Iran: Trump Card

Yesterday, President Trump made the most consequential foreign policy decision of his presidency to date — refusing to recertify Iran’s compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, and reimposing a slew of US sanctions on the country.


America First or America Alone? The coming days will prove crucial in understanding whether this momentous decision boosts or diminishes the position of the US around the world.

In the immediate aftermath, here’s how the crucial players see things:

Trump: This was a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made. It makes no sense to allow Iran to develop long-range missiles. Restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program should be permanent, not temporary. And with Iran making dangerous trouble in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq — and with its constant threats against our ally Israel — why should we allow Iran to make money it can spend on these projects? Fix all these problems, and maybe we can make a new deal that I’ll respect.

Iran: We had a deal. Weapons inspectors, the UN, and the EU all said we kept our end of the bargain. It’s the US that has gone back on its word by restricting our ability to trade and continuing to block our development — at a time when our economy is already struggling mightily. Trump is playing a domestic political game that has nothing to do with us. It makes us wonder why we even bothered engaging. With President Rouhani’s hopes crushed, and hardliners emboldened, expect more mischief-making in the Middle East.

Europe: We did everything we could to find a solution to this problem that everyone could live with. Now European companies doing business in Iran will have to get out or face the prospect of sanctions. Between the Paris Accord, tariffs on steel and aluminum, complaints about NATO spending, and the Iran deal, President Trump has now rebuffed us four times. Time to find new friends?

Russia and China: The more Trump’s decisions cause the US to lose credibility, the more likely America’s spurned allies may eventually turn to us. That said, we both have interests in the Middle East beyond Iran and want nothing less than for a nuclear arms race to break out. If a new deal is eventually hammered out, we would support it.

Kim Jong-un: Trump says that the US “no longer makes empty threats” and that when he makes promises, he keeps them. But how can he expect me to agree to give up my nuclear weapons if he won’t live up to his end of a bargain that outside observers agreed Iran was abiding by? I’m waiting for your answer, Secretary Pompeo.

Bottom line: The Iran deal isn’t dead, but it’s on life support and the prognosis looks grim. While it could be saved if the US’s European allies can find a fix that Trump can accept and Iran will tolerate, global risks have gone up bigly.

This Saturday, July 20, will mark the 50-year anniversary of the day a human being first stepped onto another world. A moment born out of Cold War political pressures, it's easy to forget a half century later how much bitter controversy the project provoked at home and the intensity of the worldwide fanfare that followed its success.

The moon mission's primary purpose was to defeat the Soviet Union. By the time John Kennedy became president in 1961, the Soviet Union had advanced far ahead of the United States in the race for achievement in space. In October 1957, the Soviets launched Sputnik, the world's first satellite. A month later, a dog named Laika became the first living creature to travel beyond Earth's atmosphere. In April 1961, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth, the first human to do so.

In early May, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, spurring Kennedy to announce a far more ambitious plan. On May 25, Kennedy famously pledged that by the end of the decade Americans would go to the moon and return safely to the Earth.

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, but new President Lyndon Johnson quickly signaled his intention to see the promise kept. The Soviets held their space lead through 1965, by landing an unmanned craft on the Moon.

The moon mission stoked controversy in the United States. A review of polls reveals that only in 1969 did a majority of Americans support the project. Many people argued that the billions spent on a moonshot should go toward the war in Vietnam or to fight poverty in America's inner cities. "No hot water, no toilets, no lights. But Whitey's on the moon," sang musician and activist Gil Scott Heron. It didn't help when a fire during the Apollo 1 mission killed three astronauts and destroyed their space module.

But when Neil Armstrong became the first person to step onto the moon on July 20, 1969, the event took on a life of its own. It was a decade framed by two images of respected TV anchorman Walter Cronkite—shaken to the core on air by the 1963 murder of President Kennedy and then speechless with awe as Americans bounded across the surface of the moon.

A decade that included confrontation with the Soviets in Cuba, the assassinations of John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy, a failing war in Vietnam, race riots in American cities, and violent chaos at the 1968 Democratic Party convention ended with an accomplishment a quarter million miles away, that was watched live by 94 percent of Americans who owned a TV. For perspective: Consider these two images of respected TV anchorman Walter Cronkite—shaken to the core on air by the 1963 murder of President Kennedy and then speechless with awe as Americans bounded across the surface of the moon.

Americans weren't the only ones watching. About 650 million people around the world watched the moon landing live on TV, making the event the first truly global televised event. Nine weeks later, astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins began a world tour.

Concerns that planting an American flag on the moon's surface would seem an act of obnoxious nationalism faded as the three men were greeted by overflow crowds in 27 cities in 24 countries over 39 days. An estimated one million people greeted them in Dhaka (then Pakistan) and some 1.5 million turned out in Mumbai (then Bombay).

Fifty years later, moon missions are still a mark of national prestige. Russia, China, India, the EU, Japan, and Israel have all sent probes to orbit the Moon or landed vehicles on its surface. But none of them matches that first "giant leap for mankind."

Next up: Mars? For thoughts on the next space race, click here.

Bonus fact: Your iPhone has more than 100,000 times the processing power of the computer that landed Apollo 11 on the moon.

This time the field is more crowded with China's growing ambitions throwing US and Russian space dominance into question.

Europe has selected a new president of the European Commission. Last night, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen won support from a majority of members of European Parliament to lead the executive body that shapes policy for the world's largest economic bloc. The final result was a close shave, however — she won by a margin of just nine votes out of 757 — and there's something in the outcome for everyone to hate.

For many anti-EU populists, von der Leyen's appointment confirms their view that the EU is undemocratic and doesn't respect ordinary citizens. Why? Because she wasn't selected by the voters who went to the polls in the recent EU parliamentary elections — or even indirectly by the lawmakers who won those seats. She was hand-picked by leaders of the 28 EU member states, who side-stepped parliament after better-known candidates chosen by various political factions within the legislature failed to attract enough support from the national governments. Anti-EU politicians like France's Marine Le Pen will spend the next five years reminding us that von der Leyen's presidency reflects everything that's wrong with Brussels.

For Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and other European leaders who backed von der Leyen, her narrow margin of approval gives her a weak mandate as she confronts huge challenges such as the EU's fraught relations with the US and China, showdowns over Italy's budget, erosion of the rule of law in Hungary and Poland, the economic and political fallout of the UK's exit (or not) from the bloc, and the EU's drive to regulate Big Tech.

Von der Leyen herself, who is from the center-right, made significant concessions to get her nomination through with parties that are deeply suspicious of her. Those included a promise to propose a so-called "green deal" within her first 100 days in office, reform the minimum wage, and launch a push for EU-wide legislation on artificial intelligence. Von der Leyen also pledged to reform the process for selecting future candidates for Commission president and to give the EU Parliament a "stronger role in shaping and designing" the EU's future. Now that von der Leyen has secured the closest thing the EU has to a top job, she'll be spending much of her political capital trying to deliver on those promises.