You left out the fact that Bill Clinton’s administration had negotiated a nuclear arms deal with North Korea that Dubya chose to walk away from rather than enforce and strengthen. He was urged to do that by warmongering neocons like John Bolton who also cheerled Trump’s walking away from Obama’s JCPOA. In both cases the neocons used the juvenile point that those deals should be thrown out because they weren’t perfect, as if any human endeavor could ever be perfect.
Dubya thought he would be able to get a better deal with North Korea. Instead NK is now a nuclear power with the missiles necessary to deliver its nukes long distances, possibly as far as our West Coast. The media has buried that story.
The media ignored the obvious — why should any country negotiate with the US if Republican presidents casually walk away from agreements made by Democrats?
Any discussion of the Biden years as they relate to Iran can’t ignore his mulish refusal to put any daylight between the US and Israel after 10/7/23, likely dooming his own or Harris’s (re)election and further entrenching Bibi in power.
For the record, I am not a journalist, and I vividly remember the "Axis of Evil." And GBW's televised Iraq War announcement. That was craziness.
GWB did deal a terrible blow to "accountability." GBW gutted the word, too: he was always yapping about holding this person or that person or group or regime accountable. I don't know that anything much ever came of it.
Finally, on the Jimmy Carter Poetry front, my friend Karl, who was Carter's editor on three books, told me the decision to publish the poetry book was a no-brainer. Carter's books sold so well that Peter Osnos, his publisher, wasn't concerned. And in fact, the poetry book did pretty well.
How about a Trump poetry book? Check out this video from "Bad Lip Reading." I'd say he did pretty well on that poetry thing. Easy sell to all MAGA readers:
One doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry: in attempting tonprevent Iran from acquiring a weapon of mass destruction, the Trump administration has given Iran a weapon of mass destruction in the form of navigating the Persian Gulf!
Fine series, thanks for digging into this James. I have always thought detractors of the JCPOA were engaging in naive cynicism - the BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement) was always going to be worse. Small consolation to be proven right.
I think it is useful to recall that the JCPOA was never a ratified treaty because in the end only 42 Senators, some grudgingly, supported a resolution signaling they could sustain a Presidential veto of a resolution of disapproval that would have killed the deal. Sadly, there was never a majority for this deal.
However tactically successful the first Gulf War may have been it turned out to be a strategic disaster. The Gulf War resulted in US and allied soldiers being stationed in Saudi Arabia, where we had non-Muslims defending the holy sites. This offended conservative Muslims such as Osama Bin Laden who vowed to push us out. This, ultimately, led to 9/11.
During the runup to the war I was in college at SUU and one of the TV stations in SLC came down to see what the students thought of the war. I wonder if they still have the tape? I pointed out that once the US military was in a place it usually took a LOT of effort to get it out. We still have troops in Korea 70 years after the cease fire was agreed. In Germany (well, for now) and Japan 80 years after the war ended. It took a volcano blowing up to pry us out of the Philippines, where we'd been since the Spanish American War. Heck, we still have bases scattered across the American West in case the Sioux and Cheyenne get troublesome.
The only places where we've fought in the past century where we don't still have soldiers stationed are Vietnam, because we lost that war, and Afghanistan where we just gave up.
The irony of Vietnam, as you know, is that starting about 15 years ago, US Navy ships began making regular port calls on ... .Cam Ranh Bay, as part of a general Western Pacific presence to contain/offset China. My how things change.
Thank you. I’ve been wanting to see that chart about JCPOA. It doesn’t indeed say it all. I’m sad that media coverage doesn’t show it every day with every story. Instead they report on the constant gusher of lies as if it were news.
Thanks, yes. The memory-hole into which the JCPOA seems to have vanished, from mainstream media's point of view, is indeed sobering. It's treated as just one more instance of a Trump/Obama feud, instead of a catastrophic and wholly self-inflicted wound by the US. Indeed, a wound inflicted by one resentment-driven man, and inflicted on the entire world.
Canadian-American David Frum was the principal author of the "axis of evil" phrase in President George W. Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address. While he has not issued a formal "apology" in the traditional sense, he has acknowledged that the policy and rhetoric surrounding the phrase led to a "reckless mistake" and has expressed regret over the failure of the Iraq War.
In late 2001, as a White House speechwriter, Frum was tasked with helping to write a section of the address that justified potential action against Iraq. Frum initially coined the phrase "axis of hatred," which was later edited by President Bush to "axis of evil," with North Korea added to the list.
The authorship became public knowledge in February 2002 after Frum's wife, Danielle Crittenden, emailed friends expressing pride in his contribution; the email was leaked, leading to significant controversy. Later that month, Frum quit the White House job.
In interviews and later writings, Frum has stated that using the strong, confrontational language without a firm, effective plan was a mistake. Years later, Frum described the 2003 Iraq invasion as a "misadventure" and an unwise decision, while simultaneously defending the initial intention of identifying threats.
While taking credit for the phrase in his book, *The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush*, Frum has also noted that his role was small, emphasizing that "the speaker of the words bears the responsibility for them".
