White House Watch: Is It Decertification Day for Iran?

It’s Friday the thirteenth, and it’s also the day President Trump will announce his administration’s new Iran policy. That will come in a speech from the White House at 12:45 p.m., and Trump is expected to announce he will decertify that the sanctions relief afford to Iran under the nuclear deal. This wouldn’t undo the deal—certification is a provision of a federal law governing sanctions relief—but it would put the administration on a path to either renegotiating the terms of the deal or, eventually, scrapping it—though Congress will now also have a say in the matter.

I say “expected to” because it’s not a guarantee Trump will follow through on what his top advisers and Cabinet members are preparing for. At the previous certification deadline in July, Trump made a day-of reversal before switching back, as Steve Hayes and I reported in this week’s issue:

On the morning of July 17, the day the White House was to transmit its decision to Congress, chief strategist Steve Bannon handed Trump an article with the headline “Trump Must Withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal—Now.” The op-ed, written by former United Nations ambassador John Bolton and published the day before in the Hill, made the argument Trump had wanted to make: Iran wasn’t complying with the terms of the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; the mullahs were advancing their nuclear program, ostensibly with America’s blessing; and the deal certainly wasn’t in the national security interests of the United States. “President Trump has repeatedly made clear his view that the Iran deal was a diplomatic debacle,” Bolton wrote. “It is not renegotiable, as some argue, because there is no chance that Iran, designated by Ronald Reagan as a state sponsor of terrorism in January 1984, will agree to any serious changes. Why should it? President Obama gave them unimaginably favorable terms, and there is no reason to think China and Russia will do us any favors revising them. Accordingly, withdrawing from the JCPOA as soon as possible should be the highest priority. The administration should stop reviewing and start deciding.” So right then, Trump changed his mind. The United States would not recertify the Iran deal, as he’d decided on July 12. It was time to move on. . . . At 4:15, Trump met with key members of his national security team—Tillerson, McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and others—to review the new policy. If the president thought he’d find support for decertifying, he was mistaken. Mattis and Tillerson urged the president to recertify the deal, arguing that an abrupt reversal would frustrate and anger our European allies. McMaster, who wasn’t a defender of the deal on the merits, argued for recertification on the grounds that the National Security Council hadn’t yet completed its comprehensive review of Iran policy. Trump was irritated but eventually gave in. The NSC signed off on the letter shortly before 7 p.m. and then sent its approved version to the State Department, which transmitted the letter to Capitol Hill under Tillerson’s signature. At 7 p.m., the long-delayed press briefing took place, and White House officials relied once again on the talking points that had been discarded at noon, only to be restored late in the day.

The White House has released a “fact sheet” documenting the new Iran strategy, which it says is “ the culmination of nine months of deliberation with Congress and our allies on how to best protect American security.” Here are what the administration considers its “core elements” of the new strategy:

  • The United States’ new Iran strategy focuses on neutralizing the Government of Iran’s destabilizing influence and constraining its aggression, particularly its support for terrorism and militants.
  • We will revitalize our traditional alliances and regional partnerships as bulwarks against Iranian subversion and restore a more stable balance of power in the region.
  • We will work to deny the Iranian regime—and especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—funding for its malign activities, and oppose IRGC activities that extort the wealth of the Iranian people.
  • We will counter threats to the United States and our allies from ballistic missiles and other asymmetric weapons.
  • We will rally the international community to condemn the IRGC’s gross violations of human rights and its unjust detention of American citizens and other foreigners on specious charges.
  • Most importantly, we will deny the Iranian regime all paths to a nuclear weapon.

One thing noticeably missing from the administration’s new strategy memo? A decision to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

Mark It Down—“I would just offer to you that although I read it all the time pretty consistently, I’m not quitting today . . . So unless things change, I’m not quitting, I’m not getting fired, and I don’t think I’ll fire anyone tomorrow.” —John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, who conducted Thursday’s press briefing, October 12, 2017

On Thursday President Trump signed an executive order—flanked by sometime-rival Rand Paul—instructing health-insurance regulators to loosen rules on the short-term insurance market.

“It directs the Department of Health and Human Services, the Treasury, and the Department of Labor to take action to increase competition, increase choice, and increase access to lower-priced, high-quality healthcare options,” Trump said at the signing. “First, we aim to allow more small businesses to form associations to buy affordable and competitive health insurance. This would open up additional options for employers to purchase the health plans their workers want. I’m also directing Secretary Acosta to consider ways to expand these associations and these healthcare plans all across state lines.”

Writing at National Review Online, Yuval Levin says this executive order is a “significant” step for providing relief for those in the individual insurance market who face steep hikes if market goes into a down spiral.

By itself, this executive order is rather less than meets the eye. It does not engage in actual deregulation or reform of any kind but rather calls upon the three relevant cabinet departments to begin the process of doing so. That process will have to involve formal rulemaking, which can take time. And the order is very vague about what steps new rules should take. And yet, I think the order is more significant than that, and much more significant than the very general executive order on health care President Trump signed in his first days in office, which simply stated general principles. This order sets up a process that could actually be fairly quick—proposed rules within 60 days and an expedited procedure for making them final after that. And it comes after some significant preparation by all three departments, so that rules could come much sooner than two months from now, and some could well take effect before the end of the year. This is not a symbolic exercise. Of the three elements taken up in the order, the expansion of association health plans seems on its face to be the most significant, and is so far being taken as such in much of the early commentary. But it actually seems to me that the expansion of short-term health plans could prove far more important. This is because that change in rules governing short-term plans would have a much more direct effect on the individual market, which is the core of Obamacare, and because it would have its effect much sooner than any changes in association health plans (or in health reimbursement arrangements) could.

Obamacare Watch—Meanwhile, Politico reported the Trump administration is preparing to cut out the monthly subsidies paid to insurance companies who cover Obamacare exchange plans. “Trump has threatened for months to cut off the payments, deriding them as a “bailout” for insurers. While Republican lawmakers complained the subsidies were never properly appropriated by Congress, many were wary of ending them suddenly,” writes Politico.

In response, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released a statement late Thursday night confirming the story. “Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare,” reads the statement in part. “In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments.”

Goodell’s Good Wife—National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell doesn’t have a lot of fans these days, but at least he’s got an important defender in his corner: his wife and her heretofore anonymous Twitter account. The Wall Street Journal has the scoop:

The Twitter account, under the name “Jones smith,” has no followers, no profile picture and has been virtually dormant for long periods since its creation in 2014. But @forargument has roared to life in the past few months, rising up to vigorously defend Mr. Goodell against perceived attacks on his handling of issues such as the national anthem protests by players…. Who is this valiant defender of a man who has so few defenders? It is Roger Goodell’s wife, Jane Skinner Goodell, the Wall Street Journal confirmed after an examination of the account.

Against “Data”-Based Redistricting—Take a few minutes to read a WEEKLY STANDARD editorial on the “gobbledygook” behind the latest effort by Democrats to shore up their electoral deficiencies outside of urban areas. The solution? Fixing partisan gerrymandering through the magic of political science. The editors have a different view:

“Gerrymandering is no guarantee: Partisan redistricting is mostly guesswork on the part of people with outdated and incomplete data. Nobody understands why voters plump this way or that way in an election, and nobody can predict it with anything close to accuracy. Even after the election’s over, claims by pollsters and consultants to understand what happened consist mainly of blind conjecture and pretentious balderdash. ‘Data analytics,’ remember, told Hillary Clinton’s campaign she could count on Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,” write the editors.

Read the whole thing here.

Song of the Day—”Join Together” by the Who.


Related Content