Donald Trump arrived in the White House in 2017 with few firm convictions or in-depth knowledge about America's security challenges. But he did have instincts about policy that could have led him in two different directions, especially with respect to Iran.
On the one hand, the U.S. president is something of an isolationist at heart – and not just because he choose the "America First" slogan for his foreign policy, one that resonated with the toxic debates about U.S. intervention in World War II. Trump's belief the Iraq War was a disaster, combined with his opposition to "nation-building" in the Middle East, made it obvious that he wouldn't countenance involving the United States in a war over anything but direct U.S. interests.
On the other hand, his equally strong distrust of the foreign policy establishment is such that, more than any other president in memory, he is inclined to view the traditional U.S. approach to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as well as the attempt by the administration of his predecessor Barack Obama to deal with the Iran nuclear threat as catastrophic mistakes.
That's why the debate over who will be to blame if the United States somehow becomes embroiled in a war with Iran is not simply a matter of the administration's critics lambasting the president's alleged blundering or incompetence. In such a debate, a scapegoat must also inevitably be found that can be accused of influencing Trump to make the choices he has made.
And that is where Israel enters the story, even though the claim that the Jewish state would be responsible for a possible war is not only false, but a dangerous attempt to foment hate.
Any confrontation so fraught with peril might lead to a miscalculation with unforeseen consequences. But neither country wants such an outcome.
Trump doesn't want to preside over a war. More importantly, despite recent threats to the contrary, the Iranians have an even greater incentive to avoid war with the United States. Iran could not win any conflict that involved open hostilities with the United States, and of even more concern to the ayatollahs, such a confrontation would likely spell the end of Tehran's Islamist regime. And since the ayatollahs care deeply about the preservation of their theocratic tyranny, war just isn't in the cards.
More importantly, the idea put forward by Obama under the Iran nuclear deal that America has only two possible options with respect to Iran – war or appeasement – is wrong. That was the talking point endlessly shoved down the American people's throat during the debate over the 2005 agreement by the pliant media former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes aptly referred to as the former president's "echo chamber."
But that has always been a fabricated choice.
By withdrawing from the nuclear pact and reinstating crippling sanctions on Iran, Trump has, in effect, turned back the calendar to 2013, when Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry began conceding point after point in nuclear negotiations that ultimately led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That agreement let Iran keep its nuclear program and allowed restrictions on its enrichment program to eventually expire in exchange for a temporary halt to work on a nuclear bomb. That made it a virtual certainty that Iran will acquire the bomb. The deal not only enriched Iran but empowered it to escalate its support for terrorism, an illegal missile program and its quest for regional hegemony.
Trump's critics thought that the reimposition of sanctions would be a flop. But Trump's sanctions have had a devastating impact on Tehran, restricting their ability to fund terror. Some, like Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who have engaged in a Twitter tirade pretending that the nuclear deal dealt with all the problems that Trump is trying to fix, have in fact revealed the disingenuous nature of the opposition to this administration's Iran policy.
Iran is doing its best to bluster and bluff its way out of the corner Trump has forced them into. Those who treat such threats as credible are doing Iran a favor. As long as Trump doesn't back down, the inevitable result isn't war, but rather the much-needed fix of the nuclear pact that has been necessary ever since Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that they would pay any price for a deal. Trump has offered Iran an exit ramp from its dilemma via new talks, and those Westerners, like Kerry, who are offering them advice should tell them to take it.
Still, that hasn't stopped some on the far Left and the far Right from claiming it was Israel that persuaded Trump to get tough on Iran. That argument is rooted in the same canards floated by Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan), who contend that Israel and its supporters have bought Congress' support and that the Trump administration is undertaking actions in the interests not of America but the Jewish state.
Israel has a stake in the conflict with Iran. But so do Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all of which are more fearful of the Iran that Obama bolstered than the Israelis. As much as Trump doesn't want war or nation-building, it didn't take Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's eloquence to persuade him to seek to stop Iran. It was because this is the only rational course the United States can take if it seeks to realize the goals Obama claimed he sought to but did not accomplish.
The danger here is not only that Iran might think it can evade accountability for its rogue behavior by waiting until Trump is no longer in the White House, but that it will miscalculate and assume Americans won't stand behind the administration on an issue where it seeks to rectify an inherited problem. Even worse, those who think Israel's supporters are unduly influencing Trump are fueling toxic traditional anti-Semitism, as well as providing undeserved support for a regime that Americans of all political stripes should wish to see brought to its senses – and perhaps, to its knees.
This article is reprinted with permission from JNS.org.
