On Oct. 12, President Trump will reportedly announce a new U.S. strategy to counter Iran. He’s expected to declare that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal is no longer in the United States’ national security interests and to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

While this apparent shift in policy recognizes the necessity for a more comprehensive approach to counter Iran — a critical shortcoming of prior U.S. policy — the real question is whether Trump, given his fixation on decertifying the nuclear deal, will ultimately undermine his own policy goals.

Trump’s rhetoric will do little to push forward well-worn debates over the nuclear deal. It will only inject hyper-partisanship into the grave and growing foreign policy challenge from Iran — an issue that will require broad-based, bipartisan resolve to confront what U.S. Central Command’s top general, General Joseph Votel, described in congressional testimony as “the greatest long-term threat to stability in this part of the world.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump’s invalidation of the nuclear deal would also create significant distance between the United States and our European allies — the United Kingdom, France, and Germany — who remain committed to the agreement, and whose collective efforts will be needed to address Iran’s destabilizing behavior and non-nuclear capability development. This also comes as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “continues to verify” that Iran is abiding by the deal.

And it would provide cover for Russia — also a signatory to the deal — to continue its destabilizing support of Iran and its coterie in the Middle East. Could you not envision Russian President Vladimir Putin saying, “It was the United States that blew up the deal — not us — so we are now left to pursue our own interests with Iran.”

So, in one fell swoop, Trump’s invalidation of the nuclear deal would run the risk of both undermining trust and credibility with our European allies and providing Russia cover to further its strategy– not to mention risking our leverage after the JCPOA expires.

Why would we do that?

Instead, the administration should make countering Iran’s multi-national network of fighters a focal point of U.S. policy and build broad support to sanction and reverse Iran’s expansionist, malign activities, as part of a broader strategy for Iran.

Iran’s multinational network includes tens of thousands of Shia militias and Shiite fighters, or what Iranian leadership describes as “Defenders of the Holy Shrines.” They are a well-trained, battle-hardened and increasingly proficient fighting force pursuing Iranian regime interests across the Middle East, from fighting for control of the capital of Yemen to defending Syrian President Bashar Assad and re-claiming territory from ISIS to maintaining “the resistance” against Israel.

Although these militias vary in terms of the nature of the ideological commitment and receive a range of military and economic support from the Iranian regime, it’s clear that Iran has succeeded in broadening and deepening its network of militias in the region over the last five years.

In fact, Iran’s Shia militias are already demonstrating the ability to integrate military power, social services, and ideological training to affect enduring strategic and political outcomes on the ground, pushing forward Iran’s larger, expansionist agenda across the region.

The United States should remain committed to the JCPOA. In doing so, it can maintain the international cohesion needed to focus on countering and reversing the broader expansionist strategy, national security threats, and destabilizing activities of Iran in parallel.

In fact, this is precisely what Secretary of Defense James Mattis James Norman MattisBiden courts veterans amid fallout from Trump military controversies Trump says he wanted to take out Syria's Assad but Mattis opposed it Gary Cohn: 'I haven't made up my mind' on vote for president in November MORE indicated in congressional testimony when responding to Sen. Angus King Angus KingShakespeare Theatre Company goes virtual for 'Will on the Hill...or Won't They?' On The Trail: How Nancy Pelosi could improbably become president Angus King: Ending election security briefings 'looks like a pre-cover-up' MORE’s (I-Maine) question on whether it is in U.S. interests to remain in the JCPOA:

Yes, senator, I do ... I believe at this point in time absent indications to the contrary, it is something the president should consider staying with … The president has to consider more broadly things that rightly fall under his portfolio of looking out for the American people in areas that go beyond the specific letters of the JCPOA.

If President Trump impulsively invalidates and withdraws from the nuclear deal — disregarding Secretary Mattis’ assessment and counsel — then he may undermine his own policy goals vis-a-vis Iran, running the risk of further destabilizing the Middle East.

Because if you don’t think it can get worse in the Middle East, it can.

Alex Gallo (@AlexGalloUSA) is senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and served as a professional staff member with the House Armed Services Committee where he wrote legislation and conducted oversight of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Melissa G. Dalton (@Natsecdalton) is senior fellow and deputy director of the International Security Program at CSIS. She served for ten years in several positions in the U.S. Department of Defense.