French President Emmanuel Macron is a man on a mission: to avoid war between the United States and Iran, two countries that have been adversaries for 40 years.
Macron’s ambitions are grand but entirely appropriate given that just a few months ago President Trump was prepared to order a limited strike against Tehran in response to the Iranian downing of a U.S. surveillance drone. If it wasn’t for the president’s wise last-minute decision to pull back and reassess, Washington and Tehran could have very well gone down a road toward an all-out conflict neither country truly wanted.
Macron’s diplomatic initiative was always a long shot, particularly when senior security officials in the Trump administration — former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Iran envoy Brian Hook to name the three most prominent — virulently opposed a sit-down with an Iranian diplomat. But Macron’s gambit apparently went further than most of us predicted.
According to new reporting from the New Yorker’s Robin Wright, Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani were a phone call away from speaking to another directly during last week’s UN General Assembly session. A secure phone line was installed in one of the hotel rooms, but the day came and went without the two talking.
The U.S. and Iran have been playing a game of diplomatic poker for well over a year. Both sides continue to one-up the other, pushing more chips toward the middle of the table and hoping the other will be frightened enough to fold their cards. The Trump administration’s maximum pressure strategy includes inflicting as much financial pain on the Iranians as possible until they throw up their arms and capitulate to U.S. demands. It has had dramatic short-term impacts on Tehran’s economy — but absolutely no long-term effect on Iranian foreign policy.
Indeed, if there has been any effect on Iranian foreign policy, it has been in the opposite direction; more aggression in the Persian Gulf, more advanced centrifuges installed, and more enriched uranium produced. Tehran has countered Washington’s maximum pressure strategy with a maximum resistance strategy of its own. We are in an escalation cycle, where Washington’s pressure only convinces Tehran to redouble its investment on resistance.
Leaders on both sides understand that the situation needs to be defused before mutual escalation turns into mutual confrontation.
Trump has wanted to meet with Rouhani for years, reportedly extending invitations through third-party intermediaries a number of times during his presidency. Rouhani has expressed his willingness to talk with the Americans again if certain conditions are made, such as the lifting of the economic sanctions the Trump administration has enacted since withdrawing from the nuclear deal last year.
Wright’s reporting suggests that there is a deal to be had if both leaders replace old habits and chart a course towards a new beginning. It may sound fanciful given the institutional forces in both countries, but there is nothing in the U.S.-Iran relationship that says antagonism needs to be permanent.
Those of us recommending diplomacy with Iran are frustrated because the solution is so obvious. In return for the Trump administration relaxing the sanctions or at the very least reissuing the oil import waivers Washington shut down earlier in the year, Iran would reverse the nuclear actions taken over the last several months.
With Iranian crude exports back online, Tehran would have no incentive to muck around in the Persian Gulf and sabotage oil tankers passing through. The situation would be stabilized to a degree, theoretically opening up an opportunity for both to begin engaging in a more comprehensive discussion.
The solution is here to be had. We can only hope Trump and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei put aside their egos and get to work.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
