If Nobody Knows Your Iran Policy, Does It Even Exist?

[Dill]

For those ready for a distraction from the Mueller Report, Stephen Walt has an interesting assessment of Trump's chaotic Iran policy--ending with the question of whether there actually is one.  

For those who have been following US foreign policy, you know that Trump declared the Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization"  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-revolutionary-guard-corps.html?searchResultPosition=4&module=inline.  Then as part of his effort to reinstate Iran sanctions, threatened Turkey, China and India with sanctions if they do not end import of Iranian oil. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/22/trump-iran-sanctions-1284408.  Now he has sent a carrier force to the Gulf with threats to "strike back" if unspecified "U.S. Interests" are attacked. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/05/politics/iran-carrier-bomber-task-force/index.html.

Walt outlines three possible options to explain Trump's FP in the Gulf, which seems based on risky, diplomacy damaging maneuvers that unlikely to please anyone with a sense of long-term policy consequences.

If Nobody Knows Your Iran Policy, Does It Even Exist?
The Trump administration’s top foreign-policy priority is the Islamic Republic—but it’s unclear to what end.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/06/if-nobody-knows-your-iran-policy-does-it-even-exist-bolton-trump/

Option 1: It’s just Kabuki theater. It’s possible that the broader drama about Iran is mostly posturing designed to keep the Saudis, Israelis, Gulf states, and wealthy Republican donors like Sheldon Adelson happy. Maybe Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Advisor John Bolton know deep down that the regime isn’t going to fall and isn’t going to renegotiate a better deal than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). But having criticized former President Barack Obama’s handling of Iran, and under pressure from allies and domestic lobbies alike, it was inevitable that Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton would revert back to coercive pressure, even though that approach never worked in the past (at least, not on its own). This interpretation assumes the administration is under no illusions that it is going to work this time either.

To be honest, I don’t think this is what is really going on. If this policy was just smoke and mirrors, there would be little point in exacerbating already strained relations with some long-standing allies by threatening to punish them if they keep buying Iranian oil. That’s a step you’d take only if you really felt it would yield benefits greater than the diplomatic costs. For this reason, I don’t think Option 1 is the real story.

Option 2: Pressure Iran to sign a new deal. According to this view, the goal of “maximum pressure” is to force Tehran back to the table and convince President Hassan Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to accept the 12 demands that Pompeo laid out a year ago. In this scenario, an increasingly desperate Iran will end its support for Hezbollah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and the Houthis in Yemen; stop trying to influence politics in Iraq; and accept more stringent restrictions on its nuclear capabilities (or maybe even abandon them entirely).

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Well, as long as we’re dreaming, I’d like a private jet, along with a big pile of cash to pay for its operations.

The problem with this lovely vision is that it won’t work. Tighter sanctions on Iran are unlikely to convince it to accept all of America’s demands, especially when the United States no longer has the multilateral backing it enjoyed while negotiating the JCPOA. Even much weaker states don’t like giving in to blackmail, because doing so just invites new demands. External sanctions are painful, but they often strengthen authoritarian regimes in the short to medium term. More than a decade of tough sanctions didn’t convince Tehran to give up all its enrichment capacity before, and it’s not likely to do so now.

There’s a further problem with this rosy scenario: Why would Iran agree to any sort of deal with the same president who tore up the JCPOA and who has repeatedly broken promises to numerous business partners and boasted about lying to close U.S. allies? If Option 2 is what the administration is trying to accomplish, it is likely to be disappointed.

Option 3: Regime change. Instead of a new and better deal, Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton may well be genuinely interested in toppling the clerical regime, and they may have convinced themselves that inflicting ever increasing amounts of pain on the Iranian people will finally lead them to rise up and overthrow the mullahs. Bolton and Pompeo have said as much on various occasions, and Bolton’s close (and reportedly lucrative) association with Iranian exile groups is consistent with that objective as well.

