The
Trump administration has been on high alert in response to what
military and intelligence officials have deemed specific and credible
threats from Iran against U.S. personnel in the Middle East.
But President Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisers, who he
thinks could rush the United States into a military confrontation with
Iran and shatter his long-standing pledge to withdraw from costly
foreign wars, according to several U.S. officials. Trump prefers a
diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly
with Iran’s leaders.
Disagreements over assessing and responding to the recent intelligence —
which includes a directive from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, that some American officials interpret as a threat to U.S.
personnel in the Middle East — are also fraying alliances with foreign
allies, according to multiple officials in the United States and Europe.
Trump grew angry last week and over the weekend about what he sees as
warlike planning that is getting ahead of his own thinking, said a
senior administration official with knowledge of conversations Trump had
regarding national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo.
“They are getting way out ahead of themselves, and Trump is annoyed,”
the official said. “There was a scramble for Bolton and Pompeo and
others to get on the same page.”
Bolton, who advocated regime change in Iran before joining the White
House last year, is “just in a different place” from Trump, although the
president has been a fierce critic of Iran since long before he hired
Bolton. Trump “wants to talk to the Iranians; he wants a deal” and is
open to negotiation with the Iranian government, the official said.
Under President Trump, United States-Iranian relations have taken a decisive turn for the worse.
Here's a brief history of the tumultuous relationship.
Here's a brief history of the tumultuous relationship.
“He is not comfortable with all this ‘regime change’ talk,” which to his
ears echoes the discussion of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
before the 2003 U.S. invasion, said the official, who like others spoke
on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
When asked about the accounts of Trump’s frustration with Bolton,
National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said, “This
reporting doesn’t accurately reflect reality.”
Trump is not inclined to respond forcefully unless there is a “big move”
from the Iranians, a senior White House official said. Still, the
president is willing to respond forcefully if there are American deaths
or a dramatic escalation, the official said.
While Trump grumbles about Bolton somewhat regularly, his discontent
with his national security adviser is not near the levels it reached
with Rex Tillerson when he served as Trump’s secretary of state, the
official added.
Amidst rising tensions with
Tehran, President Trump warned May 13 there would be a "bad problem" for
Iran if it tried anything against the United States.
Trump denied any “infighting” related to his Middle East policies in a tweeton
Wednesday. “There is no infighting whatsoever,” Trump said. “Different
opinions are expressed and I make a decisive and final decision — it is a
very simple process. All sides, views, and policies are covered. I’m
sure that Iran will want to talk soon.”
On Wednesday morning, the president attended a Situation Room briefing on Iran, a person familiar with the meeting said.
Pentagon and intelligence officials said that three distinct Iranian
actions have triggered alarms: information suggesting an Iranian threat
against U.S. diplomatic facilities in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and
Irbil; U.S. concerns that Iran may be preparing to mount rocket or
missile launchers on small ships in the Persian Gulf; and a directive
from Khamenei to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and regular
Iranian military units that some U.S. officials have interpreted as a
potential threat to U.S. military and diplomatic personnel. On
Wednesday, the State Department ordered nonessential personnel to leave the U.S. missions in Baghdad and Irbil.
In Tokyo on Thursday, visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tehran was exercising “maximum restraint.”
“We believe that escalation by the United States is unacceptable and
uncalled for,” Zarif told his Japanese counterpart, Taro Kono.
U.S. and European officials said there are disagreements about Iran’s
ultimate intentions and whether the new intelligence merits a more
forceful response than previous Iranian actions.
Some worry that the renewed saber-rattling could create a miscalculation
on the ground, said two Western officials familiar with the matter. And
Iran’s use of proxy forces, the officials said, means it does not have
absolute control over militias, which could attack U.S. personnel and
provoke a devastating U.S. response that in turn prompts a
counter-escalation.
Bolton warned in a statement last week that “any attack on United States
interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting
force.”
Military officials have described themselves as torn between their
desire to avoid open confrontation with Iran and their concern about the
recent intelligence, which led the commander of the U.S. Central
Command, Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr., to request a host of additional
military assets, including an aircraft carrier and strategic bombers.
