Well, well, well. Another week, another foreign policy clustercluck, and this time the chattering classes are wringing their hands over the stark contrast between the Obama and Trump approaches to Iran. British analysts, presumably paid in tea and tweed, have deigned to enlighten us. Spoiler alert: one man played chess, the other played Monopoly with real bombs.
Let us first examine the era of Barack Obama. A man so calm, so measured, he could nap through a tsunami. His Iran policy was a masterpiece of diplomatic origami: fold here, crease there, and voila, a nuclear deal. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, was the diplomatic equivalent of a unicorn farting rainbows. It was delicate, it was hopeful, and it required everyone to be very, very reasonable. In other words, it was doomed.
Enter Donald Trump. A man who conducts foreign policy like a toddler with a flamethrower. He tore up the JCPOA like a bad cheque, slapped on sanctions so tight they squeaked, and assassinated General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike that made the world gasp and then shrug. British analysts, those paragons of hindsight, now claim that Trump’s approach taught Iran a lesson: that American resolve is not to be trifled with. They say Trump’s unpredictability, his sheer bloody-mindedness, forced Iran to the brink and then... well, nothing. Iran is still there, still enriching uranium, still chanting death to America. Lesson learned? Apparently not.
The analysts point to a few key differences. Obama, they say, saw Iran as a rational actor. He believed in incentives, in the power of a handshake. Trump, by contrast, saw Iran as a rogue state run by mullahs with a death wish. He responded with maximum pressure, with threats so cartoonish they would make Dr Evil blush. And yet, here we are, with Iran closer than ever to a bomb, and British analysts nodding sagely and saying, 'Ah, but Trump taught them a lesson.' What lesson? That the US can be provoked into erratic behaviour? That some men just want to watch the world burn?
Let us not forget the comedic subplot: the British government, caught between special relationship and European solidarity, wringing their hands like a Victorian maiden in a penny dreadful. They wanted the JCPOA to survive; they wanted Obama’s polite diplomacy. But Trump bulldozed through, leaving a smoking crater where the deal once stood. And now, with the Biden administration trying to revive the corpse, British analysts are suddenly nostalgic for Trump’s brashness. They talk about 'leverage' and 'credibility' as if these are not just buzzwords for 'we have no idea what we’re doing.'
The real lesson, my friends, is that neither approach works. Obama’s carrot was ignored. Trump’s stick was too blunt. Iran continues its merry dance, spinning uranium centrifuges while the world watches through binoculars. And British analysts? They will write more reports, drink more tea, and deliver more pearls of wisdom that are, in the end, just polished turds.
So here’s to the great Iran policy fiasco. A bipartisan failure that unites left and right in their confusion. Meanwhile, the mullahs laugh all the way to the ayatollah’s bank. And we, the public, are left wondering: Is there a single adult in the room? Or have we all just been left in the nursery, playing with matches?