No government is utterly impregnable, of course, so one can never rule out the possibility of an internal upheaval. But history suggests that the odds are slim. The United States embargoed Cuba for decades yet Fidel Castro’s regime remains in place despite his death in 2016. Sanctions eventually convinced the unlamented Muammar al-Qaddafi to give up Libya’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, but Libyans didn’t rise up against him until after sanctions were lifted, and it still took an external military intervention to topple him from power. There may be plenty of Iranians who don’t like the clerical regime, but most of the population is also intensely patriotic and likely to harbor even greater resentment toward the distant superpower that is working overtime to cripple their economy. Trump’s decision to abandon the JCPOA also played into the hands of Iran’s hard-liners because it vindicates their claims that the United States is irrevocably hostile and that its word cannot be trusted.

Moreover, regime change is hardly a reliable answer to America’s differences with Iran. There’s no guarantee that pro-American forces would gain power should the clerical regime collapse, and one suspects that pro-American voices in Iran are becoming scarcer as Washington inflicts more and more suffering there. If we’ve learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria, it is that removing an unsavory regime often makes things worse, not better.
..............................................................................................................................................................................................

This a lot to heap on one's own plate, given the sudden downturn in Chinese trade negotiations, the NK missile launch, and the supoena battles ahead.  For me it raises questions about how policy battles--domestic and foreign--are rank orded in the Trump administration.  If I am viewing all this from the Defense ministry of Russia, Iran, NK, Pakistan, Turkey, China and India, I have to wonder how to deal with this crazy administration.

Is it possible that the policy is piecemeal--responding in part to donors and in part to the radical neocon element now incorporated into the NSC, and to WH advisors encouraging control of the news cycle through distraction?  Does anyone see a single logical armature around which these policy moves could be turning? Normally, a president's Middle East policy is deduced from larger policy goals, like those presented in the 2017 NSS. That document states the U.S. will "work with partners to deny the Iranian regime all paths to a nuclear weapon and neutralize Iranian malign influence." But Obama could have said the same.

[fredtoast]

Trump has no idea at all what to do.  But he knows that increasing military spending is a good way to keep pumping up the US economy.

I was not too concerned about him actually starting some new military action until Bolton came on board.  Now I have no idea what they are going to do.

Since Fox News loves tough talk and big military spending I am guessing we will end up taking some military action to attempt regime change.

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump has no idea at all what to do.  But he knows that increasing military spending is a good way to keep pumping up the US economy.

I was not too concerned about him actually starting some new military action until Bolton came on board.  Now I have no idea what they are going to do.

Since Fox News loves tough talk and big military spending I am guessing we will end up taking some military action to attempt regime change.

Yes, Bolton seems to be pushing these Iran moves in his direction--the forced regime change he has argued for for almost two decades.

But I agree with Walt. The consequences would like destabilize the region, lead to another unnecessary war--this one much bigger than Iraq, and much more costly in terms destroying generations of U.S. diplomatic achievement.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2019, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump has no idea at all what to do.  But he knows that increasing military spending is a good way to keep pumping up the US economy.

I was not too concerned about him actually starting some new military action until Bolton came on board.  Now I have no idea what they are going to do.

Since Fox News loves tough talk and big military spending I am guessing we will end up taking some military action to attempt regime change.

I think military action is much more likely in Venezuela than Iran.  I think Trump is putting the screws to Iran at the behest of the Israelis and the Sauds.  He's also destroying what many considered Obama's greatest accomplishment.  For Trump this is win/win.  That said, I think Trump would be fine with Iran continuing to waste away under sanctions.  Now, this could all go out the window if some idiot, on either side, makes a huge error and starts a firefight.

[Dill]

Just to add some background for reference/discussion: here are twelve demands on Iran that Mike Pompeo made back in May, 2018.

Mike Pompeo speech: What are the 12 demands given to Iran?
US secretary of state threatens Iran with the 'strongest sanctions in history' if the conditions are not met.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/mike-pompeo-speech-12-demands-iran-180521151737787.html

Declare to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a full account of the prior military dimensions of its nuclear programme and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity.

Stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing, including closing its heavy water reactor.

Provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country.

End its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile systems.

Release all US citizens as well as citizens of US partners and allies.

End support to Middle East "terrorist" groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi government and permit the disarming, demobilisation and reintegration of Shia militias.

End its military support for the Houthi rebels and work towards a peaceful, political settlement in Yemen.

Withdraw all forces under Iran's command throughout the entirety of Syria.

End support for the Taliban and other "terrorists" in Afghanistan and the region and cease harbouring senior al-Qaeda leaders.

End the Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps-linked Quds Force's support for "terrorists" and "militant" partners around the world.

End its threatening behaviour against its neighbours, many of whom are US allies, including its threats to destroy Israel and its firing of missiles at Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and threats to international shipping and destructive
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
These are pretty difficult to meet demands, and would entail giving up sovereignty. I'm pretty sure Trump/Bolton/Pompeo didn't really intend that they be met.

E.g., Iran is supposed to work for a peaceful settlement in Yemen while the U.S. funds Saudi bombing? I know that Israel has attacked Iran in the last year, but I cannot find record of Iranian missile attacks on Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

What "senior leaders" of the notoriously anti-Shia Al Qaeda is Iran harboring? It has some in jail, and may allow for a clandestine pipeline to Afghanistan.

[fredtoast]

(05-06-2019, 05:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   For Trump this is win/win.  

Only if he cares nothing about stopping Iran from advancing their nuclear weapons program.  But I doubt he really cares anything about that.  He just wants to score points with his base.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2019, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only if he cares nothing about stopping Iran from advancing their nuclear weapons program.  But I doubt he really cares anything about that.  He just wants to score points with his base.

So, exactly what I just said.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Trumps Iran policy is to ignore it until he is forced to say or do something because he has no clue what to do about them.

In Korea, he thought he could bully them and now that there was a bad harvest there, NK is doing what they always do to get food and that's to fire off a few missiles in the hopes that the US will feed them.

He don't know what to do about Russia either.

Let's just say, Trump has no foreign policy until its forced on him then he will ask his advisors on what to do then come out and take credit.

[*bfine32*]

(05-06-2019, 04:21 PM)Dill Wrote: For those ready for a distraction from the Mueller Report, 

Well I haven't been preoccupied by it for one minute. But I'm lazy. 
As to Iran: it's just saber rattling. Iran knows they aren't going to do anything and we know it. My view of this is unchanged. We need a larger "not combative" presence in the region. Tap into folks desire to advance and spend money there on infrastructure and not on destruction. 

[Benton]

Iranian officials today announced they're waiting for random episodic late night Tweets by the POTUS to know whether or not they're at war with the US. Said one unnamed official "We've come to realize [Donald Trump] isn't serious until he gets to the third straight Tweet. At three we attack."



Trump's Iranian policy is hard to nail down because he's not really sure what Putin or SA want him to do. Hell, sometimes his handlers have conflicting orders, and TrumpCo can't really risk not being able to appease either master.

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 07:45 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Trumps Iran policy is to ignore it until he is forced to say or do something because he has no clue what to do about them.

In Korea, he thought he could bully them and now that there was a bad harvest there, NK is doing what they always do to get food and that's to fire off a few missiles in the hopes that the US will feed them.

He don't know what to do about Russia either.

Let's just say, Trump has no foreign policy until its forced on him then he will ask his advisors on what to do then come out and take credit.

I wouldn't say Trump has been ignoring Iran.

He squashed the Iran Deal, reinstated sanctions, and is threatening sanctions on all who import Iranian oil. Plus declared the Revolutionary Guard, part of an actual state government, a terrorist organization (which widens sanctions and prohibits diplomatic contact with them by our allies), and now he has sent the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Group to the Gulf.

The result of that is a whole lot of diplomatic conflict and close (and irritating for them) monitoring of allies, not to mention a lowered bar for kinetic engagement in Yemen, the Levant, Iraq and the Gulf itself.

