On Iran policy, Donald Trump is following the Barack Obama playbook

One of Donald Trump’s major — and accurate — criticisms of Barack Obama was that his predecessor had become predictably soft enforcing foreign policy threats. No matter what he vowed, opponents knew Obama wouldn’t carry them out.

Recall his notorious unfulfilled red-line threat on Syria’s use of chemical weapons against civilians, a gaffe he later blamed on Congress until Russian President Vladimir Putin helped him save face.

Trump said it would take time and tough, prolonged follow-through for the next president to rebuild credibility in U.S. foreign policy, especially the threatening parts.

Surely aware that any new foreign military engagement would threaten his reelection, almost three years into his first term, Trump is now following pretty much Obama’s path of restraint.

If Trump was a student of history, he would know that in 1964, the U.S. was drawn into the long, bloody Vietnam conflict by alleged North Vietnamese attacks on two destroyers in international waters. If Trump was looking for a reason to retaliate on Iran, he’s had ample choices from a series of provocative actions.

These include Iran shooting down a $130 million U.S. surveillance drone in June. Trump reportedly ordered a retaliatory strike against radar and missile batteries. Attack aircraft were said to be in the air when the president canceled the attack. In 2011, Iran electronically hijacked an American drone. Obama refused to destroy it on the ground, and Iran reverse-engineered the craft to build its own.

In a way, Trump’s atypical disinterest in escalation is understandable. Threats by any U.S. leader are closely watched, and Trump’s unpredictability makes that inspection even more intense. Unpredictability can be good when dealing with the other side in real estate deals and diplomacy. Not so much with U.S. allies, who are realistically by definition less important to a superpower than they are to it.

Trump has built no deficit in threats. So much so that many of us routinely devalue them as the New Yorker shooting from the lip once again. That’s dangerous in foreign policy.

Absent a crisis, foreign affairs usually play a minor role in presidential elections, which clearly have become Trump’s main focus. The ongoing Vietnam War and protests forced Lyndon Johnson to abandon reelection in 1968. The 9/11 attacks and their aftermath propelled George W. Bush’s Republican Party to historically atypical congressional gains in 2002, while the Iraq war mess and troop surge launched Nancy Pelosi into the House Speaker’s chair in 2006.

The ongoing U.S-Iran confrontation could potentially play a crucial role in these next 51 weeks, either as a sign of diplomatic success (unlikely) or another empty show that Democrats will cite as evidence of the blowhard’s ineffectiveness (guaranteed).

All presidents learn the easy options are gone by the time decisions reach the Oval Office. With the departure of National Security Adviser John Bolton, one might guess Trump’s inclinations would be less hawkish. Hopefully, secret harassing cyberattacks continue on military and nuclear weapon facilities.

Trump has taken a hard line verbally and economically. He yanked the country out of Obama’s nuclear accord and imposed a series of economic sanctions that have become presidents’ favorite phony tools to feign firm action. There have been so many sanction announcements in recent times that some wonder who or what else could possibly be left to sanction.

Sanctions do sound good and assertive for chief executives. But they hardly have a sterling record of success. North Korean leader Kim Jung-un opted to talk with Trump but continues his missile development.

Has Russia given up Crimea annexation and support for insurgents in Ukraine? Or its spying on the West? How about Maduro in Venezuela? Is he still in the palace despite so-called strict sanctions?

Current Trump administration talking points on Iran get trumpeted by media, but they completely miss the point. Economic sanctions against Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last week, “are having a real impact, and we need to continue to press.” Oil sales have plummeted drastically. Inflation of the rial is soaring. Consumer shortages are increasing.

Pompeo also claimed that military supplies have run lower for Hezbollah and some Shia militias. “We need the world to recognize,” Pompeo added, “that this is a regime that is still the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.”

Exactly.

Hello! Damaging Iran’s economy was never the point of sanctions. That was only a mere stepping-stone. The real goal was to use a troubled economy to force the religious regime to halt its vast support for international terrorism and negotiate a new stricter nuclear treaty.

None of this has occurred. None. Ask Saudi Arabia if Iran has curtailed its terrorism as Riyadh repairs its major refinery after Iranian drone strikes.

And change is nowhere in sight. Iran demands that all economic sanctions be lifted before talks begin. That seems unlikely given Trump’s refusal to ease similar measures on North Korea pending final denuclearization agreements. In fact, last week Iran announced acceleration of its uranium enrichment processing.

So for now, as far as Iran is concerned, we’re left with reliance on, well, something unpredictable happening.

This story was originally published November 12, 2019 at 5:00 AM with the headline "On Iran policy, Donald Trump is following the Barack Obama playbook."