The move on the part of the EU is based as much in economics as politics. In the wake of Total’s announcement, Iran’s oil minister Bijan Zangeneh announced that CNPC, the state-owned oil company of China, would step in to replace the French company if it does pull out. And on Thursday, the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union signed an interim trade deal with Iran that lowers tariffs on hundreds of goods. Russia also indicated it plans to negotiate a free trade zone with Tehran:
Beijing also signalled that it intends to continue trading with Iran.
“Under the prerequisite of not violating its international obligations, the Chinese side will continue to carry out normal and transparent practical cooperation with Iran,” said foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang.
He added that “the Chinese government always opposes the unilateral sanctions and the so-called long-arm jurisdiction that any country takes according to its domestic laws.”
If Iran had violated the nuclear agreement, Pr*sident Trump’s withdrawal would not only make sense, it would be required. But that’s not what happened. Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency are charged with ensuring that all parties, including Iran, are fully complying with the provisions of the agreement. So far, they have repeatedly reported that Tehran is in full compliance.
Since his presidential campaign, however, Trump has been decrying the agreement as a terrible deal. If he had been the man in the Oval Office instead of President Barack Obama, he would have pursued a much tougher deal, Trump has boasted.
Rather than proving the power of his self-touted bargaining skills, he made America’s superhawks and Iran’s hardliners happy by yanking the U.S. out of the agreement altogether. This is frustrating and angering European leaders who had put so much energy into the negotiations, and it no doubt is giving North Korea’s Kim Jong-un another reason to wonder how much he can trust Trump to carry out any deal Pyongyang signs onto that limits its nuclear capabilities in exchange for trade, investment, and relief from sanctions that have worsened the North’s already weak economy.
While other American presidents have at times backed questionable, even awful, foreign policies, they typically have chosen a clear and focused direction. Every president since Truman has been said to have a foreign policy “doctrine” laying out how they believed the U.S. should interact with the world. Some of these have been notoriously aggressive, some not.
Trump, however, whose political ideology is a heady mix of greed and narcissism, cannot be said to have any doctrine. His contradictory foreign policy initiatives, characterized by bluster and insults and ignorance, are a recipe for chaos and for making the U.S. a second-rate poseur, not “great again.”