The Dispatch
Share this post
From Maximum Pressure to Maximum Deference
thedispatch.com

From Maximum Pressure to Maximum Deference

Biden’s appeasement of Iran has let the regime become more brazen.

Richard Goldberg
Aug 6, 2021
31
42
Share this post
From Maximum Pressure to Maximum Deference
thedispatch.com

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken this week vowed a “collective response” to Iran’s drone attack against an Israeli-operated tanker off the coast of Oman that left one British and one Romanian citizen dead. But President Joe Biden and his administration would do better to pause for a moment of collective self-examination. After more than six months in office, Biden’s strategy of maximum deference toward Iran is failing miserably. 

At the outset of his presidency, Biden’s top national security officials asserted that by abandoning the Trump administration’s policy of maximum economic pressure, the United States could put Iran’s nuclear program “in a box.” They hoped to  persuade Tehran to negotiate a “longer and stronger agreement” to replace the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). But the JCPOA was never much of a box:  narrow, temporary accord that began expiring in late 2020 failed to account for the Islamic Republic’s undeclared nuclear activities, rein in its hostage-taking of American citizens, cease its sponsorship of terrorism or even curb its development of nuclear-capable missiles. As for the longer, stronger deal, it’s nowhere to be seen. Six months into Biden’s term, the results of his Iran strategy are already in. 

When the Trump administration left office on January 20, 2021, the Islamic Republic was closer to financial collapse than most people realized. According to the International Monetary Fund, the regime’s accessible foreign exchange reserves had declined from $122 billion in 2018 to just $4 billion by the end of 2020. Had U.S. sanctions been enforced and increased during the first quarter of 2021, the mullahs might have run out of hard currency. 

But that’s not what happened. Instead, the Biden administration stopped enforcing many of the most important U.S. economic sanctions on Iran—allowing Iran to drastically scale up its crude exports to China  while also issuing a presidential waiver to allow Tehran to use billions of dollars in once-frozen accounts to pay debts to creditors. 

If rescuing the clerical regime from a balance of payments crisis was not enough, Biden sent diplomats on a seemingly endless mission to offer Tehran a complete economic bailout—lifting all U.S. sanctions, even those imposed on banks and companies tied to terrorism and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard—in exchange for a return to the flawed JCPOA. Even more embarrassing for Biden, the Iranians refused direct talks. U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Rob Malley makes offers to European diplomats who then relay messages to the Islamic Republic in another room. 

During the presidential transition, when Iran knew that Donald Trump’s hands were politically tied, the regime began producing high-enriched uranium at 20 percent purity—that has long been a red line for the international community because it dramatically shortens Iran’s breakout time to a bomb. At the same time, Iran refused to cooperate with an investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into undeclared nuclear sites and activities within the country.

At the March 2021 IAEA board meeting, U.S. allies were preparing to censure Iran for its misconduct—a path that could ultimately lead the IAEA to refer Iran’s nuclear file back to the U.N. Security Council. The Biden administration objected to anything that could provoke Tehran and pulled its allies back. Since then, the clerical regime has increased its enrichment to 60 percent, announced it would produce uranium metal (another move toward potentially developing nuclear weapons) and began extorting the IAEA by withholding and threatening to destroy inspection tapes from key facilities. 

The president must face this unpleasant truth: Iran has vastly expanded its illicit nuclear activities on his watch. His policies of maximum deference, not Trump’s policies of maximum pressure, have allowed this. 

The same is true of Iran’s terror activities in the Middle East and around the world. Whatever level of military deterrence that the United States restored by killing Qassem Suleimani—the theocracy’s overlord of terrorism and paramilitary activities– in early 2020 has disappeared. In Iraq it’s been open season on U.S. forces for militias taking orders from Tehran.

Biden did nothing in response to a March attack on a U.S. base that resulted in the death of a U.S. contractor—encouraging Iran to escalate by ordering drone strikes on American positions for months. Instead of ordering a military strike against key Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders in Iraq to restore deterrence, Biden ordered two pinprick retaliations against militia installations along the Syrian-Iraqi border.

Attacks against Saudi Arabia by Iran-backed Houthis and against Israel by Iran-backed Hamas and Islamic Jihad did nothing to change Biden’s offering Iran a bailout. Nor did last week’s tanker attack or this week’s attempted tanker hijacking. 

