Trump’s approach to policy was obviously just “undo everything Obama did.” In the foreign policy realm, some people hilariously tried to articulate a “Trump Doctrine”, which I saw as putting lipstick, false eyelashes, stiletto heels, and a $10,000 Versace dress on a pig. People who pretended that Trump’s policy choices followed some profound logic were like a modern artist who fills a kiddie pool with bottle caps and tartar sauce and says: “It’s a comment on the Information Age.” Fuck you, we all see what you’re doing. Stop trying to trick people.
Trump’s most consequential policy choice might end up being his decision to “rip up” the Iran Deal in 2018. Since he did that, Iran has made significant progress towards a bomb. Biden restarted talks, but they’ve stalled. That’s mostly because Iran has a new hard-line government, though it certainly doesn’t help that, since the US is no longer a party to the treaty, we are literally not in the room; the parties negotiate and then European diplomats walk down the street to tell us what happened. Which, as anyone who’s ever played “telephone” knows, is a great way for “uranium enrichment will stop at four percent” to turn into “your anus is a pup tent that’s hot sauce for peppermint.” So good luck unraveling that, Antony Blinken.
It didn’t need to be this way. We had a deal that was working; now, we’ll be lucky to get back to where we were six years ago. Some people who cheered when Trump rejected the deal now feel that was a mistake. It’s worth taking a look at where we are and thinking about the mistakes that brought us here.
Probably the most important metric in the 2015 Iran Deal (or “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” if you want to be a twit) is “breakout time”. Breakout time is how long it would take Iran to build a bomb if they decided to do so. This is important because the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows Iran to have a civilian nuclear energy program, so they’re allowed to have nuclear-y stuff laying around. Of course, no-one thinks Iran’s nuclear program is about energy, partly because they hid what they were doing; it’s like we came into Iran’s house, found a sex swing, and they said “uh…Pilates.” A longer breakout time means that, if Iran broke from the NPT, we’d have more time to respond to keep Iran from getting a bomb.
The deal lengthened Iran’s breakout time in several ways. First, it limited how enriched Iran’s uranium could be; uranium for a bomb needs to be enriched to about 90 percent fissile purity — what I’ll call “absinthe potency” — but the deal limits Iran’s uranium to 3.67% purity, a.k.a. “light beer potency”. Second, the deal capped the amount of enriched uranium Iran can have to 300 kilograms, which is…um…look, I’m an American, so I don’t know anything about metric measurements. 300kg could be an amount small enough to put in your pocket or big enough to sink an ocean liner, I really don’t know. The point is: 300kg is much less than Iran originally had or would currently like to have.
The deal also limited Iran’s ability to produce new material. Some of the most important provisions related to Iran’s research facility at Fordow, which is dug into a mountain and therefore very difficult to bomb (should anyone have that idea — cough! — Israel! — cough!). The deal requires that Fordow be converted to other uses, specifically: They’re going to turn that thing into a Jimmy John’s.1 You can see why many people thought this deal as a win for all sides!
What Iran got in return was for all sanctions relating to their nuclear program to be lifted. The whole thing was overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it was widely agreed to be working; on the eve of Trump’s annulment of the deal, the IAEA confirmed that Iran was in compliance. But Trump spurned the deal in a horrible, horrible example of a politician doing what he promised to do.
Trump’s main objection was the dumbass “we should have gotten a better deal!” argument. I’ve written about this before; any politician anywhere can respond to any deal struck by an opponent by saying “if I’d been in charge we would have gotten way more and wouldn’t have had to give up anything!” It’s unfalsifiable, because the person who wasn’t in charge wasn’t in charge. Except in this case, we have something close to a falsifiable test, because Trump scuttled the Obama deal with the explicit intention of striking a better deal of his own.
Trump — egged on by Mike Pompeo and much of the conservative foreign policy apparatus — wanted to significantly expand the scope of the deal. First, he sought to make the deal permanent; provisions were scheduled to start falling away in 2024, and the entire deal would be gone by 2031 (unless a new deal was struck). Second, Trump wanted an agreement restraining Iran’s ballistic missile program. Third, he wanted Iran to stop supporting militant groups abroad. Trump didn’t have much of a strategy to achieve these goals, but the strategy still got a name: “Maximum Pressure”. Which sounds for all the world like a mid-90s LL Cool J album.
If Trump had achieved these goals, there would have been a torrent of He’s A Tyrant But He Makes The Trains Run On Time columns. That is, after all, the traditional argument for an undemocratic leader: You sacrifice control but gain a leader who gets results. And if Trump had gotten everything he wanted, that would have been impressive. But Trump got nothing that he wanted. There is no deal on ballistic missiles. Iran is as big of a regional menace as ever. Far from being extended, the nuclear deal basically expired early. If the argument for dictatorship is that you trade choice for competence, then what’s the argument when the leader is completely incompetent? “He’s a tyrant, and the trains don’t run on time, and in fact there are several head-on train collisions every day, but hey: At least a state sponsor of terrorism is much closer to getting a nuclear weapon!”
