later the United States is still at it. Still working on regime change. Still meddling in the Middle East. We're near 20 year of war in Afghanistan and 16 in Iraq. Now we're setting our sights on Iran. It's a total mess. We've been at it for 67 years. It's time for a new strategy.
91
@Greg Not the same thing. We came into Afghanistan in response to the most deadly terrorist attack on US soil in history. The Iraq incursion in retrospect was ill advised and poorly executed. We did not set our sights on Iran's governing body. We wanted to halt a burgeoning nuclear program, not push for regime change. This article does not even point to regime change as an administration objective. Truthfully, how many different ways will Iran violate the 2015 JCPOA accord, before citizens of the word begin to show concern? https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2019/nov/12/un-iran-violating-nuclear-deal
@Greg "It is time for a new strategy" with new leaders!
Dump Trump.
1
I am so grateful for the comments to this article. So many knowledgeable people point out the weaknesses in the author's argument, and his fealty to neoconservatism...oh sure, regime change, it always goes so well! And indeed, he works really hard to squeeze trumps impulsive actions into some sort of workable strategy, based of course on neoconservative molds.
59
@Jeanne Prine: The only time regime change has worked for America was when we threw out the British.
4
Mr Goldberg says “Iran’s leaders, for their part, recognize that Mr. Trump’s strategy has already sent their economy into a tailspin and could bring down their regime if sanctions are not soon lifted”.
How many times have Americans heard that; from Vietnam (our bombing campaign “has the Vietcong on the verge of surrender”), to N Korea where that policy is leading to more nuclear weapons not less, to today.
So let’s review where Mr Trump’s policy has gotten us so far. Before Trump, we had a year for nuclear breakout with Iran and by every account were sticking to their 10 year commitment to not develop nuclear war heads. Today they are within 2 to 3 months (and may be their now) and they have now said they will no longer comply with the limitation to not develop weapons grade uranium.
We were told that the maximum pressure campaign will also stop Iran’s adventurism in the Middle East. In the last year they INCREASED their military proxy efforts to use terrorism to achieve their ends. And this month they released missiles targeting an Iraqi base with American soldiers stationed there.
I’m from the business world and if these were the results after 3 years of the CEO’s stated goal, he would be FIRED!
Mr Goldberg concludes “To be sure, it’s possible that Iran’s supreme leader will never authorize direct negotiations with the United States, even in the face of his regime’s imminent economic collapse and international political isolation”.
Umm.......yup. Very possible.
79
Goldberg says that President Trump "could" put a deal with Iran in the form of a binding treaty, ratified by the Senate. He does not say that Trump has offered to do so, or that Trump is likely to do so.
His notion that Trump would be a more reliable negotiating partner for the Iranians than Obama was--that they could have more faith that if Trump made a promise it would be kept--seems to me implausible
42
@Ed Moise And quite comical.
2
@Ed Moise: Yes of course everyone can trust Trump. Just ask all the people he stiffed with his multiple bankruptcies. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
2
Thanks Richard Goldberg for simplifying Trump's Iran strategy which is simply a campaign of maximum pressure to get a stubborn Iran to the table with only surgical use of force and no US troops on the ground. The Shia majority in Iraq allied to Iran will make it difficult for US troops in Iraq but there has to be a strategy for that. Whats it?
5
@Girish Kotwal: Using diplomacy, Obama not only got Iran to the bargaining table for the first time in history but got a working weapons deal. Using brute force Trump destroyed it.
The plaine truth is that the Middle Eastern war is a religious and political fight that has been going on for centuring about which Islamic sect will rule Islam.
Mr. Goldberg’s hypothesis hinges on Iran’s leadership being “rational actors” and the mercurial Trump staying the course. How much faith anybody should have in either is debatable.
Mr. Goldberg says nothing iabout how our abused allies and our enemy Russia might act in the future if sanctions are increased. Its as if Mr. Goldberg believes they are irrelevant.
