“Do we want Iran to have a nuclear weapon or not?” asks Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a video making its way around the Internet. “The answer? No. So why is President Trump trying to make it easier for Iran to get a nuclear weapon?”
The remark, at once simple-minded and obnoxious, captures the thinking of many American liberals on the subject of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. It was the Obama administration, not its critics, that made it easier for Iran to go nuclear by capitulating to the regime’s every demand in exchange for empty promises not to pursue its weapons program.
Somehow Obama convinced himself that the United States could enter into a nuclear deal with the Iranian regime that depended in part on the good faith of that same regime, even as it continued to sponsor terrorism as a matter of policy and expanded its influence through destructive and destabilizing adventurism in the Middle East. This was the famous Obama policy of “decoupling”—accepting Iran’s stated aims without regard to its actual conduct.
Obama hoped—out loud—that by treating Iran as a would-be ally instead of a proven enemy, the Iranian regime would become the friend he longed for. It was a foolish and misguided gamble.
To the surprise of no one outside of the Obama echo chamber, Tehran’s behavior hasn’t changed: It’s still attempting to acquire nuclear materials and missile technology. It’s still refusing to give international inspectors full access to its nuclear facilities. It’s still aiding Bashar al-Assad’s brutalities in Syria. It’s still openly supporting terrorism. It’s still strengthening America’s jihadist foes.
When Donald Trump entered office in January, his administration took the more ordinary approach of considering the Iranian regime not as a duality but as a whole. On October 13, he refused to certify Iran’s compliance with the agreement, and we were encouraged to think the United States would no longer make the mistake of “decoupling” a rogue regime’s words from its actions.
Just a few days later, however, on October 16, the president was asked about clashes between the Iraqi army and Kurdish militias in Kirkuk. His answer caught our attention.
In September, the Kurds held a referendum on independence from Iraq. It easily passed, with 93 percent of voters approving separation. Thus far the Kurdistan Regional Government has not asserted statehood, but independence is in the air. Since the September vote, however, Iraqi forces have entered Kurdish territories, ostensibly to reclaim territory Iraq had lost to the Islamic State in 2014 but really to reassert control of oil-rich Kirkuk and drive out or silence its Kurdish government.
Now, Trump’s answer to the question about the clashes between Kurds and Iraqis: “We’re not taking sides, but we don’t like the fact that they’re clashing.” A moment later he reemphasized: “We’ve had for many years a very good relationship with the Kurds. . . . But we’re not taking sides in the battle.”
We should. There is an excellent case to be made that the prime mover in this conflict isn’t Iraq at all. It’s Iran. Consider: Qassem Suleimani, the Iranian general in charge of the Islamic Republic’s Quds Force, terrorist proxies that operate under Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was in Kirkuk to help the Iraqis plan their onslaught. So was Hadi al-Ameri, the Iraqi head of the pro-Iran Badr Organization. So was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, head of an Iraqi military force with close ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Many of the military units described as “Iraqi” in the media are, in fact, Iran-linked Shiite militias.
The Iranian endgame isn’t always apparent but in this instance seems clear: Tehran believes an independent, Sunni-majority Kurdistan cuts against its interest in establishing Shiite hegemony in the region. The violence perpetrated by “Iraqi” forces in Kirkuk goes far beyond Iraq’s stated plan to reoccupy oil fields and territory formerly held by ISIS: Kurds have been driven from their homes—entire neighborhoods have been cleared—and the Kurdish flag removed from government buildings.
This is Iranian meddling at its finest.
When Trump announced his new Iran policy earlier this month, he made clear that he would no longer separate the Iran deal from the nature of the regime at the center of it. He spoke of the broad threat from Iran in clear and compelling language, eschewing the moral ambiguity of his predecessor. And the policy followed the rhetoric: The administration designated the IRGC and four associated entities for their support for terror and involvement in WMD proliferation.
When President Trump says “we’re not taking sides,” he is doing just that; he is encouraging Iran to assert its malign influence and subvert a U.S. ally. We’re accustomed to seeing that sort of naïveté in the American and European media, and of course willful blindness was entrenched policy with the Obama administration. But we had just begun to hope for something better in Obama’s successor.
