McMaster made it clear to the Post that the deal was significantly flawed, saying, “The idea that weaving Iran into the global economy would moderate the regime’s behavior turned out not to be the case,” but he viewed it as a chip that could be used to force Iran to make a choice between “becoming responsible” or “remaining a pariah.”
This was the reason when Trump wanted to pull out of the nuclear deal even in 2017; the former NSC chief believed that – with all of its flaws – this was squandering an opportunity. He preferred to continue to use the threat of pulling out of the deal as a pressure point, which could be stronger than pulling out prematurely at the time.
Maybe McMaster’s most original contribution to the Iran issue is his readiness to challenge the premise that the Iranian people cannot be reached sufficiently to change their orientation to the West.
On one hand, he would disparage those who think just engaging with Iran will get anywhere if there is no “credible military threat” alongside possibly a smarter version of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign.
On the other hand, he believes that given enough time, a concerted messaging strategy can reconnect Iranians with the time period around 1979 when theocrats “did not have uncontested” control.
Questioned about what concrete measures would need to be taken to present Tehran with a credible military threat, McMaster said, “We already have an incredible military capability in the region. The US does, and Israel certainly does. The US must demonstrate the capability and that it is willing to impose costs on Iranian forces and the regime.”
McMaster did not take the opportunity to endorse suggestions pushed by JINSA to publicize contingency plans for striking Iranian targets, such as its nuclear program. But he gave the example of the January targeted killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force chief Qasem Soleimani as sending the right kind of message that the US “knows the return address” when Iranian proxy forces attack US bases in Iraq or elsewhere.
Pressed that his ideas of a long-term strategy to convince Iran to reorient its attitude toward the US, the West and Israel might take too long, and that Iran could break out to a nuclear weapon in the meantime, he hinted with a veiled threat, “I don’t think it would be in their interest to do so.”
At the same time, he said, “I think it’s wrong to trust the regime,” saying progress would be achieved by conveying a message that the West has greater staying power than the ayatollahs have to outlast concerted pressure.
Asked how such a campaign could work when economic powerhouses like China and Russia are committed to keeping Iran afloat economically despite US sanctions, he said “it is possible to impose costs on” Iran that the ayatollahs would succumb to.
He said it is also crucial to get through to the Iranian people that most of their economic woes stem not from global sanctions but from the regime’s adventurism in foreign countries and corruption.
His formula for peace between Israel and the Palestinians requires the end of Hamas rule in Gaza and significant shifts in flexibility by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, along with a return of the US to the role of a neutral and honest broker.
“There have been positive developments. The outside-in approach has been working. The recognition of the Gulf Arab states that Israel is not a security problem and that working with Israel is in their economic and security” interest, leading to “the Abraham Accords is worth celebrating,” stated McMaster.
He accused China of covering up the outbreak of the coronavirus. “During the pandemic, it [China] became even more aggressive oppressing freedom in Hong Kong and the extension of cultural genocide in Xinjiang,” said McMaster. Continuing, he stated, “Externally, China carried out massive cyberattacks against pharmaceutical companies, attacked and bludgeoned Indian soldiers to death, rammed vessels in the South China Sea and threatened Taiwan and Japan.”
To address this threat, he said, “What is necessary is a high degree of economic cooperation. If the US, the EU, Japan and the UK work together, they can compete effectively with China. It must be a competitive approach.”
In terms of losing ground to Chinese influence around the world in recent years, McMaster said that the US abandoned and was not even really present on the playing field, having been consumed by internal issues and a poor strategic understanding of the Chinese.
Talking about challenges presented by Russia, McMaster said, “It is really important to impose costs on the Kremlin and enablers that exceed the costs they factor into their decision-making process.”
“Putin’s playbook is designed not to challenge the US directly, but to drag everybody else down” so he can be the proverbial last man standing.
He said that “Russia preys on perceived weaknesses in democratic societies, takes advantage of divisions... lessens confidence in who we are as a people.”
Continuing, he said, “The Kremlin believes it’s succeeding. Putin has become more aggressive as his situation is becoming more challenged and tenuous with the stagnation of the Russian economy and with protests especially in the eastern part of the country. In order to alter Russian behavior, he recommended joint sanctions from the US, EU, Japan and others on Putin’s inner circle.
McMaster said he was perplexed at why “Israel’s economic relationships with Russian companies are deepening when the Kremlin is acting like a pariah state. Russia is a key enabler of Iran across the region. It is enabling a proxy Iranian army on the border of Israel. It is allowing the strengthening of Hezbollah.”
Pressed that Russia came in only when the US made it clear it would not expend sufficient military force to finish off ISIS and stabilize Syria, he said, “Russia lies about fighting jihadist terrorists. It is in league with the Assad regime, who released jihadist terrorists from prison so he could portray the civil war as jihadists.
According to McMaster, “Russia, by enabling Iran, really perpetuates the problem of jihadist terror organizations because the fear of Iran allows these jihadists to portray themselves as protectors of Sunni Arab communities. The fear of Assad and Iran’s proxy army perpetuates the jihadist problem.”
