Neither Trump nor Democrats have figured out how to stop Iran - analysis

Tehran is closer to a bomb now, compared to when US pulled out of deal in May 2018

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a statement about Iran flanked by U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Army Chief of Staff General James McConville, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley and Vice President Mike Pence in the Grand Foyer at the White House in Washington, U. (photo credit: KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS)
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a statement about Iran flanked by U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Army Chief of Staff General James McConville, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley and Vice President Mike Pence in the Grand Foyer at the White House in Washington, U.
(photo credit: KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS)
Sometimes politicians get an issue that they cannot easily solve and talk their way through – and then they tend to try to change the subject.
That is what is happening with US President Donald Trump and the main Democratic contenders for the 2020 presidential election these days, as they try to sidestep the reality that no one has figured out how to stop Iran’s drive toward a nuclear weapon, or its reign of terror.
Trump does have some achievements on Iran, however.
His maximum pressure is seriously squeezing the Islamic Republic, leading to protests internally and impacting its ability to export terrorism in the region.
His attack on IRGC Quds Force chief Qasem Soleimani has led Tehran into overreacting and announcing it is no longer bound by the 2015 nuclear deal. This led the EU three to trigger a process that could lead to full UN snapback sanctions against Iran.
But, in the final analysis, Iran is closer to a bomb now than when Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal in May 2018, and it has been acting aggressively around the region against the US and its allies, even more than it had before.
In addition, at least until Tuesday when the EU three may finally have returned to America’s side, Trump lost the diplomatic high ground.
Despite the success in squeezing Iran, he appeared no closer to achieving regime change, to getting a better deal with Iran or to being ready to use military force to stop its movement toward a bomb.
In Wednesday morning’s Democratic presidential debate, most of the candidates slammed Trump for leaving the 2015 deal, for undermining US support overseas, and for bringing the region close to war with the killing of Soleimani.
They might be right about some of these criticisms.
But Trump did not pull out of the deal in a vacuum.
The nuclear deal kept Iran about 12 months from a nuclear bomb, but was due to expire between 2023 and 2030 with no clear answer to stopping Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon at that point.
Moreover, Iran became more aggressive, not less aggressive, in creating problems in the Middle East after the deal.
Furthermore, the Islamic Republic continued ballistic missile testing, and the world did nothing about it, since only toothless US resolutions prohibited this, and not the nuclear deal itself.
Trump actually tried with the EU three to get a new nuclear deal, before he pulled out in May 2018, and Iran showed it was almost completely unwilling to budge on any of the major issues. Part of this was because the EU three was not willing to threaten Iran.
It is unclear whether any of the Democratic presidential candidates could convince Iran to agree to a better deal, or could have convinced the EU three to take a tougher tone with Tehran. If they could – no one bothered trying to explain how on Wednesday morning.
Simply slamming Trump would certainly not suddenly change Iran’s famous stubbornness and determination. In fact, many Democratic presidential candidates previously said they would simply rejoin the nuclear deal and withdraw sanctions, as if nothing had gone wrong. This certainly would not stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or from adventurism in the region.
The truth is there are no easy answers on Iran. If there is any answer, it might be a deft combination of a real and ready threat to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, along with walking an incredible tightrope of somehow getting not only the EU three, but also Russia and China, back on board to force a better deal.
Trump does not seem to do careful diplomacy, and the Democrats do not seem to like talking about a real military threat.
None of this bodes well for the future. But if any progress can be made, the first step would be one US politician on either side admitting that no one has an easy and quick solution to one of the largest security challenges of the era.