Opinion
Open Borders, Open Markets
On Monday, President Trump sat down at the White House with Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, his first meeting with a foreign leader since the midterm elections, AFP reported. Afterward he said something the country has waited nine months to hear: “We are seeing positive momentum toward an end to this Conflict.”
He deserves credit for saying it, and for choosing the venue. The fastest way out of the war with Iran runs through Doha and the Gulf capitals, not around them. Washington should treat Qatar’s mediation as the main road, bring its partners with it, and put a deal on paper before the window closes.
The leverage has already been earned
Supporters of the president’s approach have a fair point, and I will grant it up front. The naval blockade and the new “Operation Iron Gate” task force, announced Saturday to stop Iran from moving advanced weapons over land, have put Tehran under real pressure, CNBC reported. “Iran, militarily, is effectively over,” Trump told reporters. He also repeated that Iran will not be allowed to build a nuclear weapon. Nobody serious should argue with that line.
But leverage is only worth something if you spend it. According to a Reuters report cited by CNBC, Iran has sent a proposal through Qatari mediators asking for sanctions relief and a new shipping arrangement in the Strait of Hormuz, and Washington is reviewing it. Iranian officials publicly deny that talks are happening at all; security chief Mohsen Rezaei told Washington to stop “manufacturing fake news about imaginary talks,” AFP reported. That is what negotiating in public looks like when one side needs to save face. It is a reason to keep a trusted intermediary in the middle, not a reason to walk away.
Why a partner-led deal beats an open-ended status quo
The president said Monday that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait “would prefer the status quo.” I understand why. A blockade enforced by the U.S. Navy is security they do not have to pay for. But an indefinite standoff is not a strategy, and the bill for it lands on American families.
The war has driven a surge in fuel prices that hit nearly every sector of the global economy, CNBC noted. Brent crude reached $118 a barrel on Oct. 30, NBC News reported. Consumer prices rose 0.4% in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Tuesday, and its index data show gasoline about 35% more expensive than two years ago. Markets are already signaling what a settlement is worth: U.S. crude fell more than 4% on Monday on the prospect of de-escalation, and Brent slipped to $91.56 on Tuesday, near a 10-week low, according to CNBC.
The president himself has acknowledged that the war contributed to his party’s losses last week by pushing up prices, AFP reported. Voters were not rejecting American strength. They were rejecting paying for an open-ended commitment at the pump.
What a good deal should look like
A durable settlement would do four things.
First, it would lock in the nuclear red line with inspections, written into an agreement that Gulf partners and Europe co-sign, so that it outlives any one administration’s patience.
Second, it would trade sanctions relief in stages for verified steps, not promises. Relief should be reversible, and the partners who benefit from reopened trade should help police it.
Third, it would reopen the Strait of Hormuz under a multilateral arrangement. Commercial shipping is a shared global interest, and the countries that ship the most oil through the strait should share in guaranteeing it. Iran’s reported request for a new shipping route can be the opening bid on that conversation, not a dealbreaker.
Fourth, it would hand the Gulf states a bigger and more formal role in regional security, backed by U.S. arms sales and training rather than an indefinite American blockade.
Critics will say that sanctions relief rewards Tehran, and that the regime will cheat. They may be right to worry. That is exactly why the verification and the enforcement should be shared. A deal that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have a stake in is harder for Iran to break and easier for Washington to enforce than a unilateral standoff that ends whenever an American president loses interest.
Free trade is a security policy
My colleague on this page will argue that the United States should simply step back and let the Gulf look after itself. I share his impatience with endless deployments. But a vacuum in the world’s most important energy corridor would not stay empty, and it would not keep prices down at home. Open sea lanes and open markets are what lowered the cost of living for a generation of Americans. Restoring them is the peace dividend voters just asked for.
The president has said he wants a deal and has opened the door. Doha is holding it open. Walk through it, together.
Adrian Sterling-Foss is the pen name of a Washington Inquisitor opinion columnist writing from a neoliberal, globalist perspective. The views expressed are the author’s own and not those of The Washington Inquisitor.
Leave a Reply