Trump's Strategy Towards Iran and Its Consequences; Interview with a Senior Pentagon Official

What consequences will the change in policy and strategy announced by Donald Trump towards Iran have for the region? The failure to confirm Iran's compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA by Donald Trump has raised a wave of concern in Europe and the Middle East, raising questions about America's commitment to its international obligations and the potential reaction of the Iranian government, possibly resorting to more covert actions in the region. Regarding the possible consequences of Donald Trump's policy change, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has interviewed Mara Karlin, a senior Pentagon official and Middle East policy maker at the U.S. Department of Defense. Is there anything surprising in this change of policy by Donald Trump’s administration? Mara Karlin: It seems like a lot of chaos and noise. The President threatened during his election campaign and after the election that he would terminate the nuclear agreement with Iran. But instead, he has actually delegated his authority on this matter to Congress. As a result, the issue in Washington is the reduction of presidential powers. In Europe, the issue is that European allies are under significant pressure for minimal change, and in Iran, it will be perceived that a lot of noise has been made for minimal change. Is there a concerning issue, what do we know about this policy change? There are many unclear points. As an American, I find the weakness of the executive branch (the presidency) somewhat concerning. Another worrying point is that we do not know exactly what the ambiguous actions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard will be, how effective they will be, and what Iran's reaction will be. It is possible that they will also declare U.S. armed forces a terrorist entity and take action against it. The unfortunate point is that in recent months, instead of examining and formulating specific policies, this issue has become highly politicized. Iran has announced some of its reactions to this policy change; what other actions can we expect from Iran? One of Iran's reactions, and frankly many other countries in the world, will be to question the U.S. government's commitment to its international obligations. It is likely that the Iranian government's bad behavior and its interventions in the region, which have increased in recent years, will continue. What will be the concerns of Europeans? Europeans played an active role in signing the nuclear agreement, and I think they see themselves as equal to the U.S. in this regard. It is really strange that the U.S. government says that a large part of this decision was made in active consultation with Europeans, but Europeans do not agree with it at all. Recent discussions regarding the termination of the nuclear agreement have led Europeans to defend the preservation of the nuclear agreement very decisively and publicly, and in these weeks they likely felt that they were not considered equal to the U.S. One of the arguments for the JCPOA is that it will become a treaty. But Congress had no role in approving the original agreement. For this reason, can it be said that Donald Trump is adhering to the U.S. Constitution better than Barack Obama by referring it to Congress? In my opinion, in important national security issues, Congress should play an effective role, but the right way is dialogue and cooperation between the presidency and Congress. However, what has happened now is a delegation of power. In this way, the President says that Congress should decide on issues like imposing sanctions while the President has these powers. If there had been active contact and dialogue with Congress in recent months, it could have addressed the criticism of why Congress was not involved in this agreement from the outset, and perhaps the government and Congress could have reached an agreement on many areas, including how to deal with Iran's bad behavior in the region. Another criticism of the JCPOA has been that it only addresses Iran's nuclear activities and does not include other aspects of what is described as 'Iran's bad behavior,' such as support for extremist groups or the development of ballistic missiles. How valid is this criticism? This is correct; the JCPOA does not address these issues. In recent years, the international community has faced two categories of challenges regarding Iran. One is the nuclear programs, and the other is its bad behavior in the region. Regarding Iran's bad behavior, reaching an international agreement has not been practical. I think this lack of agreement can be well seen in the different approaches of the U.S. and Europeans towards the Hezbollah group in Lebanon. Therefore, an international agreement that addresses both categories of challenges has never been practical.