Tag: Iran
US strategy in the Middle East
The Center for American Progress held a discussion earlier today about the challenges, trends and setbacks of US strategy in the Middle East. The event began with US army commander for CENTCOM, General Joseph Votel, and broke out into a panel featuring Derek Chollet, a Counselor and Senior Advisor for Security and Defense Policy for The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Brian Katulis, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Linda Robinson, a Senior International Policy Analyst at the RAND Corporation, and Michael Singh, the Lane-Swig Senior Fellow and Managing Director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
General Votel listed three major areas of focus for the US strategy in the Middle East:
- Listen to what our partners in the region have to say.
- Reinforce and cultivate relationships with our regional allies.
- Maintain excellent communication with our partners.
With Iranian behavior becoming increasingly aggressive and destabilizing, we must reassure our allies that we will not abandon them. This, however, does not mean that we should cut off communication with Iran. In fact, communication with Iran should be maintained so we can better control our interactions with them.
In terms of fighting ISIS, particularly in light of the ongoing operation in Mosul, General Votel recommends that we maintain momentum and pressure on the group on all fronts. Elimination of ISIS is the ultimate goal for the US military right now. Fortunately, our military coalition campaigns have largely been successful. However, these campaigns need to go hand-in-hand with humanitarian and political solutions. They will be difficult to achieve, but they are absolutely necessary for lasting stability.
The panelists were invited to provide their insight on US strategy in the Middle East. They focused primarily on a report recently published by the CAP Middle East team. Katulis said the Middle East is still incredibly vital to the US, but our goals there cannot be accomplished alone. The new administration needs to increase trust with our traditional partners such as Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others. However, this should not be an unquestioning embrace of friendship, but rather it should be a friendship of increased communication and goal-sharing.
Robinson echoed this sentiment, but she also brought up that the US needs to bring its attention to non-state partners as well, such as the Syrian Kurds. She emphasized the importance of not relying too heavily on military solutions, but also integrating political and social solutions into the larger operational framework. Most importantly, the US needs to devise a reliable system of local policing for recently liberated areas. A lack of reliable policing is an “Achilles heel.” Perhaps the US and its allies need to formulate an international police force to provide interim policing services.
Chollet noted the US is perpetually in crisis management mode in the Middle East, which might not be in our best interests. The US and its partners do not necessarily share the same goals, so our cooperation with these actors needs to be examined closely. The next president should to step away from defining her/himself by what he/she accomplishes in the Middle East and concentrate on other issues.
Singh highlighted that the US strategy in the Middle East has often been solution-oriented when perhaps it should not be. Our goals should not be focused on solving conflicts or creating governments, but rather providing support when needed. The US shouldn’t “fix” the Middle East, rather it should simply ensure that things don’t get worse and that our allies have back up if they need it. The region, he argued, has a lot of potential if provided with the right support. If we work carefully and patiently with our regional friends, the Middle East could begin to thrive.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
He’s finished
There were a lot of things Trump said in this third presidential debate that I disagreed with and lots more that undermined his claim to have the temperament and judgment to be president. But the coup de grâce for his campaign was his refusal say he would accept the outcome of the election. Here is the suicidal candidate, making a mockery of American democracy the day after the debate:
It has long been apparent that Trump lacks liberal democratic values. Witness his claim that an American-born judge is biased because of his Mexican heritage. Witness his pledge to put Clinton in jail if he wins. Witness his willingness to accept the support of white supremacists and anti-Semites. Trump’s world is one in which white and male privilege is a good thing, taxes are for others to pay, and illegal immigrants are manual labor to be exploited and deported. He is a self-declared law and order candidate with no respect for equal rights.
None of his anti-liberal stances have much affected Trump’s attractiveness to something close to 40% of the electorate. He will get most of those votes, apparently no matter what. The Republican party, sadly, will be reduced not to its core principles of less intrusive government and more private initiative, but rather to arbitrary government power and no respect for individual rights. How they are going to get out of that trap I don’t know.
