Donald Trump clearly has a disdain for multilateral deals. Observing his first minute strike on the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12 nation free-trade block and his constant vitriol for other multi-nation deals gets one wondering on whether these re-negotiations could lead to isolation in an inter-dependent world.
However, nothing has taken centre-stage as the Iran deal, which Trump has vowed to scrap. Now, this is where we might be getting it completely wrong. First, there is the complexity and delicacy of relationship between the other signatories to the deal. The JCPOA (as the Iran deal is formally known) was negotiated by the US alongside Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK and EU with Iran, of which at least three nations will refuse to allow any reversal, leave alone scrapping. Bullying or even overtly hostile posturing could have immediate isolation on this deal for the US, something that the businessman in Trump understands well.
Secondly, after the Obama regime, in which US-Israel relations plummeted to new lows, Trump has an easy task in Jewish appeasement. Obama’s diplomatic rebuke of Israel in his term set the relationship bar very low, allowing Trump to win over the powerful lobby with just posturing for the time being. At Trump’s inauguration ceremony and ball, three key leaders of the Jewish settler movement were invited as honoured guests. David Friedman, a staunch right winger and pro-settlement votary is the US’ newly appointed ambassador to Israel. Trump has also made announcements around moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Thirdly, Iran is the single most important major market that’s made a splash in an otherwise slowing global economy. A major market that’s suddenly placing orders for cars, heavy equipment and airplanes and selling oil at pre-sanction levels of 3.8 million barrels per day cannot be sanctioned any more, effectively.
However, Israel could play an interesting role in the hands-off approach the Trump administration might want to adopt with Iran. Netanyahu has already spoken about “tightening the noose” around Iran, which could see Israel re-engage aggressively with Hamas. Given a choice between acting against Iran or its proxies, the Trump administration might choose the latter through Israel.
Any minor transgression from the terms of the JCPOA or aggression by Iran in the Persian Gulf could see severe admonishment, but nothing more. A position paper by David Friedman in the last few days of the Trump campaign reveals the cautious approach of the Trump think-tank to the Iran deal. “The US must counteract Iran’s ongoing violations of the JCPOA regarding Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons and their noncompliance with past and present sanctions, as well as the agreements they signed, and implement tough, new sanctions when needed to protect the world and Iran’s neighbours from its continuing nuclear and non-nuclear threats,” the paper said.
Mark the words, “tough new sanctions when needed”. Sanctions, just not immediate, but “when needed”. Trump would have too much on his hands to be frustratingly engaged with Iran in the short or long run.
The writer heads new country development at Marico. The views are personal