The spectacle of American foreign policy lurching from one extreme to another has become a wearying ritual for those of us who recall a time when the West had something resembling a coherent strategy. Today’s live analysis of the Trump-Obama comparison on Iran is less a historical parallel than a tragicomedy of errors, with Britain—ever the faithful but hapless sidekick—left to pick up the pieces.
Let us state the obvious: Barack Obama, for all his rhetorical grace, pursued a policy of engagement with Iran that was naive in its optimism but at least tethered to a multilateral framework. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, flawed though it was, represented a rare moment of diplomatic consensus among great powers. It was a textbook example of liberal internationalism, for better or worse.
Then came Donald Trump. Crashing through the china shop of global norms, he tore up the deal not because he had a better plan, but because it was Obama’s legacy. His ‘maximum pressure’ campaign was the foreign policy equivalent of a tantrum: sanctions that hurt ordinary Iranians, a drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, and a withdrawal from diplomacy that handed Tehran a propaganda victory. The result? Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than ever, and America’s credibility lies in tatters.
What, then, did Trump do differently? He confused toughness with wisdom, unilateralism with strength. He abandoned the very alliances that form the bedrock of Western influence, leaving Britain—our supposed strategic partner—to scramble for relevance. Obama built a coalition; Trump built a wall. Obama used sanctions as leverage; Trump used them as a cudgel. Obama sought to freeze Iran’s nuclear programme; Trump accelerated it.
And now, with the West fractured and Iran emboldened, we are left to wonder: what is Britain’s role? Our foreign office has become a purveyor of cautious statements, our special relationship a relic. The answer, I fear, is that we are no longer strategic partners but strategic passengers, along for the ride no matter how reckless the driver.
The tragedy is that neither approach—Obama’s appeasement nor Trump’s aggression—addressed the real crisis: a region in chaos, a regime that thrives on defiance, and a West that has forgotten how to think in centuries. Until we recapture that intellectual discipline, we shall remain doomed to oscillate between naive hope and belligerent despair.
