Trump’s Foreign Policy Playbook: All Stick no Carrot
A standard rule in negotiation is to come prepared with three things: (1) an overall goal, (2) a range of outcomes you are willing to accept, and (3) a set of bargaining chips to offer in exchange for other concessions.
Trump typically touts his great negotiating skills as a reason for why he is a great leader. But as his past record of not paying contractors and defrauding people shows, the main tool in his negotiation playbook is to try to leverage a position of strength into bullying the other side into concessions. He rarely displays the best practices above in negotiations and routinely creates zero sum scenarios that take the form of do what I want or suffer the consequences.
In foreign policy Trump regularly acts as if America is by far the strongest player in every situation without respecting the perspective of other countries. He acts as if America can puff its chest and brandish its military strength to get its way, leveraging threats to beat concessions out of the other side, often in the form of tweets. Trump does this without offering any benefits to agreeing with America’s demands, showing little understanding of the concept of leverage and that other countries can have advantages in different areas of the negotiation.
We see this tactic continually play out in his foreign policy conduct. The current Iran situation is a clear case of this. There is no indication of a sensible, larger goal in the Iran-US policy discussions and almost every action Trump has taken in the Iran relationship has been to threaten or punish, with no potential reward for satisfying America’s demands. Many times the demands that Iran could meet are not even clear.
This whole situation began when Trump decided to pull out of the nuclear deal signed by Obama in 2015. This was widely panned by foreign policy experts. The deal was originally signed as a way to limit Iran’s nuclear activity in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions on the country, allowing Iran increased access to global markets. By all accounts Iran was satisfying the terms of the deal and was benefiting from the lifting of economic sanctions that allowed it to export oil. The deal appeared to be a win-win exchange that benefitted both sides, increasing the potential for peace in the region.
Trump’s actions had a deleterious impact on the Iranian economy. The graph below plots the Dollar Iranian rial exchange rate over time. When the graph rises it means Iran’s currency is weakening and that their economy is performing poorly. We see that the exchange rate spiked around when the US withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran in May 2018 as additional sanctions were placed on the country. It has also remained at a high level following successive events that raised tension in the US-Iran relationship (see table below), showing how Iran’s economy has been severely crippled by US policy. In fact a contracting economy led the Iranian government to raise fuel prices in November 2019 which in turn caused widespread protests in the country.
Select Events in US-Iran Relationship
2015–07–15 US Signs Nuclear Deal
2018–05–08 US Withdraws from Nuclear Deal
2019–04–08 Designated IRGC as FTO
2019–05–02 Ended sanctions exception for Iranian oil exports
2019–05–12 Oil tankers in gulf attacked; Iran suspected
2019–06–13 Saudi tankers attacked; Iran suspected
2019–06–20 Iran attacks US Drone
2019–06–25 Iran closes diplomacy until sanctions lifted
2019–11–15 Fuel price hikes lead to protests
2019–12–29 US airstrikes lead to storming of US Embassy in Baghdad
2019–01–03 Qasem Soleimani skilled by US airstrike
During the months before and after the withdrawal, Trump’s comments continually emphasized consequences for Iran instead of offering some relief in exchange for a new deal. There was no sense in which he was trying to further peace talks, exemplified by his tweets: “To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”.
Trump’s entire Iran strategy has clearly been one of maximum level threats of violence without any sense of a larger goal for future strategic negotiations. Nothing in his rhetoric offers Iran something in exchange for coming to the table. This tactic basically escalates the relationship and leaves Iran no outside option except to return fire with threats and violent action in the hopes of breaking through the severe economic sanctions.
While it might superficially seem good to tout America’s military strength and satisfy hawkish foreign policy experts, this strategy of all stick no carrot leaves no room for substantive progress, making the entire Middle East less safe. It also sets a precedent for what other countries can expect in future negotiations with the US: all threats with their only option to fight back, ultimately deteriorating relationships. We have seen this dynamic play out with both North Korea and China as well.
It is time to return to sensible foreign policy strategy: one based on offering benefits in exchange for compromise that seeks to actually achieve larger international goals.