Also, Mr. Goldberg fails to recognize that destabilizing Iran to the point of collapse is a strategy for “regime change” that might actually succeed. If it does, are we ready for the consequences?
17
@Michael Roush The Iranians has fully complied with the deal that Obama made with them. They halted their nuclear weapons program, until Trump tore up that agreement in his jealous of Barack Obama.
I went to college with a lot of Iranians. All of them were in engineering programs. They were always at the top of the class standings. They are among the smartest, best educated people in the Middle East except for the Israelis. They will have nuclear weapons unless the US honors the no-nukes agreement we have with Iran.
2
"...the 2015 Iran deal ... was a fragile nonbinding political agreement subject to the ebb and flow of American politics" "Trump could offer to submit a binding treaty to the Senate for ratification."
In the rest of the world, if the head of the government of a country signs a treaty with other countries, such a treaty is NOT considered to be either fragile or nonbinding.
Diplomats around the world are well aware of the relevant clause in the Constitution of the United States. But they don't care about it. Any US administration that uses it to argue that international treaties signed by previous administrations are nonbinding, is basically arguing that the United States is incapable of conducting foreign policy.
57
This article lays out clearly the reality of our current policy towards Iran, that is not simply a policy of isolation. It is a war policy aimed at regime change. The sanctions that the U.S. has imposed on Iran are acts of war and must be viewed as such by the U.S. public. While the U.S. may not currently be engaged in a live fire war with Iran, if Iran responds to these sanctions by reinvigorating its weapons program or attacking some military force in the Middle East, its response must be seen as responsive and not as an initial provocation. Openly punishing a nation by cutting off money needed for food and medicine, closing financial markets, and destroying its economy with the goal of seeing the overthrow of its government is a war policy. We can't be naive about our own responsibility if bullets and bombs start to fly.
42
I don't see a realistic understanding of Iran's history and politics in this article, or even an attempt to get there. Our history is full of officials creating straw men for opponents and then being confused when real leaders don't respond as we'd expect.
62
What history shows is that we risk having Iran collapse into civil war. And if we look to the Middle East for examples of what happens in a civil war, the group in power will use all manner of violence to stay in power. We have seen civil wars in Lebanon, in the instability in Iraq caused by our 2003 war and in Syria. The notion that we will get a magic treaty out of this is just wishful thinking. Nor is it reasonable to grant Trump the virtue of strategic patience. Trump flits likes a butterfly from shiny object to shiny object.
Of course anything can happen but what has happened so far is not encouraging.
24
@Terry McKenna: As long as all Iranians see the US as being on the verge of attacking Iran, all political discord will be ignored.
1
@Terry McKenna -- An important part of the Iranian violence involved the US armed and supported terrorists like MEK, who are reviled in Iran. They did not do it all, and they certainly did not entirely lose by doing it.
Mr. Goldberg is living in a fantasy world that disappeared 70 years ago.
He writes “Tehran’s conventional options are limited because it cannot win a direct military confrontation with the United States.”
Well, you could say the same about Vietnam. We know how that one ended. You could say the same about Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can’t even end these.
The days of winning wars with military power are over. So as long as that is all Trump has to offer, forget about making any progress on the Iran issue. On the other hand, diplomacy is not a strong suit of a schoolyard bully.
246
@Bullhornymous Your assumption is that Trump wants to do nation building/regime change. I think he is far more pragmatic than that and not an idealist in any way. He wants to contain them and make their regional power irrelevant, if they are opposed to the West but not sponsoring terrorism abroad or making nukes, then that is victory enough.
1
@michaelf
As I understand the current outcome of Mr Trump policy is that Teheran has a free hand in developing nuclear weapons as the recent working treaty is torn apart (for some unknown reason).
Victory in international diplomacy is something different than winning in a reality show.
34
@michaelf
Fat chance anyone can make their regional power irrelevant, let alone trump with with his numbskull "strategies." This kind of interference in the ME is always doomed to fail.
16
The US has always gotten it wrong with Iran.
