{"id":9787,"date":"2019-05-23T08:49:31","date_gmt":"2019-05-23T04:19:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/?p=9787"},"modified":"2021-01-21T19:27:37","modified_gmt":"2021-01-21T15:57:37","slug":"trumps-retreat-the-end-of-mek-and-regime-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/posts\/9787","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s Retreat the end of MEK and Regime Change"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Trump suddenly reverses course on Iran, says there is \u2018no indication\u2019 of threats<\/strong><\/p>\n

Trump has no coordinated strategy on Iran \u2014 and it\u2019s obvious.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

President Donald Trump spent the last week talking up possible military action against Iran, discussing the number of troops that would be involved, and threatening that war would mean the \u201cofficial end of Iran.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Monday, he suddenly reversed course, claiming that there was \u201cno indication\u201d of threats from the country that would require such a response.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019ve been very hostile. They\u2019ve truly been the no. 1 provocateur of terror,\u201d Trump told reporters as he left the White House, before saying that there was, in fact, no threat. \u201cWe have no indication that anything\u2019s happened or will happen, but if it does, it will be met, obviously, with great force. We will have no choice.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a huge about-face from his own tweet on Sunday, in which he wrote, \u201cIf Iran wants to fight, that will be the end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!\u201d<\/p>\n

A few days before that, Trump said he would send a \u201chell of a lot\u201d more than 120,000 troops to the Middle East to counter Iran, referring to a New York Times report on an updated military plan should Iran attack U.S. forces or resume nuclear fuel production that it suspended under the 2015 nuclear agreement.<\/p>\n

Experts say the mixed messages have to do with the administration\u2019s lack of a coordinated Iran strategy in general.<\/p>\n

\u201cI oscillate between thinking the administration is being quite clever, and almost demonstrating irrationality in order to scare the Iranians into not doing anything stupid \u2014 or at least that\u2019s what they think they\u2019re doing \u2014 or just genuine total cluelessness, which is what I tend to lean towards,\u201d said Dina Esfandiary, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School\u2019s Belfer Center and the Century Foundation\u2019s Middle East Department.<\/p>\n

\u201c[Trump] wants to sound threatening and wants to basically demonstrate that the U.S. \u2026 will stand up to Iran, that the maximum pressure campaign is working,\u201d Esfandiary said. \u201cBut he wants to do it up until the point where there\u2019s a war, and he definitely wants to avoid war, to \u2014 I think \u2014 [National Security Adviser John] Bolton\u2019s great dismay. I tend to lean towards that being the explanation for why there\u2019s so much back and forth, they want to take them to the cusp of war and then basically reign it in and be like, \u2018Wait, no actually, at the moment there\u2019s no threat.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said the back and forth has to do with the fact that the administration \u201chas not made up its mind on what it wants to get from its Iran policy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump withdrew from the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), last year. He called it a \u201chorrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,\u201d ignoring the fact that it was a multilateral agreement also signed by the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, and Germany. Since then, Trump has reimposed sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the deal and designated the country\u2019s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat is clear is that by this stage the Trump administration had hoped that the historic sanctions would have brought the Iranians back to the table for a new set of talks,\u201d Vatanka said. \u201cThat hasn\u2019t happened, that\u2019s unlikely to happen, and this new reality is creating an urgency for President Trump and his team in terms of Plan B.\u201d<\/p>\n

In his statement to reporters on Monday, Trump indicated that he would be open to negotiating with Iran. \u201cIf they called, we would certainly negotiate, but that\u2019s going to be up to them,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

But complicating any negotiations, said Vatanka, are two issues: Trump\u2019s withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the administration\u2019s set of 12 demands that must be included in any future deal with Iran. Shortly after Trump\u2019s withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced this list of requirements, which includes demands that Iran stop all uranium enrichment entirely and give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) \u201cunqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country.\u201d (The IAEA has already repeatedly verified Iran\u2019s compliance with the 2015 agreement.)<\/p>\n

