Iran thoughts

First, LITD has no hot takes on the recent tanker attacks. Too many uncertainties. The disparate assertions regarding whether a projectile hit the Norwegian tanker from the air or whether it was hit by something in the water, like a mine or torpedo. And the business about Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe being in Tehran when the Japanese tanker was hit.

But we can say for sure that the attacker didn't happen in a vacuum. Consider the aggressiveness of Iranian proxies in the region: Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah's ever-increasing reach. Further back, there are the continued characterizations of the US as the enemy - after the JCPOA was signed - by Supreme Leader Khameini as well as leaders of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. The taking of the crews of two US Navy boats as hostage on the day that Obama gave a State of the Union Address - and photographs of the crew members, distributed worldwide, on their knees with their hands behind their heads. And, of course, continued expansion of Iran's missile program.

What to do?

There are two pieces today, one by Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, and one by Vali R. Nasr, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, that differ mostly in nuance, but which both ask the same basic question: what does Donald Trump envision as the endgame of all this?

Many observers have pointed out the contrast between Trump's indications of where he wants to go and the indications given by national security advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Trump of late has started sounding, with regard to Iran, like he's been sounding toward North Korea since the era of summit diplomacy got going: dangling the prospect of vibrant economies for these countries that will in turn result in the populations of each admiring the leaders, and the international community conferring a new respect on them. The Bolton-Pompeo camp is often suspected of itching to find a way to overthrow the regime, something that those two figures at present deny. Are they being completely forthright, or tailoring their message to coordinate as much as possible with their boss's?

I'm uneasy with the extent to which Trump treats policy for rogue states as a matter of getting great deals. As we know, not only from the way he's dealt with other kinds of world leaders, particularly those of states in the adversary category, such as Russia and China, but from his pre-politics way of dealing with those from whom he wanted things in order to advance his brand, he has no qualms about switching from insults and threats to talk of beautiful letters at the drop of a hat. He assumes the other party in negotiations is going to do the same.

I'm not at all sure he's taken into full consideration the stakes, though, when dealing with radical regimes that have threatened out-and-out annihilation of the United States and the West generally. This is a unique level of interaction.

I'de be relieved to have my assessment proven to be overly dire. But the history of Iran - and North Korea - hating the United States goes back decades. It's baked into their entire orientation to the world in which they're situated.

Their determination to possess nuclear arsenals, and use them to render themselves immune to attempts to stop their support for terror and weakening of the West, must be kept front and center as the US proceeds.