43
The only problem with this strategy is that there is not one iota of evidence that it will work, if Iran's past behavior and culture is any guide. Iran's leaders would surely die a thousand deaths before capitulating in a humiliating manner to American demands. This policy can only result in war, and eventually it will.
23
So Trump's strategy is to bully, starve and humiliate the Iranians in submission, then promise them a "binding treaty" to replace the "fragile nonbinding political agreement" that we negotiated and signed in concert with all of our long-time allies in 2015 - the one he himself tore up? That seems reasonable. What possible reason could they have to doubt his good faith?
118
Trump never submits to anything binding, let alone a binding international agreement. His "policy" on just about anything resembles nothing so much as a random walk. The people around him in the photo accompanying this op-ed know this is true. Look at their faces.
16
@RBT
I was struck by that too. Any serious civil servant always looks like they're trying to hold it together when they're near him.
2
Yes, humiliate them. For sure that'll get us everything we want.
35
Are you kidding me? It's abundantly clear to anybody who's been paying attention to Trump for the past several years that he has no strategy. He "wings it" on everything and this is by his own admission. He refuses to read any briefings and is dismissive of any advice that differs from his gut instincts.
To say that Trump recognizes traps gives him too much credit. He didn't see any trap when he sold out the Kurds to Turkey and Russia and he didn't recognize the trap in killing Soleimani. He just wanted to put a notch on his belt and to show how tough he was without thought of future repercussions - things like US troops being kicked out of Iraq thereby preventing us from effectively fighting ISIS or even if we are able to stay, to be in Iraq under even more pressure and anti-American sentiment.
No, this president does not strategize or think. He lashes out and acts in his own self-interest. He's very effective in the way a petulant but precocious child gets a pass from doting and permissive parents when the child throws a tantrum or does crazy things.
50
These tactics seem to stem from the Netanyahu playbook. Mr.Goldberg does not take into account what Iran's allies like Russia might do--or how the Europeans might react to his scorched earth policies, which will lead to starvation and death among ordinary Iranians, or what Iran might do in Israel or Saudi Arabia.
A member of FDD, Mr. Goldberg is apparently a hawk and neo-con who worked for a fairly isolationist president. Trump knows little about the world and wants to focus on domestic policy, making America great again. The neo-cons like Cheney got us into the Iraq. Mr. Trump doesn't want to ignite another fiasco like that.
14
@Diogenes: Russia does not want a Iran controlled by the US on their southern border. That would be a threat to their much needed oil importation.
2
"Unlike the 2015 Iran deal, which was a fragile nonbinding political agreement subject to the ebb and flow of American politics, Trump could offer to submit a binding treaty to the Senate for ratification."
This is so naive and self-absorbed. OK, let's hear it: what makes a Trump-style treaty so different from the JCPOA? If the Iranians withdraw from or cheat on a "binding treaty", do they trigger a wizarding curse a la Harry Potter?
The real difference between what we had and Trump's so-called strategy is: the JCPOA was a real and enforceable agreement which was being followed by the Iranians; the Trump "treaty" is a figment of Richard Goldberg's imagination. Like many other Trump initiatives, the main driver is to erase all actions taken by the Obama administration.
By the way, how's that master strategy going with North Korea?
46
@Lew
Have you had much from dear leader since the S drone killing?
@perry hookman -- Just wait to see who they kill in retaliation. That is how this was handled by the US and the Soviets in the Cold War, to keep assassinations in check. It works, and they know it. So who would it be?
2
I've got a far better idea. It's called "live and let live".
9
What nonsense. Does Donald Trump feel the pain of any unemployed person in the US? Does he feel even minor discomfort as another person goes without cancer treatment for lack of insurance? Gimme a break.
The Iranian regime feels nothing.
Inflicting pain on the Iranian people is not productive. Cuba withstood such tactics for decades. And they live on an island with far fewer resources at their disposal.