I wouldn't say "no clue" about them either, though it is likely Bolton's clue.  

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 09:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I haven't been preoccupied by it for one minute. But I'm lazy. 
As to Iran: it's just saber rattling. Iran knows they aren't going to do anything and we know it. My view of this is unchanged. We need a larger "not combative" presence in the region. Tap into folks desire to advance and spend money there on infrastructure and not on destruction. 

We "know" it?

Do we "know" that Trump/Bolton won't do anything?

Trump has increased the economic squeeze on Iran and now set trip wires all over the Middle East.

You think no one is going to trip them in Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Yemen or the UAE?

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 05:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think military action is much more likely in Venezuela than Iran.  I think Trump is putting the screws to Iran at the behest of the Israelis and the Sauds.  He's also destroying what many considered Obama's greatest accomplishment.  For Trump this is win/win.  That said, I think Trump would be fine with Iran continuing to waste away under sanctions.  Now, this could all go out the window if some idiot, on either side, makes a huge error and starts a firefight.

That seems to be the point of expanding the notion of "national interests" to "American interests in the region, including our allies interests."

The pretext for military action has suddenly been expanded, and not limited to Iran.

Also, if Israel feels free to strike Iran, as they seem to, it's not clear what would hold Trump back. Kelly, McMaster, and Mattis are gone . . . .

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2019, 09:15 AM)Dill Wrote: That seems to be the point of expanding the notion of "national interests" to "American interests in the region, including our allies interests."

There is literally nothing new about this concept, it's been the norm since the Kennedy administration. 

Quote:The pretext for military action has suddenly been expanded, and not limited to Iran.

You'll have to expand on this point a bit.

Quote:Also, if Israel feels free to strike Iran, as they seem to, it's not clear what would hold Trump back.  Kelly, McMaster, and Mattis are gone . . . .

It certainly wouldn't be the first time.  As for an Israeli strike bringing on a US response, it would be very situationally dependent.  In any event I fall back on my previous point, that being Venezuela is a far greater concern at the moment.  You oust Maduro and you eliminate a Chinese and Russian toehold in the Western hemisphere.  

[jj22]

Something tells me his Iran and Policy is like his NK AND Russian policy. Getting schooled by a dictator.

At least he hasn't professed his love for him, just to get made a fool of like in the Russian/NK situation where Putin and Kim has ran mental relay around Trump.

[Dill]

(05-07-2019, 11:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: That seems to be the point of expanding the notion of "national interests" to "American interests in the region, including our allies interests."

There is literally nothing new about this concept, it's been the norm since the Kennedy administration.

Quote:The pretext for military action has suddenly been expanded, and not limited to Iran.

You'll have to expand on this point a bit.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time.  As for an Israeli strike bringing on a US response, it would be very situationally dependent.  In any event I fall back on my previous point, that being Venezuela is a far greater concern at the moment.  You oust Maduro and you eliminate a Chinese and Russian toehold in the Western hemisphere.  

Last point first. I was not suggesting an Israeli strike might bring on a US response, rather pointing out the US appears to be preparing to do what Israel has done, perhaps standing in for Israel.  

I will try to respond to the previous two points at once--first with an overview of what has passed for "normal" in US ME policy, and then expanding on Trump/Bolton's "expanded pretext" for military action as a contrast, a "new normal" so to speak.

At the most general level, administrations all sound rather the same: their foreign policies would promote peace and protect democracy, defend the homeland and US interests. Add support for Israel and you have, at its most general level, every administration's Middle East policy since Nixon.

But the devil is in the details, especially in how "National interest" and those of our allies, are defined as vital or secondary . E.g., in the 50s, the "Eisenhower Doctrine" justified military aid to Arab Muslim nations to check Soviet influence. In practice his FP criss-crossed alliances, backing Britain in the coup against Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, but backing Egypt against Britain and France during the 1956 Suez crisis, then backing the Maronite Lebanese president against Egypt in the 1958 Lebanon crisis.  Defending U.S. interests did not include permanent bases anywhere but Turkey (Incirlik). Israel and Egypt were not getting billions in yearly aid.  US carriers were not continuously present in the Mediterranean, Gulf or Red Sea.