But Biden’s most devastating decision thus far was to keep the offer of cash on the table for Tehran after the Department of Justice indicted four Iranians in a plot to kidnap an American citizen from New York City. This was an attempted terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland—a brazen scheme to snatch an American off American soil. If anything the Iranians have done over six months merited a final break from maximum deference, this was it. And yet, the response from the Biden administration was to reaffirm its commitment to rejoining the nuclear deal and lifting sanctions on Iran.

In an interview last week with MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan, Malley said, “America is less safe because Iran has a more expansive nuclear program and because it accelerated and intensified its regional activities,” due to the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign and the killing of Soleimani. 

Malley may be the most ideological of Biden’s senior advisors. But for those inside the administration who may be more clear-eyed—and certainly for Washington policy analysts and pundits—now should be a moment of reckoning for the precious time lost over the last six months.

Iran’s nuclear program is more dangerous today than it was six months ago. Iran’s terror activities are more aggressive and target Americans more frequently than they did six months ago. Iran’s terror proxies are more emboldened to attack American allies today than they were six months ago. These are facts—and they are the direct result of six months of maximum deference. 

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He served on Capitol Hill, on the U.S. National Security Council, as the governor of Illinois’s chief of staff, and as a U.S. Navy Reserve intelligence officer. Twitter: @rich_goldberg 

42
Share this post
From Maximum Pressure to Maximum Deference
thedispatch.com
42 Comments

Create your profile

0 subscriptions will be displayed on your profile (edit)

Skip for now

Only Dispatch Members only can comment on this post

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

Check your email

For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.

Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.

Paul Reichardt
Aug 6, 2021

This is a strange propaganda hit piece. If maximum difference was the intent, all Biden had to do was re-enter the terms of the 2015 JCPOA and lift all the Trump era sanctions. That was always an option on the table, no negotiations necessary. He didn’t.

From the article, the grave sins of Biden were apparently letting China buy Iranian oil, as if that were his decision to make. How was he going to stop two willing sovereign nations from engaging in trade and other commercial relations, especially China? Go to war with them? Grow up.

The other grave sin—the bit about Korea and Japan—is interesting as it illustrates a key weakness in the unilateral sanctions regime—they require economic coercion of friends and allies, which strains relationships and aren’t sustainable. After the 2015 JCPOA and the subsequent UNSC resolution, South Korea financial firms legally renewed several business interactions with Iranian-state affiliated companies and had up to $7B of Iranian assets by the time Trump tore up the agreement in 2018. He then asserted that Korea—likely to be a key ally against China in the coming years— had to snap-back those sanctions or else would be subject to severe penalties. The Koreans complained bitterly but eventually relented and seized the Iranian assets. A year or so later, a Korean oil tanker gets predictably seized in the Strait of Hormuz with its crew in tit-for-tat fashion by the Iranians. So now Korean politicians have a publicly visibly crisis on their hands—either for getting bullied by the Americans or for not standing up to the Iranians. Either way, its a conflict the Koreans didn’t ask for, so they make some sort of side-deal and their crew is released unharmed. Biden later lets those terms go into effect without repercussions because he, unlike hawks, understands the value of healthy relations with friends and allies. A sanctions regime is only as good as how it is enforced—American-imposed sanctions are not legally binding on sovereign nations you can’t twist the arms of friends and allies forever to get them to cooperate. Eventually the house of cards comes down.

We heard a similarly vacuous piece from Ms. Pletka a few months back that Biden was so eager to get a deal done he couldn’t even wait two weeks of for the then-June elections to take place and recalibrate. There’s still no new deal—did she admit her error? Has any neocon come back and admitted being wrong or remorse for their 30 years of promoting disastrous policy wherever it was implemented? No answers needed. Thanks to the Iraq war, Iran gained an unhindered path to becoming a regional hegemon which is now inevitable. Thanks to maximum pressure and the perennial bleating about regime-change, Iran is now going to be a nuclear one to boot. Failure after failure.

Expand full comment
ReplyCollapse
15 replies
Token Liberal
Aug 6, 2021

The original agreement had flaws, mainly in that it enabled Iran to instigate more trouble in the region. The Trump policy had flaws, mainly that it encouraged Iran to get closer to having nukes. The Biden policy is flawed because they want to curtail both bad activities and Iran won't agree. Maybe all of these policies are flawed because Iran is a hard line bad guy in all of this? As the generals like to say, the enemy gets a vote. Also flawed, this column, which is just more Republican Party propaganda.

Expand full comment
ReplyCollapse
1 reply
40 more comments…
TopNewCommunity

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2022 The Dispatch
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Publish on Substack Get the app
Substack is the home for great writing