We had a nuclear deal. It was not perfect, but it was working well enough. Now we are led to believe that even more pain will magically create the trust to sign a new better Nobel Prize winning nuclear deal, if we just wait a little longer and let Trump run wild on the international stage trying to crush the Iranian economy.
You are wrong. You won’t crush Iran into a nuclear deal. Not under Trump anyway. They can last 5 more years no problem.
36
Trump has a strategy seems a lttle far fetched. Richard Goldberg has a strategy, but he is no longer serving yhe Administration. And the likelihood is, Trump never really listened to it, or if he did, it was too complicated.
Trump is an ad-hoc President, decisions are made on the fly, or golf course. Nope don't buy this op-ed one bit.
17
@cherrylog754
Trump's ripping up of the nuclear treaty with Iran and his maximum pressure campaign had consequences for the European nations who had signed the deal, to the extent that they were actively looking for a way to circumvent Trump's maximum pressure campaign by conducting business outside of the usual banking channels and not trading in US dollars. Had they succeeded, that may have endangered the US dollar's position as the standard world currency. This is quite apart from the work the Iranians have done to sell their oil surreptitiously.
We are perpetually fighting a battle between a world of winners and losers on the one hand, and conciliators and reciprocity on the other. Republicans tend to want to win through the exercise of power, democrats tend to want to win through the process of mutual advantage. Which is better? It depends on the situation and whether the parties are honest brokers or not. There is no certainty. The balance is always shifting. There are consequences to victories too, just as enabling Iraq to defeat Iran ended up with Iraq then invading Kuwait etc etc. Reducing one enemy, empowers another.
Mr. Goldberg's article makes good sense, but a word of warning here: there are no ultimate victories or defeats. Sometimes winning is chimeric. One cannot help but remember Bush standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier proclaiming victory.
5
Mr. Goldberg makes a reasonable argument in support of the President’s strategic approach but assumes this chess match is with Iran in isolation. It fails to appreciate the three dimensional nature of geopolitics and that certain nations will work to prop up Iran in order to draw the U.S. into a deeper resource draining conflict to further their competitive advantage. This will not end quickly and we should expect and anticipate further asymmetrical counter moves for some time to come.
5
This article presents us with a lot of wishful thinking. Although Iran's government is no example of enlightened thinking we did take a working treaty and tore it up. The effect of our present policy pushes our foes into the arms of our other foes, China and Russia, without any positive results for us. We are losing any relevance in the Middle East and have definitely been outplayed.
17
This article presents us with a lot of wishful thinking. Although Iran's government is no example of enlightened thinking we did take a working treaty and tore it up. The effect of our present policy pushes our foes into the arms of our other foes, China and Russia, without any positive results for us. We are losing any relevance in the Middle East and have definitely been outplayed.
If this is the right way to negotiate with Iran why hasn't it worked with the DROK which already has nukes and is continuing to build them without a peep from this administration? Perhaps Ayatollah Khamenei simply needs to send Mr. Trump a "love note" in order to receive the same sort of treatment that Mr. Jung-On is experiencing. Anyway, who really cares about Iran's nuclear ambitions? The U.S. and Israel each have nuclear arsenals the size of which could never be matched by the Islamic Republic. Why should we continue to embrace the same paranoia that grips the Israelis?
63
Everyone seems to have forgotten that President Obama also implemented several years of sanctions on Iran to force them to the table. He took the same approach described in this article. That is what led to the Nuclear agreement. Why Mr. Trump feels he needs to do it all over again is beyond me.
113
@David Bosak Not to mention that there is no reason to negotiate when the country just negotiated, agreed, and then broke the agreement.
If you went in a car dealership and negotiated a price, and then at the last minute the dealer broke that deal, would you start over with price negotiations, or leave?
Further, the people negotiating were the moderates in Iran. At this point, they lost all credibility by dealing with the US. The people (like Soleimani) who are opposed to negotiating with the US were proven right already. Anyone who negotiated with the US was a loser in Iran.