\u201cThe problem with finding a Plan B is that it kind of could really amount to an uncomfortable position that the Trump administration has to adopt \u2026 You\u2019ve got on the one hand the option of escalating, which I don\u2019t think President Trump wants to do, for obvious reasons with his reelection in mind and the promises he has made in the past about getting out of wars in the Middle East,\u201d Vatanka said. \u201cAnd number two is to \u2026 deescalate, bite the bullet, which could be obviously humiliating. That isn\u2019t a President Trump-style item.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNeither side has given the other side much room to maneuver,\u201d he added. \u201cOn the U.S. side we have those 12 points, demands. And on the Iranian side the idea that Trump has to come back to the nuclear agreement before they talk to him\u2026 The real challenge right now, given that neither side wants to go to war, how do you find something you can talk about? It has to be something small, it has to be something that both sides can say, \u2018Well that just makes common sense, we don\u2019t want accidental war, maybe we should create some sort of a back channel.\u2019 It remains to be seen what they can actually talk about.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, talk of war is also coming from Trump\u2019s allies in Congress. Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said last week that Iran could be defeated with just \u201ctwo strikes.\u201d Cotton is a supporter of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that both Iran and Iraq consider a terrorist group and that the United States did as well until 2012, and\u00a0 has been a vocal advocate of regime change inside Iran.<\/p>\n

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has also called for regime change in the past, said Monday that Trump should \u201cstand firm\u201d against Iran and referred to a briefing from Bolton that revealed Iran \u201ccreated threat streams against American interests in Iraq.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bolton has repeatedly called for regime change inside Iran \u2014 and was an architect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq \u2014 and Trump is reportedly growing frustrated with him.<\/p>\n

Several U.S. officials told The Washington Post earlier this month that Trump is not convinced that now is the right time to attack Iran and is frustrated with Bolton and Pompeo\u2019s Iran strategy.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey are getting way out ahead of themselves, and Trump is annoyed,\u201d one senior administration official told the Post. \u201cThere was a scramble for Bolton and Pompeo and others to get on the same page.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lack of a strategy could end badly, said Esfandiari.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe only thing [this strategy] is doing is it\u2019s worsening the situation, in terms of increasing the risk and likelihood of either miscalculation or accident leading to actual military confrontation, and it\u2019s not working internally in Iran,\u201d she said. \u201cBecause if the point is to foster some kind of regime change, well, all Trump\u2019s maximum pressure campaign is doing is unifying the public behind its government and even unifying the system within Iran. Because like any other normal country, when you tend to have an external enemy, people tend to unify behind the flag.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIncreasing the maximum pressure campaign, using sanctions as much as possible, threatening war, to them, it seems to be working,\u201d she continued. \u201cBecause you know, when they talk about it \u2026 they seem to allude to the fact that we\u2019ve reduced Iran\u2019s oil imports, the Iranian economy is being severely squeezed, all of which is true.\u201d<\/p>\n

She added, \u201cBut again, as an analyst of international relations, you want to ask them, \u2018Okay, but to what effect? What are you trying to achieve?\u2019 And as soon as you ask people supportive of the policy that question, then the answer can begin to get a little bit more confused.\u201d<\/p>\n

By Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani,\u00a0Think Progress<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Trump suddenly reverses course on Iran, says there is \u2018no indication\u2019 of threats Trump has no coordinated strategy on Iran \u2014 and it\u2019s obvious. President Donald Trump spent the last…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":7529,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[79,90,20],"module":[81],"ctype":[17],"blog":[109],"class_list":["post-9787","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-mujahedin-khalq-proxy-force","tag-mujahedin-khalq-declining","tag-mujahedin-warmongers","tag-third-view-mek","module-article","ctype-story","blog-western-bloggers"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9787","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9787"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9787\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7529"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9787"},{"taxonomy":"module","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/module?post=9787"},{"taxonomy":"ctype","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ctype?post=9787"},{"taxonomy":"blog","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nejatngo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/blog?post=9787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}