To win Trump would need more. That’s where he failed last night. And that’s where his refusal to make it clear he will accept the election outcome hurts him the most. He has no chance of extending his reach to independents without respect for the electoral process he is participating in. Failing that respect, he will also lose a lot of Republican voters who know that the election is organized at the state level, where Republican governors and legislatures have if anything been over-vigilant in their effort to prevent almost non-existent voting fraud.
On foreign policy questions, especially Syria, Trump was mostly incoherent last night. He continues to wish for a good relationship with Vladimir Putin, which is ironically an attitude Hillary Clinton initially took as Secretary of State, only to find that her “reset” was unsuccessful. Trump also continues to refuse to acknowledge that Russia is responsible for hacking American emails, something he has urged Moscow to do. Neither candidate had much to say about China, though Trump emphasized its unfair trade practices (against which Obama has been retaliating) and seemed to think the US could somehow approach its claimed growth rate of 7% (actually 6.7%, and no one seems to believe that figure).
Trump even promised 5-6% growth in the US, achieved by lowering taxes on the rich and vastly expanding government spending for infrastructure.
Lots of foreign policy issues went unmentioned: vast areas like Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, current crisis areas like Ukraine and Libya (though Trump mentioned the latter in connection with ISIS, which has been largely defeated there), North Korea, the pending trade pacts in Pacific and with Europe (TTP and TTIP to the cognescenti), Egypt and Israel…. I hardly need to mention that my readers’ favorite part of the world, the Balkans, did not make the cut.
ISIS was a big deal in this debate. Trump blames its existence on Clinton, which is clearly nonsense. Even if you think the American withdrawal from Iraq opened space for it and choose to ignore Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s contribution and the impact of the war in Syria, the agreement to withdraw and the timing were decided in the George W. Bush administration, not by President Obama or Hillary Clinton. Neither Trump nor Clinton offered much idea what they would do about ISIS other than what is already being done. Clinton said she would not put US troops on the ground to stabilize Mosul. Trump did not make that commitment but instead insisted that the attack on Mosul should have been a sneak attack.
He hasn’t got a clue. You can’t move tens of thousands of troops into place, carpet the civilian population with leaflets urging them to shelter in place or rise against ISIS, begin to soften up the defenses with air attacks and artillery, and prepare for the inevitable displacement of people by constructing shelters for them to live in without alerting the enemy that something is up. Trump’s knowledge of how war is fought seems grounded in playing Risk with his kids.
I’m not willing to see him play Risk with the United States. Nor it seems are most of the American people. It’s a shame the election isn’t today, but millions have already voted early and many more will do so in coming days. The only good thing that can come of Trump’s candidacy is a resounding defeat.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 17-21
- Elusive Peace in Colombia: A Conversation with Ambassador Juan Carlos Pinzon | Monday, October 17 | 2:00pm – 3:00pm | American Enterprise Institute | Click HERE to Register |
On October 2, Colombians rejected in a referendum a peace accord between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) through a national plebiscite. Proponents of the agreement said it was the only way to end the 50-year terror campaign plaguing Colombia and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Critics argued that it provided amnesty to human rights violators and that facilitating FARC’s political participation will invite narco influence and corruption into Colombia’s government and society.
Join AEI for a conversation with Colombian Ambassador Juan Carlos Pinzón about what the rejection of the peace agreement means for Colombia and the US, the hopes and concerns of the Colombian people, and the post-accord challenges the country will face. - National Security Law and the Legal Challenges of Terrorism | Monday, October 17 | 3:00pm – 4:00pm | Institute of World Politics | Click HERE to Register |
Andrew McCarthy will give an overview of terrorism law and an explanation for why neither the criminal justice system nor the military system is a good fit against international terrorism. Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and of planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is a contributing editor of National Review and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.
