All the Rhetoric
We’ve heard from both “sides”. One side claims that the Obama Administration gave $150 Billion to Iran to finance terrorists around the world. The other side cries that the Trump Administration is impulsively risking all-out war in the Middle East to destroy Iran. The reality is that both Presidents have a clear view of how they wanted to handle the “Iran Problem”.
Let’s clear a couple of the issues up. The Trump Administration didn’t act “impulsively”. We just recently learned that Iranian General Soleimani was targeted months ago by the top Administration leadership, led by then National Security Advisor John Bolton. Rather than an “impulse” decision by the President, it was a decision already made, simply waiting for the opportunity to be implemented.
And the Obama Administration didn’t “pay” Iran $150 Billion. Iran did get $1.7 Billion from the United States, much of it in cash, as Iran was banned from the world banking system. That money was principal and interest on $400 million in Iranian money, already paid by the Iranian government to the United States for weapons before the 1979 regime change. The weapons were never delivered. Iran also got access to their assets frozen throughout the world banking system by American sanctions. That Administration at the time estimated that amount to be about $56 Billion.
Iranian Action
Iran has been a “bad actor” on the world stage for the past thirty years. Shia religious leaders overthrew the US backed regime, led by Shah Reza Pahlavi, in 1979. Those leaders, called Mullahs, believed in a strict view of Shia Islam, and wanted to see Shia’s throughout the Middle East empowered.
One of their first actions was to encourage Shia revolts in Iraq. Shias are the majority in Iraq, but the dominant governing party was Sunni, led by Saddam Hussein. From 1979 to 1989 Iran and Iraq fought a conventional war, costing half a million lives. After the end of that war the Iranians opposed US intervention in the Middle East, starting with the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Direct opposition to the United States was difficult. Conventional war, when troops meet in traditional battles, was a losing proposition for the Iranians. Instead they chose to encourage “asymmetric” attacks, financing local militias throughout the Middle East to further their interests against the US, Israel, and the Sunni stronghold of Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah in Iraq and Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and the Yemeni rebel forces are all financed and supplied by the Iranian regime.
But Iran also wanted to have a more conventional base of military power. The Mullahs wanted nuclear weapons, and in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s made a lot of scientific advances in pursuit of a “bomb”. Iran is in many ways a modern nation, with a strong base of educated scientists. Iran not only worked in nuclear issues, but also became adept in the new battlefield of cyber warfare.
Carrots and Sticks
The Obama Administration divided Iran’s conduct into two parts. They determined that the first part, building a nuclear weapon, was the most immediate threat to world stability. So the Obama Administration worked to get Iran to delay their nuclear development. It was a two-pronged approach: the world sanctioned Iran, making it difficult for Iran to get goods in, or sell their main product, oil. This strangled the Iranian economy, and also limited the amount of materials they could get to further their nuclear goals.
With that “stick”, the Administration offered a “carrot” to the Mullahs. Come to the table and negotiate over nuclear development and there was the possibility that the sanctions might be lifted, and Iran could participate in the world economy. From the Iranian side, this was an important “carrot”. Iran continued to have a modern society despite the draconian theocratic regime. Iranians wanted a modern economy with modern goods.
So for two years the United States, China, Russia, United Kingdom, France and Germany negotiated with Iran. In 2015 they reached an agreement, the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”. In return for delaying nuclear research and development for at least ten years, Iran was allowed partially back into the world economy. Part of that deal was the controversial financial payment made by the US government.
In the meantime the US and Iran actually cooperated in defeating a threat to both: ISIS. Using the philosophy of “…the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” both Iranian backed militias and US backed forces allied to stop the ISIS Caliphate incursions into Iraq, and ultimately to destroy its base in Syria.
The JCPOA was never seen as a final document. It was the first step in a three-step process. The second phase would address the “asymmetric” military actions of the Iranian government and their support of the various militias. The third phase would be a final resolution ending Iran’s nuclear possibilities.
But the Obama Administration was over before the second or third phases began.
Maximum Pressure
The Trump Administration came in with a totally different concept. They had no desire to “deal” with Iran on a co-equal basis. Instead, they wanted to apply “maximum pressure” on Iran, first through increasing economic sanctions, then through indirect military pressure. Their belief is that the Iranian people will not continue to support the theocratic regime if they are forced to suffer under draconian sanctions.
The first move was to withdraw from the JCPOA, and institute even stricter sanctions. In addition, the US began to increase support for Saudi Arabia’s fight in Yemen, pitting Saudi’s surrogates in battle against Iranian surrogates. And the United States doubled-down on support for Israel, backing harsh Israeli actions against Hamas protests in Gaza, further Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and moving the symbolic US Embassy to Jerusalem.
It was all part of the plan, to pressure Iran economically, and force them to defend all of their far-flung militia-allies throughout the Middle East. The US hope was that either the Mullahs would come to the negotiating table again, this time in a much weaker position. Or, even better, the Iranians would overthrow the current regime.
Seen in this light, the assassination of the Iranian General in charge of the entire militia program is not quite such an aberration. It’s just one more increase in the pressure.
Who’s Right?
It’s hard to figure which strategy will work. It took two years to negotiate the JCPOA, only the first step in a long process. On the other hand, the “maximum pressure” strategy has raised world tensions, and allowed Iran to begin nuclear development again.
But both strategies are more than just “knee-jerk” reactions, and both ultimately have the same goal: to end Iranian nuclear development and support for extremist militias. The election of 2020 will determine who gets to find out if their plan works.
