On second acts – The Economist:
‘Occasionally, there are second acts in American diplomacy. During his first term as president, Donald Trump abandoned the nuclear deal agreed on in 2015 by Iran and world powers. He went on to pursue “maximum pressure”, a policy of crippling sanctions meant to compel Iran into a stricter agreement. It was only half successful: though the sanctions battered Iran’s economy, Mr Trump left office without a deal.
Now he may get another chance.’
(…)
‘Analysts think that tougher American enforcement could block up to 1m bpd of Iranian exports. That could halve Iran’s oil revenue at a time when its budget deficits are already soaring. What is more, Mr Trump might be able to avoid a big spike in American petrol prices: the International Energy Agency, a global forecaster, predicts an oil-supply glut of more than 1m bpd in 2025. The market could probably absorb the loss of some Iranian crude.
Still, the effect might be temporary, since Iran has built a resilient network to defy American sanctions. And so the question is what America wants to achieve through sanctions—which are meant to be a means, not an end.’
(…)
‘The problem, of course, is that diplomats have tried to negotiate some of these provisions in the past. Iran refused. This is where advocates of maximum pressure think Mr Trump is their secret weapon: he could threaten to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails, and he might seem crazy enough that Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, would take him seriously.
Mr Khamenei may not, though. After a year of back-and-forth missile attacks between Iran and Israel, many conservatives in Iran would be reluctant to negotiate away their nuclear programme. The supreme leader himself may not want to be flexible with the man who in 2020 ordered the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, Iran’s most feared commander.
Instead he could try to call Mr Trump’s bluff. He knows that the incoming president does not want a war with Iran and that some of his allies are keen to disengage from the Middle East in order to focus on China. Rather than a comprehensive agreement, Iran could propose a limited one that simply pulls its nuclear programme back from the threshold. It could offer to get rid of its stockpile of 60% uranium, either by blending it down or shipping it outside the country, and to cap enrichment once again.
This would be hard for Mr Trump to defend, a far weaker agreement than the one he abrogated in 2018. But inconsistency never troubles him.’
(…)
‘The kingdom has also tried to distance itself from Israel. Until the war it was considering normalising relations with the Jewish state. But at a conference in Riyadh earlier this month Muhammad bin Salman, the crown prince, condemned Israel not only for its wars in Gaza and Lebanon but also for its recent air strikes on Iran. “Our policy is not based on ideology but on reality,” says another Saudi diplomat. They worry that Mr Trump might want them to cut ties with Iran and have urged the new administration not to shatter their fragile detente. With the Middle East mired in an ever-widening war, no one is in the mood to take risks.’
Read the article here.
Inconsistency never troubles Trump, he loves it.
And risks? Who knows. Bomb them into submission if all other means fail.
Yes, Trump want to convince the world that he is the great peacemaker, but the need of vengeance can take possession of him when the peace doesn’t arrive on time.