- Saudi Vision 2030: Opportunities and Challenges | Tuesday, October 18 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Middle East Institute | Click HERE to Register |
Saudi Arabia’s ‘Vision 2030’ is the Kingdom’s most comprehensive economic reform package in its history. Put forward by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, Vision 2030 aims to privatize entire sectors, raise non-oil revenues, cut subsidies, and streamline government services, among other reforms.
But the challenges are significant, including moving Saudi nationals out of the government sector and into private employment, employing higher numbers of women, and raising taxes. In the process, the plan upends the Kingdom’s long-held social contract, which guaranteed its citizens most of their needs in return for their support.
The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Conflict Management Program at the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host a discussion examining the economic and political implications of Vision 2030 with Hala Aldosari (Arab Gulf States Institute, ASGIW), Anthony Cordesman (CSIS), Fahad Nazer (AGSIW), and Jean-Francois Seznec(MEI and SAIS). Paul Salem(MEI) will moderate the discussion. - Turkey and the Syrian War, an EES Distinguished Lecture with Dr. Sonar Cagaptay | Tuesday, October 18 | 6:00pm – 7:30pm | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | Click HERE to Register |
The European and Eurasian Studies (EES) Program cordially invites you to join a presentation and discussion with Soner Cagaptay of The Washington Institute for Near East Studies on “Turkey and the Syrian War” on Tuesday, October 18, 2016, 6:00-7:30pm. The session will be moderated by European and Eurasian Studies Program Director and Professor Erik Jones.
- A New Strategy for Iran-US Relations | Wednesday, October 19 | 9:00am | The Atlantic Council | Click HERE to Register| Nearly four decades since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the United States has found itself at cross-purposes with Iran throughout the Middle East. Though the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to limit Iran’s nuclear program has reopened channels of communication between the United States and Iran, new opportunities for engagement must be measured against the ongoing threat Iran poses to US partners and allies in the region. Ellen Laipson, Atlantic Council distinguished fellow and president emeritus of the Stimson Center, presents her ten-year vision for tackling these complex challenges in A New Strategy for US-Iran Relations. On October 19, Michael Connell, director of the Iranian Studies Program at the Center for Naval Analyses, Atlantic Council board director Amir Handjani, and national security correspondent for the New York Times David Sanger will join Laipson for a discussion of this first regionally focused installment in the Atlantic Council Strategy Papers.
- Islamophobia: Overcoming Myths and Engaging in Better Conversation | Thursday, October 20 | 11:00am – 12:30pm | The Atlantic Council | Click HERE to Register |
Islamophobia is on the rise in non-Muslim-majority countries. It is worse today than it was in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, with no signs of improvement. Following the recent spate of global terrorist attacks, Muslims are increasingly portrayed negatively by the media. Furthermore, some US politicians and their European counterparts have proposed an array of policies – from policing Muslim communities to controlling the flow of refugees and migrants from the Middle East.
The role of national policy on civil rights protections is vital and now more important than ever before.
Join us on October 20 for a public discussion at the Atlantic Council, convened in anticipation of the Smithsonian’s opening of its international exhibition, ‘The Art of the Quran.’
Our distinguished group of panelists will address issues, including the media’s influence on shaping public perceptions of Islam and Muslims; the role policymakers can and should play in bridging the gap between Muslim and non-Muslim communities; and the role art and cultural institutions can play in shifting the narrative to a more inclusive and productive discussion. This panel will feature Karen Armstrong, author and Commentator on Comparative Religion, Vali Nasr, Dean, School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Zainab Salbi, Founder, Women for Women International and Best-Selling Author, and TV Host. Moderated by Frederick Kempe President and CEO of the Atlantic Council.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria’s future
It would be foolish to have much hope well into the sixth year of the Syria’s wars that Saturday’s meeting of the US, Russian, Iranian, Saudi, Turkish and Qatari foreign ministers will lead to a way out of the current impasse. But it is reasonable to ask what would make the meeting more than just one more boon to Lausanne’s luxury hotels.