Fast forward to the end of the Cold War, past Bush I to Clinton. In 1999, Egypt and Israel together are sucking down 5 billion in aid per year. The US has a massive airbase in Qatar, a naval port in Bahrain, and some 30,000 troops on three bases in Kuwait. The FP focus is on containing Iraq and preventing Iran from getting WMDs via sanctions. Military action is still for the most part second to diplomacy.  The only kinetic actions-- are a strike against Sudan and US planes empowered to engage targets between 1991-2003 in the Iraqi northern and southern no-fly zones, though Clinton's FP goals still prioritize diplomacy.  Were problems to flare up in Syria or Yemen or Qatar--even with Iran--diplomacy would come first.

On Obama's watch, the goal was to disentangle from the ME and pivot to Asia. Though a stable Iraq was in our national interest, there was great reluctance to re-intervene there, or to meddle in Syria. (Hence the readiness to accept Putin's proposal to rid the county of chemical weapons rather than missile strikes.)  There was a rear guard effort to keep Saleh in power in Yemen with aid and drones. Not a vital interest. The Iran Deal was designed to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions with the carrot of economic prosperity rather than the stick of military force. There was no general policy for application of "unrelenting force" as a first option anywhere.

But the Trump/Bolton Iran policy now empowers a range of US forces to intervene directly in a number of countries where they suspect Iranian action. The job of the carrier force is "to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force."  Not diplomacy. The language is analogous to that used in creating the above-mentioned no-fly zones in Iraq, only expanded now to cover most of the Middle East, with US forces poised to strike in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Gaza, the Gulf, and Iran itself. "'... if those actions take place, if they do by some third-party proxy, a Shiite militia group, the Houthis or Hezbollah, we will hold the Iranian leadership directly accountable for that,' said Pompeo."

This policy appears to be in the process of 1) redefining national interest such that a rocket attack on Israel from Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza, or could be met with "unrelenting US force" against the latter and/or Iran. And 2) devolving the power to engage from theater to operational level, so that commanders themselves can decide if and when to strike.

It is thus, at once, expanding the geographic scope of potential engagement while lowering the legal/political/diplomatic bar for it. So far as I am aware, this resolution to address a wide variety of threats to Israel and Saudi interests with immediate military response normally expected of their own military has never existed before--even during the 1st Fulf War.

(PS: I guess it's ok if we meddle in others elections while complaining when others meddle in ours, but I don't find it plain that interfering in Venezuelan elections is a priority, given the mass of manpower and treasure current directed to the ME.)  

[jj22]

Republicans won't be happy until they get their war with IRAN. Much like IRAQ, but it was a different era and easier to drum up war especially after 9/11 even though those terrorist came from Saudi Arabia.

They'll get their war with Iran one day. But in this day in age, it's taking longer than it did to get Americans behind a war with Iraq.

Both like Iraq, war with Iran has always been on Republicans wish list. It's just a matter of time.

[Dill]

(05-07-2019, 05:24 PM)jj22 Wrote: Republicans won't be happy until they get their war with IRAN. Much like IRAQ, but it was a different era and easier to drum up war especially after 9/11 even though those terrorist came from Saudi Arabia.

They'll get their war with Iran one day. But in this day in age, it's taking longer than it did to get Americans behind a war with Iraq.

Both like Iraq, war with Iran has always been on Republicans wish list. It's just a matter of time.

Neocons have always wanted war with Iran.  Traditional Republicans less so.

One thing that bothers me about this is the white paper floated once at the NSC which discussed "cheap" war with Iran which would not risk any American lives. The implication being use of tactical nukes.  

[Dill]

Looks like Bolton is getting his wish now.

