The US president thinks he can apply the most brutal sanctions against Tehran while maintaining the idea of a new negotiation, more favorable to the United States. Everything shows that this belief is a chimera.
Subscribers article
The fear of a regional conflagration after attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure attributed to Tehran on September 14 has dissipated, but the record to date of the unilateral exit of the United States in May 2018, the Iran's nuclear deal, Donald Trump's campaign promise, is not to the advantage of the US president. He may experience this during his visit to the United Nations General Assembly from 23 to 26 September.
Washington hopes to mobilize against Iran. In recent months, however, the Trump administration has never been able to bring other signatories of this compromise into its wake.
Contrary to President Trump's claims that Tehran has already changed its attitude, Iranian power is still mistrustful, as the statements by officials warning against "A total war" in case of military strikes against their country. Iran has also begun to overcome some of the constraints of the 2015 agreement, and its regional allies remain particularly active.
The original sin of Donald Trump's brilliance is largely due to the heterogeneous nature of the coalition that defended him. He was supported by the Republican Party's "hawks", starting with former President John Bolton's national security adviser, who in fact believe that only a regime change in Tehran will bring Iran back into power. the row.
The limits of the "maximum pressure"
This current was based on a unique regional situation: the rapprochement of Israel and the most influential powers of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Donald Trump added his own motives: the dismantling of one of the most important diplomatic legacies of his predecessor Barack Obama, and the dream of achieving a "Best deal" who would testify to his negotiating skills.
Long masked by the apparent success of a campaign of "maximum pressure" that is based on intimidation, the contradictions of this coalition are now in the open.