And anyone in Iran can see that the worst case scenario is bleeding the US in an Afghanistan like asymmetric war. Sure Afghanistan is poverty stricken. But that did not make the population rally to join with the US in cooperation.
If the strategy is to force negotiations, there have to be negotiators from Iran. Mohammad Javad Zarif was the primary negotiator of the JCPOA. Currently, he is no longer welcome in the Iranian government. His recent statement:
"I am apologising [to] you (wholeheartedly) for my (inability to continue my service and any) shortcomings in the past years during my time as foreign minister... I thank the Iranian nation and officials."
22
@David Bosak
Obama stopped the sanctions too early, even as they were working. He and Kerry were too focused on their hoped-for Nobel Peace Prize.
2
@David Bosak
His pattern is to create a crisis by pretending to be a big strong man. Then, whatever happens after that, he declares 100% victory, his base believes him, and he basks in the glow of their adulation.
What he really does is break things and not pay for them.
12
Mr. Goldberg's argument is viable, except it skips over one salient point: this analysis of Iran and a supposed policy towards it are the product of Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Trump has no policy, certainly no policy that is front loaded, as policy must be. Mr. Trump does not think like Mr. Goldberg. Indeed, thinking is a specious word to use with Mr. Trump. He does not think, he presents no policy in advance of, on anything, to anybody. He cannot sustain an argument with the accepted form of all real arguments- state your point WITH evidence. Mr. Trump only reacts, and even then with no clarity of what, exactly, he is reacting to. Compare Mr. Trump's behavior with Iran to that of North Korea and any student of international relations will see the same behavior, underneath the Trumpian verbage. It amounts to "I have no plan, the world is simple, it must be so because I say so." Which leaves us with this reality: the notion that Mr. Trump will, at some point, negotiate for a better situation with Iran, North Korea, anyone, is laughable. So far, three years in, for both Iran and North Korea- same same.
59
Thank you for your thoughtful article. It appears that the Trump's strategy is working and his taking out of general Suleimani coupled with strategic patience is a bold and brilliant move which could change Middle East for better.
3
@Crow No it isn't and no it won't. A bold and brilliant move would entail the U.S. moving out of the Middle East and letting the Iranians and their equally malicious counterparts in Saudi Arabia duke it out for themselves.
12
@Crow
Yes, though because it's "Trump's" strategy, NYT readers will immediately dismiss it.
No, no, no, no, they respond.
1
@AACNY -- Never mind Trump or not.
We can't pretend that Syria is going well, nor Yeman, nor Lebanon, certainly not Iraq, nor any of the regions touched by "malign" Iran interests.
The Saudis and other Gulf Arab royals are teetering, utterly incompetent to save themselves, which incompetence is on daily display. One day soon, the first of them will break and run for their money stashed in Europe.
Malign activities are winning. The nuclear deal is gone. There is just no way to pretend anything in the region is going well.
It wasn't going well when Trump took over. He did not fix that. Nobody could, very likely.
4
There is no gain for us. Trump pulled out of a negotiated deal that was working (perhaps because it had been negotiated by Obama). And Trump had the audacity to demand that Iran keep its side of the deal while we were free to ignore ours. In the long run it will mean that no one should trust any deal that Trump makes. Of course, his track record before he became president should surprise no one about how he treated the Iran deal.
182
@JerryV The deal was working only in that Iran had slowed its enrichment of uranium. It was a total failure in curbing Iran's regional ambitions and subversive mischief. This was the real goal. The nuclear angle was was a pretext. Nobody has used a nuclear device since 1945. The real hope was that the agreement would lead to a less paranoid, less aggressive, and more reasonable regime. The opposite happened. In that fundamental respect, the deal failed. It made all the bad behaviors the deal sought to curtail, worse. This is precisely why the Saudis, their Sunni partners, and Israel all vehemently opposed the deal. If this was such a great deal, and nuclear war such an imminent threat, why did they oppose the agreement? Because they knew this was going to happen. They live in the same sandbox. They know Iran better than anybody. If you're going to blame anyone for the failure of the deal, blame the Supreme Leader. He overplayed his hand. He blew it.