Here’s where we are now: Iran has blown past the 300kg of 3.67% enriched uranium they were allowed under the deal; they now reportedly have 5,000kg. Their uranium is also more potent: They’ve enriched some up to 60 percent purity, far beyond what’s needed for generating power. The Fordow facility is up and running, and they’re making highly-enriched uranium, not Beefy Black & Bleu subs. Under the deal, Iran’s breakout time was estimated at around a year; the Institute for Science and International Security — or “ISIS”, as they do not like to be called — recently estimated Iran’s breakout time at “as little as three weeks”.
This is a colossal fuckup. Several former opponents of the deal in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government — that is, people who don’t exactly have reputations as Iran-loving peaceniks — have said that Trump was wrong to withdraw. That includes Netanyahu's former Mossad chief, his Defense Minister, and Israel’s top military commander, the last of whom called the withdrawal “a net negative for Israel: It released Iran from all restrictions, and brought its nuclear program to a much more advanced position.” To which I say: “בלי חרא שרלוק”, which Google Translate tells me is Hebrew for “no shit, Sherlock”.
When Biden came into office, Hassan Rouhani — who signed the deal in 2015 — was still President of Iran. It would be a stretch to call Rouhani a “liberal”, but think of him sort of like Joe Manchin: He is, without a doubt, the most liberal guy you’re going to get representing that place. Talks resumed, and as of a few months ago, the parties were said to be “between 70 and 80 percent” of the way to a new agreement. But, in June, Iran elected a new, hard-line government. Of course, “elected” should be in scare quotes — the vote was widely considered to be rigged. Still, the US withdrawing from the deal probably helped hard-liners; under the deal, moderates could claim to have delivered peace and prosperity, but when Trump re-imposed sanctions, moderates looked like whoever the Iranian equivalent of Neville Chamberlain is (which might still be Neville Chamberlain — that guy’s reputation is truly awful).
Now, Iran’s Ayatollah-approved government is in talks and asking for the moon. They’ve mostly refused to discuss their own activities, they want an immediate lifting of all sanctions — including ones not related to nuclear activities — and they want a promise that the next American president won’t shred the deal. That third request is adorable — I say we give it to them! It’s almost like a three year-old asking for a rainbow for Christmas; I’m so smitten by the innocence that I’m tempted to just say “okay” and worry about the consequences later.
A nuclear Iran would make the world more dangerous. People debate what Iran would do with a nuclear weapon — some say they’d just use it for leverage — but no-one argues that they’d do anything good with it; they’re not going to use a nuke to bring Christmas to Whoville or reunite the Talking Heads. A nuclear Iran would also probably ignite a Mideast nuclear arms race, which is a phrase I like about as much as “expired clam juice enema”. In the absence of a deal, the only way to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be military options, all of which involve brutality, uncertainty, and handing the biggest gift to Iranian hard-liners since beard detangler.
Negotiations over a new deal are on life support. It’s not impossible that Biden and our partners will salvage something — Iran still wants the sanctions lifted — but prospects are grim. Reinstating the 2015 deal would represent an outrageous success, but even then, Iran has gained know-how that can’t be rolled back. I fail to see how anyone, at this point, could credibly argue that Trump ripping up the deal was anything other than a massive mistake.
Much has been made of the extent to which Trump represents a unique threat to American democracy. Which, of course, he does. But probably not enough has been made of the fact that many of Trump’s policy views reflect the brain rot that afflicts the Republican Party, writ large. Trump’s claim that the Iran deal was the “worst deal ever” was only a minor heightening of the view held by many conservative pundits, most Republican political leaders, and every major Republican presidential candidate except Jeb Bush and, to a lesser extent, Jon Kasich and Rand Paul.
Trump is a massive policy-making liability because he actually believes the bullshit he hears on Fox News. He’s not smart enough to engage in the time-honored tradition of presidents pretending to believe something stupid to get elected and then not actually doing the stupid thing once they’re in the White House. A responsible president, when faced with reality, will cravenly backtrack on his self-serving lies. That’s called “leadership”.
It’s frustrating when a person buys into a false narrative; it’s disastrous when a policy-maker does it. Trump’s reflexive aversion to all things Obama — which was shared by virtually all of conservative media — plus his unfounded confidence in his negotiating skills made it certain that he’d by into the myth that a much better deal was achievable through bluster and “toughness". We spend a lot of time these days thinking about threats against liberal democracy, and rightly so. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the damage that can be done through good ol’ fashioned horrendous policy choices caused by a distorted view of the world.
No, not a Jimmy John’s. But it does have to be converted to other uses.
We Really Fucked This Iran Thing
Don't know about you, but I considered it a gigantic success when Trump didn't just give away South Korea to Kim Jong-un (which is how "Young'un" is spelt in Korean, I believe).
"What?! Truman accepted Japan's surrender?" Fuck that, I'm dropping two more A-bombs!" said Eisenhower never.