The current situation is not propitious. Syria’s government is feeling confident as it rides a ferocious wave of mostly Russian and Iranian attacks on the opposition-held neighborhoods of eastern Aleppo, which it is “cleaning.” It figures the fall of Aleppo will be a tipping point leading to government victory in much of more populated Syria. The government has already negotiated an end to sieges of several areas near Damascus, transporting their populations in an effort to adjust their demography. President Assad has no intention of welcoming back the more than 7 million Syrians who have fled the country. He wants, and thinks he can get, a Syria over which he can restore his autocratic rule by violent means.
At this point, the only thing that would increase the likelihood of a negotiated diplomatic solution is a change in the military balance that threatens Assad. There are ways that might be accomplished without directly engaging Russian forces, which the Americans don’t want to do: stand-off attacks on the Syrian air force or on Hizbollah ground forces or giving more and better weapons to non-extremist opposition forces, to cite two examples. The Americans are hesitant to move in that direction for fear of hitting commingled Russians or enabling an extremist takeover. They have spent the last week or two pondering options.
Washington isn’t likely to do anything before Saturday, but if Secretary of State Kerry can go to the Lausanne meeting with an option to re-balance the military equation in his pocket he might be able to make some diplomatic progress. He needs a credible threat, one Moscow and Tehran feel they need to forestall, to get a serious cessation of hostilities. The beginning of serious talks on transition is likely a bridge too far. Iran and Russia have doubled and quadrupled down on their bets favoring Assad. They are unlikely to risk losing him, since any successor regime that is even remotely democratic would throw them out.
What happens if/when Aleppo falls? Assad will force the opposition adherents out, either leaving eastern Aleppo destroyed and deserted or repopulating it with loyalists. Will the government and its allies then turn its attention to Idlib, where there really are extremists (and infighting among them)? Or will they try to drive farther north to the Turkish border, risking clashes with Turkish and Turkish-backed groups advancing there?
Or will they be content to rest on their laurels? That seems unlikely. Many of us, including me, have underestimated Assad’s sticking power and his determination to retake territory. Now that he is on a roll, he won’t want to stop. Nor will the extremist and non-extremist forces leave him alone. I’m afraid more war rather than less is still in Syria’s future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 10-14
- Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum: Fragile States and Conflict Prevention Challenges | Tuesday, October 11th | 9.30am – 11am | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | click HERE to register
Approximately 1 billion individuals live in “fragile and conflict-affected countries” across the world. A fragile state is considered one in which a lack of governmental capacity leaves citizens vulnerable to a range of shocks, amongst which violence prevails. With a lack of funding for conflict prevention in fragile states, these countries are left without recourse. It is important to examine the lifesaving role conflict prevention can provide these countries as they move towards sustaining long term peace and social cohesion.
Join us on October 11th for an in depth discussion with two leading experts:
Nancy Lindborg, President, United States Institute of Peace
Ozong Agborsangaya-Fiteu, Senior Operations Officer, World Bank FCV
The discussion will be moderated by:
Daniel Serwer, Director of the Conflict Management Program, SAIS.
The experts will discuss their work in fragility, conflict and violence and provide recommendations for promoting peace in the most fragile segments of the world.
- The Current State of US-Russian Relations with Ambassador Kislyak | Tuesday, October 11th | 4.30pm – 6pm | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | click HERE to register
Dean Vali Nasr, The Foreign Policy Institute and the SAIS Russia-Eurasia Club cordially invite you to join Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the US, for a discussion on “The Current State of US-Russian Relations.” The conversation will be moderated by Ambassador Shirin Tahir-Kheli, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute.
Ambassador Kislyak currently serves as the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United States, and previously as the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2003 to 2008. Prior to that, he served simultaneously as the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Kingdom of Belgium and as the Permanent Representative of Russia to NATO in Brussels, Belgium, from 1998-2003.
