The editors of the Wall Street Journal point out different contradictions in the Biden Administration’s policies:
Friday morning’s airstrike against Iran-backed militias in eastern Syria sends a clear message: President Biden will use force to defend American lives. But this welcome development is an exception to the rest of Mr. Biden’s emerging Iran policy.
[…]
On the other hand, there’s Mr. Biden’s seemingly eager desire to return to the flawed 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. After announcing that Washington couldn’t “snap back†United Nations sanctions, the new Administration is consulting with South Korea about releasing at least $1 billion in frozen Iranian assets. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said this week the U.S. wants to “lengthen and strengthen†the accord—good—but then said President Trump’s sanctions on Iran had failed.
IMO sending a clear message is a lot better than sending mixed messages. There are times when strategic ambiguity is beneficial but this isn’t one of them.
I thought that President Trump’s abrogation of the JCPOA was a bonehead move. I wasn’t enthusiastic about the agreement either in process or as policy but we had already borne its costs while the benefits were still to be reaped.
As Heraclitus put it you can’t step in the same river twice and I strongly suspect that the Biden Administration will eventually reach that conclusion.
I don’t see why Iran would want to rejoin the agreement. They know we cant hold to it and w/o the agreement in place they can build nukes whenever they want.
Steve
Iran wants the sanctions removed. Those have frozen some of their foreign financial assets.
They of course still want the nukes as a means of annihilating Jews and infidels.
For our part, the hope is that when the generation of the khomeini revolution passes, change may come to Iran.
I don’t actually believe that’s their objective. I think they want nukes as regime insurance. They threaten and attack “Jews and infidels” in their quest to be thought leaders of the worldwide Islamic community. Their competitors for that role are presently the Saudis and again after a century the Turks.
My interpretation of the trade and diplomatic agreements between Israel and various Gulf countries over the last four years is that Gulf Arab leaders have decided that the Iranians are a greater threat than the Israelis.
I think that will probably be the case. That seems to be the pattern for most revolutions. Once the revolutionaries have died the old goals just aren’t enough. That’s what happened with the Soviet Union. To my foreigner’s eye what’s happening in China is a restoration of the empire.
IMO strategic patience would appropriate with respect to Iran except that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons will impel the Saudis and, I presume, the Turks to seek them as well. That pursuit doesn’t threaten U. S. interests as much as it does Russian and European interests. Strategic patience is not appropriate for North Korea, the Alex Forrest of nations—they will not be ignored.