1
@Spiral Architect -- "It was a total failure in curbing Iran's regional ambitions and subversive mischief."
That was not part of the deal. It wasn't working or not working, it just wasn't there.
Why? Because to do such a larger deal would have required the West to give Iran things it did not want to give Iran.
What does Iran want? It has a list of regional goals, and they are not "malign crazed murder." They are specific goals, most of which are actually quite reasonable and realistic.
They want a real security for Iran, and for Shiites more generally, all of which was and remains under organized attack. They are winning too, as in Yemen and Syria and Lebanon, and one day soon maybe in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain too (both with large populations of Shiites treated horribly, a majority in Bahrain, and living on top of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia).
This is not going well on the malign activities front. Worse, Iran is getting help on that from Russia and China, while US allies are backing away, and Israel is becoming a pariah politically instead of a rock of help.
9
This article is right on target, and serves to highlight that President Obama's claim that the only alternative to his deal was war with Iran. That was incorrect. The alternative to both of those options was continued sanctions, and President Trump is proving it.
Democrats will never give Mr. Trump any credit, but he is handling the Iran issue perfectly.
I, for one, am not tired of winning yet.
5
@G - You really think this is working? Iran is back to fully developing their nuclear capabilities.
This is just like N. Korea. Trump creates a crisis, calls Kim Jong Un rocketman, then buddies up, falls in love, and declares victory. Of course, tensions are lower, but only because we've halted any military exercises w/ S. Korea and have basically given N. Korea free rein to continue developing their nuclear weapons.
Same thing is happening w/ Iran. We tear up the Iran nuclear deal and hit Iran with sanctions so they promptly go back to enriching uranium and devloping nukes. It may seem kosher on the surface... until Iran tests their first nuclear weapon in the next few years. I'm sure Trump and Netanyahu will be proud of what they have wrought at that moment.
19
@G, It is not some much Trump's "winning" but his whining that troubles me.
8
@KR
Even for Iran, “it’s the economy, stupid” is the most important objective.
Iran’s nukes are unimportant if their economy is falling apart.
And it is.
1
Not again... The US and others have been actively subverting Iran since the 1950s and before. That the Iranians resent this should not be hard to understand, really. Nor should it be difficult to see that the current regime is a natural response to these decades of pressure. Nor to understand that pressure from the outside does not induce capitulation -- ask the Brits about WW2 bombing and their resolve. Iran is an old culture with a long memory. And they are very technically sophisticated. As long as the US persists in threatening them they will feel the need to defend themselves. And to support movements in the area to push the invaders out. A new and enlightened approach is needed. But it seems unlikely that the current crop has a clue -- beyond bluster, threaten and bomb.
203
@Greg Latiak
Add sanctions to the list of US meddling actions.
It seems to me embargos (sanctions) are acts of war. They were placed on Iran without any debate or authorization by Congress.
Trumps new "pressure" campaign is another example of US not following protocol.
13
@Greg Latiak Mr. Goldberg's focus is not the advancement of American interests. sadly, though, even in that light his proposals don't make sense.
4
@Greg Latiak
Its pure Orwell.
"We have always been at war with Eurasi....er... Iran".
4
This is another sensible article I can agree with from NY Times in a long time. This may be the reason why I am the first one commenting on it and other readers probably could not believe what they are seeing. They may be thinking that how can "crazy" Trump have a strategy at all other than simply initiating third world war?
3
@Alex K
Analysing lot of recent events we are pretty sure thet Mr Trump doesn't have any reasonable strategy.
This one described here has two big holes: Mr Trump should know about it, understand it and then be able to steadily implement it rejecting tempting shows of power fitting more in reality shows than international diplomacy.
3
@Alex K
Trump's critics would more easily believe WWIII is imminent than believe this.
1
@AACNY
The president did ask his military advisors why they cant nuke hurricanes. We have reasons to be afraid.
5