- US Foreign Policy on Transitional Justice | Tuesday, October 11th | 5pm – 6.30pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | click HERE to register
The Human Rights Initiative invites you to attend a Book Launch and Conversation: U.S. Foreign Policy on Transitional Justice
Please join the Human Rights Initiative for the launch of U.S. Foreign Policy on Transitional Justice, (Oxford University Press, 2015) by Dr. Annie Bird. Featuring Keynote Speaker Stephen Rapp, Former Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, U.S. Department of State, and author Dr. Annie Bird
- RAND Study: ‘Money as a Weapon’ Works in Afghanistan | Thursday, October 13th | 10am – 11.30am | US Institute of Peace | click HERE to register
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are raising new debate on their complex mixing of military operations and relief and development work. This includes CERP, which U.S. forces in Afghanistan have called “money as a weapon system.” Last year the U.S. government’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction raised questions about the accounting for $2.2 billion in CERP funds. RAND experts Charles Ries and Daniel Egel have completed a study on the impacts of CERP projects in Afghan localities. Their research finds that CERP projects improved local economic conditions and security for Afghans, helped build U.S. forces’ rapport with local residents, and eventually led to reduced hostilities. The authors will discuss their forthcoming RAND report, “Investing in the Fight: Assessing the Commander’s Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan.”
Scott Worden – Director of Afghanistan, U.S. Institute of Peace
Ambassador Charles Ries – Vice President, International at RAND
Daniel Egel – Economist, RAND
Stephen Lennon – Director, USAID Office of Transition Initiatives
- The Middle East and the Next Administration | Thursday, October 13th | 1pm – 3.30pm | Middle East Policy Council | click HERE to register
Please join us for our 86th Capitol Hill Conference on Thursday, October 13th from 1:00 p.m to 3:30 p.m. Our panel will offer diverse perspectives on the challenges for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and opportunities for the next administration.
Speakers:
Chairman, Projects International Inc.
Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense
Former President, MEPC
President, Arab American Institute
Member, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Author of Arab Voices: What They Are Saying to Us and Why it Matters
Senior Fellow & Director, Middle East Security Program, Center for a New American Security
Former Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Former Iran Team Chief, Office of the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy
Former Special Advisor on the Middle East, Office of the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy
- State-Building and Economic Development in Palestine Without a Political Horizon: The Promise and Pitfalls | Thursday, October 13th | 2pm – 3.15pm | New America Foundation | click HERE to register
The possibility of relaunching meaningful peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians is remote given the political realities in both countries. The challenges facing states across the Middle East—civil conflict, refugee flows, and the threat posed by terrorism—have dominated the policymaking space to the exclusion of Israeli-Palestinian peace. The priority seems now to have become one focused on preventing violent extremism from taking root in Palestine, shoring up the Palestinian institutions of government and supporting economic development and opportunity for Palestinians until the environment is ripe for a comprehensive agreement.
On October 13, New America will host an expert panel from Al Shabaka—The Palestinian Policy Network—that will explore the promise and pitfalls of development and “economic peace” in the absence of a political horizon in the occupied Palestinian territory. The panelists argue that a focus on economic development should complement rather than be seen as a substitute for progress on the political front. They also examine efforts to nurture the Palestinian social, political, and cultural fabric as the occupation enters its 50th year.