Multiple officials said uniformed officers from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, led by its chairman, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr.,
have been among the leading voices articulating the costs of war with
Iran.
Other officials said the view that deterrence rather than conflict was
required was “monolithic” across the Pentagon and was shared by civilian
officials led by acting defense secretary Patrick Shanahan, whom Trump
nominated last week to remain in the job but who has not yet been
confirmed by the Senate. As the tensions have intensified, Shanahan has
been in touch multiple times a day with other senior leaders, including
Bolton, Pompeo and Dunford, officials said.
Some defense officials have described Bolton’s more aggressive approach as troubling.
Defense officials said that they are considering whether they will field
additional weaponry or personnel to the Persian Gulf region to
strengthen their deterrent against possible action by Iran or proxy
groups, but that they hope additional deployments will prevent rather
than fuel attacks.
Trump’s fears of entangling the United States in another war have been a
powerful counterweight to the more bellicose positions of some of his
advisers.
Trump has called the Iraq War a massive and avoidable blunder, and his
political support was built in part on the idea that he would not repeat
such a costly expenditure of American blood and treasure.
A new deal with Iran, which Trump has said he could one day envision, would be a replacement for the international nuclear compact he left last year that was forged by the Obama administration.
Trump’s early policy on Iran, which predated Bolton’s arrival, was aimed
at neutralizing the pact and clearing the way for an agreement he
thought would more strictly keep Iran in check.
Trump’s administration has been frustrated, however, that Iran and the
rest of the signatories to the nuclear agreement have kept it in force.
Trump’s anger over what he considered a more warlike footing than he
wanted was a main driver in Pompeo’s decision last weekend to suddenly
cancel a stop in Moscow and on short notice fly instead to Brussels,
where he sought meetings on Monday with the European nations that are
parties to the Iran nuclear deal, two officials said. Pompeo was not
accorded the symbolic welcome of joining their joint Iran-focused
meeting. Instead, he met with foreign ministers one by one.
Pompeo’s visit was meant to convey both U.S. alarm over the recent
intelligence on Iran and Washington’s desire for diplomacy, not war, two
officials said.
But European leaders, who have been watching the febrile atmosphere in
Washington with alarm, have not been convinced, according to
conversations with 10 European diplomats and officials from seven
countries, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
sensitive assessments of Washington and Tehran.
Pompeo “didn’t show us any evidence” about his reasons Washington is so
concerned about potential Iranian aggression, said one senior European
official who took part in one of Pompeo’s meetings. The official’s
delegation left the meeting unconvinced of the American case and puzzled
about why Pompeo had come at all.
Many officials in European capitals said they fear that conflict with
Iran could have a cascading effect on their relations with Washington,
ripping open divisions on unrelated issues.
They distrust Trump’s Iran policy, fearing that key White House advisers
are ginning up rationales for war. And leaders need to win reelection
from citizens who hold Trump in low regard and would punish them for
fighting alongside Americans on the Iran issue.
Democratic members of Congress, while traditionally strong supporters of
pressuring Iran, have also raised questions about the intelligence and
the administration’s apparent flirtation with combat. In a statement on
the Senate floor on Wednesday, Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), the ranking
Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, demanded “answers
from this administration about Iran . . . and about what intelligence
this administration has.” So far, he said, the administration has
ignored those demands and refused to provide briefings.
“We cannot, and we will not, be led into dangerous military adventurism,” he said.
Anxieties over the heightened threat environment spilled over into
Capitol Hill on Wednesday during a classified briefing. Rep. Liz Cheney
(R-Wyo.) argued that the intelligence warranted an escalation against
Iran, said one person with knowledge of the briefing. In response,
Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.) accused her of exaggerating the
threat in what the person described as a “very heated exchange.”
A representative for Moulton declined to comment. A spokesman for Cheney
said the congresswoman “will never comment on classified briefings and
believes that any member or staffer who does puts the security of the
nation at risk.”
Michael Birnbaum in Brussels, Simon Denyer in Tokyo and Missy Ryan,
Karen DeYoung and Carol Morello in Washington contributed to this
report.