Iran Issues 60-Day Nuclear Ultimatum
Countries must return to old terms or agree to a new deal or Iran will begin nuclear enrichment at dangerous levels, its government warned Wednesday.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2019-05-08/iran-issues-60-day-nuclear-ultimatum-in-response-to-trump

Iran on Wednesday said it will walk away from the international deal governing its development of nuclear materials and potentially nuclear weapons if it does not receive new terms for a new agreement within 60 days.

The threat regarding its stockpiles of excess enriched uranium and heavy water amounts to an ultimatum for the five countries and the European Union that remain a part of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal, brokered during the Obama administration but which President Donald Trump has taken steps to dismantle.

Unless the original signatories of the agreement are able to agree on a new arrangement that would lift new U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran's oil and banking sectors, Tehran warns it will keep its excess stockpiles of materials used in nuclear reactors and would begin producing them at higher levels – something its foes, including Israel, have said they will not allow to happen.
...............................................................................................................................................................

Will all the signatories go along with this?  What if they band together against the US?  Will the US REALLY impose sanctions on France, Britain, and the EU??  Add to sanctions already on Russia.  Impose sanctions in China amidst trade negotiations.

Hard to predict what will happen. But if ALL these countries say NO to the US and YES to Iran, US diplomacy is effectively broken.

If they agree, it will be with great resentment. They will have to re adjust their economies and bit the bullet again--because . . . Why?  Trump wanted to blow up the Iran Deal and Bolton wants war with Iran?

[Dill]

Thought it a good idea to post a view from "the other side" of Trump's Iran policy.

Understanding the Surge in Tensions with Iran
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/iran-tensions-american-foreign-policy-sanctions/

Iran’s recent threats and alleged plans to attack U.S. interests reflect the success of President Trump’s maximum-pressure strategy on Iran. U.S. sanctions have isolated Iran and deprived its ruling mullahs of funds to spend on the military, terrorism, and meddling in regional disputes. The sanctions also have caused Iran’s oil exports to drop to about 1.3 million barrels a day, down from 2.8 million before the U.S. left the JCPOA. Iran’s oil exports probably will drop much further due to the Trump administration’s recent decision to end all exemptions to U.S. oil sanctions. Iran’s economy is expected to shrink by 6 percent in 2019 after having shrunk 3.9 percent in 2018. Inflation could reach 50 percent this year.

At the same time, President Trump remains open to dialogue with Iranian leaders. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a list of twelve U.S. requirements for a new agreement with Iran on nuclear and regional issues in a May 2018 speech at the Heritage Foundation. So far, Iranian officials have shown no interest in dialogue with the U.S. and are sticking to hostile rhetoric to divide and threaten America.

While a new agreement that addresses the full range of threats from Iran is not on the horizon, the current maximum-pressure strategy has yielded many important achievements, including delegitimizing Iran’s nuclear program, strengthening America’s relationships with Israel and the Gulf states, and repairing the damage done to these relationships by the Obama administration. President Trump’s Iran policy has also revived longstanding U.S. policies to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles worldwide.

The bottom line: terrorist and blackmail threats from Iran are not going to save Obama’s fraudulent nuclear deal or deter the U.S. from standing up to Iran’s ruling mullahs.
...................................................................................................................................................................

If the recent "threats" from Iran are real and a response to Trump's return of sanctions, the US counter-response of increasing pressure is framed as "defense" here.

The goal of trashing the Iran deal and ratcheting up the economic pressure and military threats, then, is to get a new Iran Deal which addresses their continued missile development.

This policy has a certain virtue and clarity, in that it is likely to produce a dramatic change in US Iranian relations in the near future, and in the Gulf balance of power.

If the result of that dramatic change is regime change in the liberal direction, or even a "better" Iran Deal, Trump's policy should be judged successful then.

If the result is war, involving not just US, Israel and Saudi vs Iran, but also escalating to a wider regional conflagration involving Iran's proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza, then it is hard to predict what the result might be, but fair to say the risk is great that that result will not favor the US.

But as I say, the virtue of Trump's approach is that it is likely to produce a clear result, one way or the other, before the end of the year. Before the election.