"Smart" Diplomacy

The Iran Nuke Deal is in shambles but the administration dare not admit it.  Like Louis XV of France, Obama is expecting the deluge to come after he is safely out of office.  Either President Trump or President Clinton will have to address Iran's clear violations of the terms of the agreement, which is probably bad news in either case.  Obama has undermined US credibility by his failure to carry out threats regarding his redline in Syria.  A new president, whoever it is, will need to carry out some attacks before mere threats of force can modify behavior again.

 

Trump has shown a desire to limit US engagement overseas or, failing that, monetize our involvement.  You want US forces, you pay for US forces.  There's the for-profit business man thinking.  However, he will not browbeat Netanyahu on a regular basis and probably let the Israelis act against Iran.  In fact, it is possible that Trump will demand that regional powers start policing their own backyards.  That may sound good to many but that only confirms the withdrawal from the world that Obama has started.  Do we want a democratic America influencing countries around the world or totalitarian regimes like Russia and China?

 

Hillary is likely to stick with the Obama head-in-the-sand approach for as long as she can.  Partly because, as a Democrat, she would be inclined to stick with her predecessor's approach so as not to undercut Obama's signature diplomatic achievement.  Oddly enough, Hillary is the more hawkish candidate.  She lobbied for the attack on Libya and she was a proponent for more engagement in Syria.  While in the Senate, she voted for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  As such, she is more likely than Trump to use force against Iran but it will be limited to airstrikes, much like her husband.  Bill was averse to using ground forces but dropped bombs on three continents.  Unfortunately, the airstrikes will be more for media/public consumption than stopping Iranian misbehavior, not unlike Obama's bombing campaign against ISIS.  Therefore, unlike Obama vs. Iran, Clinton vs. Iran will involve sound and fury.  However, Obama's and Clinton's policies will both lead to the same end: nuclear armed Iran.  Unlike Trump, she will not be keen on letting regional powers act unless it is with US approval and leadership.  Thus, either we do it or no one does.

 

At this point, the odds are very high that Iran will test a nuclear weapon in the next 10 years and lead to a regional arms race.  Something similar is already underway in Asia where Japan and South Korea are allying against the continued belligerence of a nuclear armed North Korea.  However, US presence in Korea has kept talk of a nuclear arms race to a minimum.  As a state sponsor of terrorism, what are the chances that the Iranians give a nuclear device to a terrorist organization?  Much too high!