September 18, 2018
Iran Hawks Could Make a Bad Situation Worse
More pressure on Tehran won’t work. Here’s what Trump should really do.
One of U.S. President Donald Trump’s chief foreign-policy objectives is to persuade or force the Iranian government to abandon policies that pose a threat to U.S. interests—namely, the country’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs as well as its support for terrorists in the region. To this end, the administration has pulled the United States out of the nuclear deal achieved under President Barack Obama, reimposed sanctions on Iran, and undertaken a pressure campaign to try to force Iran back to the negotiating table to strike a new bargain.
In its efforts to cajole Iran, however, the United States could be making a mistake if it assumes that more pressure will automatically bring it closer to its goals. Particularly when it comes to measures aimed at Iran’s nuclear program, more pressure could heighten nuclear risks and further drive a wedge between the United States and its European allies.
In the months leading up to and since Trump’s announcement that he was pulling the United States out of the nuclear deal, many Iran watchers have taken to the pages of prominent foreign-policy outlets, including this one, to argue for or against the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal and provide recommendations for what the United States should do next. Advocates of the tough approach, such as Mark Dubowitz of the Federation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the Council on Foreign Relations’ Ray Takeyh, see economic sanctions and political isolation as critical to achieving a new, better deal or compelling the regime to change its policies by other means.
Although some experts, such as Dubowitz and his FDD colleague Richard Goldberg, have offered specific suggestions, there doesn’t appear to be a consensus on what sanctions and isolation should entail in practice. In addition, such observers have paid relatively little attention to how the United States should execute what will likely be a yearslong campaign of maximum pressure aimed at a new deal while mitigating the risks of Iranian nuclear advances and further provocations that such a strategy will likely produce. In essence, observers may be losing sight of the broader objective and thus offering some counterproductive ideas.
Read the Full Article at Foreign Policy
More from CNAS
-
Transatlantic Security / Middle East Security
Migration Can Provide the Manpower for European DefenseThis article was originally published in Foreign Policy. Europe faces parallel challenges that policymakers have yet to connect: a pressing military recruitment shortage and a...
By Adham Sahloul
-
Iran: Trump’s Next Target | One Decision
Is the US on the verge of military intervention in Iran? Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, reveals why he believes a US strike is "likelier than...
By Richard Fontaine
-
Russia Is Taking Advantage of the Destabilized Globe
On tonight’s episode of W News with Catalina Marchant de Abreu, we cover the biggest stories from Davos and beyond. Donald Trump launched his new “Board of Peace” at the World...
By Rachel Ziemba
-
U.S. General Says Iran Is in a ‘Bad Place’ as Protesters ‘Rise Up’
CNAS board of advisors member Ret. Gen. Philip Breedlove joins ‘Fox & Friends Weekend’ to weigh in on Iran’s mounting instability, the regime’s response to demonstrations and ...
By Philip Breedlove
