By John Erath
For a President who prides himself on skill in deal-making, Donald Trump is proving really bad at it, especially as seen in his efforts toward Iran. There was no effort to frame the issue as a problem to be solved, such as the need to limit nuclear capabilities. Instead, by beginning negotiation then abruptly initiating attacks, in effect skipping most of the process, the Trump administration has undermined its credibility and made any resolution more difficult. This is particularly evident in the administration’s failure to define its aims for the current attacks on Iran. Where there would typically be a goal set for a decision to enter conflict, the object of the latest round of hostilities remains unclear. Is it regime change, ending Iran’s nuclear program or some other modification of behavior that the President is after? More than a week into the action, the desired end state is unknown.
The lack of clearly articulated goals is significant. In standard diplomatic practice, one states one’s desired outcome, then makes a case for why it would be in the interest of all parties to reach it. This can include both benefits from cooperative behavior and negative consequences from refusal to comply. In the current case of Iran, we are seeing only the consequences without a clear purpose. Without the U.S. stating a preferred outcome, it will not be possible for Iran to take any steps that could lead to an end of the violence. To put it in terms more familiar to the President, how could one build a real estate empire without saying what property one intends to acquire?
As of March 6, the President said the means by which the military action would conclude was “unconditional surrender.” This was immediately conditioned on Iran having leadership approved by the White House, so the fundamental problem remains. This is not Venezuela where a change in leadership was set as a goal. It is unclear what must be achieved, created or destroyed for the bombing to end.
In theoretical terms, the conflict between the U.S. and Iran is a case in which the President has decided to employ a common diplomatic tool, a threat, without a defined purpose. Normally, a government employs such means in the form of “do x, or else y,” as in “give up your nuclear weapons, or we will impose sanctions.” For this strategy to be effective, both x and y must be clearly understood, so that the target government can weigh whether or not compliance would be preferable to maintaining its course. U.S. attacks have another negative effect. If threat-based diplomacy is not accompanied by a credible off ramp, there is no incentive for the target state to change its behavior. In Iran’s case, it would have more reason to limit its nuclear capability if it had confidence such a step would mean a halt to military action. Without knowing what the U.S. goal is, Iran’s people must assume the worst, and only extreme steps, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons, can save them.
The alternative should be a deal, supposedly the President’s forte. Providing a path to an alternative to conflict is Diplomacy 101, and it has worked with Iran in the past. In 2015, Iran accepted restrictions on its nuclear program to escape sanctions. Although that particular deal has been criticized for its temporary nature, the basic structure, providing a means to avoid a negative outcome, could be a model for a diplomatic solution, once the necessary step, defining a goal for U.S. military action, has been taken. A President who is good at deals should know this.
