Trump and IR 101: Iran Edition

I am not an expert on Iran or on nuclear proliferation, but I have taken Intro to International Relations, so I apparently know more than Trump and his guys.  Yes, taken.  You don't have to teach Intro to IR to know more than these folks--the bar is low.  So, what did I learn in that class and what did I teach over the years that Trump,  Bolton and whoever else simply do not understand:

1. Sovereign countries have agency. Sure, countries may pay costs for disagreeing with the most powerful actor, but they have the ability to decide.  So, you can't just do X and expect everyone to go along, whether they are friends or foes.  Indeed, every country has its own domestic politics and its own national interests.  Sucks, but there it is. 
2. Which leads to: cooperation is not easy but generally required.  For instance, unilateral sanctions do not work unless one is the only supplier or buyer of a good/service.  The US sanctioning Iran can do some modest damage, but to really punish Iran, the US will need Europe and probably Russia and China to get on board.  Why should they?  Wishful thinking?
3. Strategic thinking is key.  To be clear, this means that one needs to figure out not just what one wants, but what others want, so that one can figure out ways to get others to do what you want.  My best illustration for this was always my dogs--who remain more strategic than Trump despite both dogs being dead for seven and ten years respectively.   
4. The security dilemma is a thing: unilateral efforts to improve one's security will cause others to react, improve their defenses, which ultimately leaves every less secure.  So, yeah, Iran pursuing nukes may very well lead to Saudi Arabia pursuing nukes.  Good times. 
5. Which leads to this: repeatedly issuing threats is a bad idea.  We IR folks tend to teach WWI for many reasons, but one of them is that the Germans thought they could cow everyone into bending to them.  Instead, they provoked alliances against them.  Trump thinks he got denuclearization in Korea (nope, he didn't) because he threatened a lot, so now he is going to apply "maximum pressure" everywhere.  This will only come back to bite in a big way.  I won't get into the details of Prisoner's Dilemma vs. Chicken here, but the basic idea is that if you keep on playing chicken, at some point, someone is going to escalate and it won't end well.  

Drezner blogged today (ish, since I am living in tomorrow for the moment), arguing that agreements are always flawed so the question is not whether an agreement is flawed, but do you have a better one in mind and a plan to get there.  Trump has no plan because that would require some knowledge of international relations, some ability to engage in strategic thinking, some discipline, and some work.  So, nope, not going to happen. 

One last thing: as old IR colleague of mine commented on my fb page: individuals matter.  Trump reminds us of this everyday.   Not all Intro to IR classes take individuals seriously.   I had a lecture or two on individuals, but spent most time talking about the importance of domestic politics and the dynamics of the international system.  Why?  Because the "great man" view of IR, including its inherent sexism, is what students get before they show up at college.  But if I were teaching Intro to IR these days, I would probably spend a smidge more time... not just because of Trump but also because folks are thinking more seriously about it (we did in our NATO book).  

What Do I Think Before Going to Seoul

At the end of this week, I head off to South Korea to do the next case study in the Dave and Phil and Steve project.  The project is not about North Korea or nuclear weapons, but about how democracies oversee their militaries.  I am not an expert on nuclear proliferation or on North Korea, but as a scholar of international security, I am sure I will be talking about and thinking about the current crisis as I wander along. So, I thought I would write now about my views on the upcoming summit and the various declarations before I go since it might be fun to compare with my views after I come back--I might learn something or change my mind (or not).

Aussie, Aussie, Oh I am So Sorry

That Trump is now pissing off Australia is simply bad news.  But it has implications beyond a bilateral relationship that was solid, easy to manage, and downright fun until yesterday.

Remember, the turning point in the conversation seems to be this: Turnbull asked if Trump would respect the deal that Obama had made--taking a very small number of refugees off of Australia's hands.  Trump went ballistic.  Because he has a thing about brown people.  And poor people. 

But the larger importance is this: America's word is no longer good.  Trump is willing to break agreements with America's best allies* even when these deals impose modest costs on the US.  Imagine if you are not America's best ally or if the exchange involves higher costs than less than 1500 refugees. 

So, as SecDef Mattis goes to Asia and as NATO SecGen goes around Europe, both trying to reassure allies of America's commitment, no one should buy what these guys are selling.  NO ONE.  Trump is demonstrating that the US is now thoroughly unreliable.  It is not just Trump's zero-sum, transactional view of the world. It is also that he has long stiffed those who trusted him--wives, banks, contractors.  He is not changing at age 70, and the office is not going to mature him.  He is what he is: a temperamental brat who insists on getting 110% of his way all the time. 

So what are allies supposed to do?  Dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge?  That is what Canada is doing now, and it really might make the most sense.  Perhaps offering to take refugees off of the US's hands (the Australian refugees, those stuck in the pipeline due to Friday's mess, etc) would allow Justin Trudeau to uphold Canadian values in a way that helps Trump.  All I can say is that no ally should count on the US for anything.  And that is mighty, mighty disturbing.  Given that these countries have relied on the American nuclear umbrella for generations, they may have to find another umbrella (France, anyone?), or appease the autocrats nearby (perhaps that is South Korea's path) or develop one's own nuclear deterrent.  Remember, Trump was not so upset at the prospect of Japan developing nuclear weapons.  The unthinkable is now easily imaginable.


*  I have often written about the contest for worst US ally (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia usually vie for the top spot although Turkey sometimes comes close).  I haven't written about best ally, but a country that shows up to help out the US in every war, even the most ill conceived (Vietnam, Iraq 2003) is near the top of the list.