Introduction:
Zaha Hassan, Esq. – Middle East Fellow, New America
Panelists:
Nur Arafeh – Jerusalem-Based Al-Shabaka Policy Fellow
Tareq Baconi – DC-Based Al-Shabaka Policy Fellow
Nadia Hijab – London-Based Al-Shabaka Executive Director
- A New Strategy for US-Iran Relations | Friday, October 14th | 12pm | Atlantic Council | click HERE to register
Atlantic Council Strategy Paper Series – A New Strategy for US-Iran Relations
A conversation with:
Ellen Laipson – Distinguished Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council
Michael Connell – Director, Iranian Studies Program, Center for Naval Analyses
Amir Handjani – Fellow, Truman National Security Project
The implications of the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran for the regional order could include prolonged instability and insecurity, but also new opportunities. Dynamic and innovative thinking on how regional and international stakeholders can help tackle present and future challenges and work toward a more secure and stable Middle East is very much needed. A New Strategy for US-Iran Relations, written by Ms. Ellen Laipson, Atlantic Council distinguished fellow and president emeritus of the Stimson Center, constitutes an important addition to this larger conversation. Dr. Michael Connell, director of the Iranian Studies Program and the Center for Naval Analyses, and Mr. Amir Handjani, board director at the Atlantic Council and Truman National Security Project fellow, will join Laipson for a discussion of this latest installment in the Atlantic Council Strategy Paper series.
The paper features a foreword by former US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and proposes a US policy towards Iran that carefully balances effective deterrence and containment measures with more proactive engagement, with the goals of reducing the prospects for military confrontation with Iran and improving the regional security environment. Laipson’s strategy rests on several policy themes: expanding diplomatic engagement, sustaining security cooperation, improving mutual understanding, clarifying economic and financial opportunities, and protecting the nonproliferation success. Notably, this is not a plan for navigating the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but rather is a forward-looking strategy document for the next decade.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria and Iran in the next administration
Election day is just a month away, but neither Mr. Trump nor Secretary Clinton have offered a detailed vision for the Middle East. With problems in the Middle East likely to grow in the next four years, it is important to consider what we should expect from the next administration regarding US foreign policy in the region.
The Brookings Institution tackled this question earlier today by asking two of its scholars what they hope to see from the next administration. Politico’s Indira Lakshmanan moderated a discussion between Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at Brookings, and Robert Einhorn, also a senior fellow at Brookings and former negotiator of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal).
O’Hanlon spoke primarily on Syria and how the US should begin to pursue a solution there. He said most Syrians despise Assad, especially the Sunni Muslims of the opposition, and therefore Assad cannot serve as a unifying force. O’Hanlon advocates a confederal model for Syria that is ruled by independent autonomous zones rather than a strong central government. The moderate opposition would need to be strengthened, trained, and armed by the US and its allies as a part of this plan, though we must make it clear to Assad and Putin that we are not doing so with the intention of creating an army to march on Damascus. While it is imperative that we create safe havens and no-fly zones, we need to be careful how we defend these zones, since the American public has no interest in seeing American boots on the ground in Syria.
Einhorn focused on the fate of the JCPOA under the next administration. He says that although the deal is not perfect, its effectiveness in curbing Iranian nuclear capabilities has been substantial. However, its longevity isn’t guaranteed—it has many opponents both in the US and in Iran, and if Rouhani loses the election next March or if Trump wins the presidency, the deal could be scrapped. The next administration should insist on strict compliance from Iran and continue to condemn Iranian actions not covered by the JCPOA, such as launching ballistic missiles and throwing its weight around in the region.
When asked who he thinks would be best suited to carry out his vision in Syria, O’Hanlon responded that neither candidate has fully thought out what to do in Syria. Obama’s plan for Syria has not worked. The next president will need to completely reevaluate the situation there. O’Hanlon also readily admits that his own vision for confederalism in Syria is ambitious and will take time to implement. But Assad cannot wage this war forever, and it is not the Russia’s interest to remain the enemy of the Sunni Muslim world—both parties will eventually need to compromise.
Einhorn said that Clinton would be the better president for our relationship with Iran. During his time as a JCPOA negotiator, Einhorn found Clinton to have a realistic view of Iran. She knew that this deal would not moderate Iran and that the US would need to continue to oppose Iranian aggression. Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t have a realistic view of the Iran deal. He says that he will renegotiate the deal, but in reality, he wouldn’t have the international support required to make a new deal, nor would he be able to get Iran to the negotiating table.
RSS - Posts