In a 2022 article for *The Atlantic*, titled "The Enduring Lessons of the ‘Axis of Evil’ Speech," Frum looked back on the speech, outlining the failure of the Iraq War while arguing that the concept of addressing hostile states remained relevant.
Based on his recent YouTube remarks, Frum views the Trump-led war with Iran as a strategic failure, describing it as an impulsive, poorly planned conflict. He argues the war has created economic pain and serves as a dangerous expansion of executive power, ultimately favoring Iranian interests in the Strait of Hormuz.
My own view is that Iran should recognize that it no longer needs nuclear weapons now that it has demonstrated the power it wields through asymmetrical warfare and control of the strait. That means it can use the nuclear issue as a powerful bargaining chip to get concessions -- lifting sanctions, freeing frozen funds, perhaps shipping tolls or even reparations -- from Trump and his regional allies, who must realize what a quagmire they face otherwise. The people of Iran, and their neighbors, deserve better.
Very interesting about Frum. I read him occasionally, tend to like him, and had no idea about the connection to the "Axis of Evil." He seems to have learned from his mistake, which is good. But now I have a little more context for future pieces of his I read.
Thanks very much for this background and overview.
As it happens, I have come to know David Frum and have talked about all of this with him. I was very much against the Iraq War, and he (as you say) was very much for it — and in a consequential way, "axis of evil" and all. I agree with you about how he has dealt with the aftermath.
Today’s videos out of the Oval Office wherein children were subjected to the worst of his blathering made me weep. I can’t imagine that anyone in power, anywhere around the world, still thinks that the USA is rational.
Thank you, Jim. A wonderful distillation of years of history, and how Trump sent us back to the Dark Ages. So unnecessary, so pointless, so tragic. And the pain Trump’s recklessness is now inflicting will be felt for years to come.
In retrospect, the deal we had with Iran really was the best we could get. But I remember the arguments at the time. I was ambivalent - I didn't have a strong opinion of the deal at the time - but I was ambivalent because of the limited duration of the deal. Ten years, wasn't it? That was the Republican criticism - that we'd be back in the same place all over again ten years hence. Again, at the time, it felt like there was an element of just kicking the can down the road a little. And while I think Trump blew up the deal in large part just to be able to say "I'm the only genius deal-maker, and Biden is fool", at the time Trump exited the deal, I thought "this'd be okay if he can get us something better". Which was a pipe dream, of course, because Trump doesn't negotiate, he bullies, and he was bound to screw it up. But - getting back to the original Republican criticism of the deal - what was your take on that? Not in retrospect, but at the time?
I understand that it was controversial and imperfect even at the time. I think the stated duration was 15 years, rather than 10. But the pro-deal argument was (a) 15 years is better than nothing, and better than just unleashing Iran right now, and (b) 15 years is a *start*, and we can look at the next 15 years after that.
My understanding is that Trump blew it up 90% out of pique/resentment about Obama, and 10% because Netanyahu had been beating the drum incessantly about its evils.
At the time, my argument was: This isn't perfect, but it's better than any of the evident or plausible alternatives. So I was 100% in the "vote Yes" camp.
It was either kicking the can down the road or building on that agreement over ten years. It might have been possible with competent leadership. Its not as if Iran had no reason to be wary.
Jim -- this has been an excellent series on the US and Iran. There is little that is more lacking these days than historical perspective, and Americans seem more historically myopic than any other people.
I see the GHW Bush Administration as the last US government with a competent foreign policy. Our generation has royally screwed it up, taking the US from an unprecedented historical position of dominance and security to the present morass. And I give no bye to the Clinton or Obama Administrations (though, as you say, the Iran nuclear deal was the best available). But Bush I and James Baker et al much surpassed anything that our generation of presidents has offered. The first Gulf war and managing the breakup of the Soviet Empire stand out among much else as successes, especially in light of later failures. Bush and Baker also, being oil-men, understood the Middle East much better and more realistically than those who came later
Perhaps their competence comes in large part because their generation actually understood global war and its uncertainties and horrors and effects. They came from a very different and complex world than we did. I share Bush's heritage of Episcopalian wasp-y elite culture (including Greenwich CT), and for all of its many shortcomings, it did impart a sense of decency and proper form as you say, but it also demanded public service and responsibility toward those less favored by fortune.
I believe that a lot of this sense was reinforced by the War (WWII) where men like Bush served along with all other sorts of Americans, utterly dependent upon each other, and in the end victorious together. (President Carter of course also exemplified what was best of that generation, that sense of public service, while certainly not being of the wasp-y elite...) And that sense of us all being in it together persisted into the first couple of decades after the war. That sense of commonality has long since been lost, and our generation should shoulder our share of the blame, for whatever else might have been our merits.
Very well put about the achievements and experience of the Bush I team.
I think the Clinton team also deserves credit for a lot (eg Dayton accords, Northern Ireland, Ukraine giving up nukes — which mixed consequences of that) with some obvious missteps, like Somalia, and the still-debated effects of China in the WTO. And Obama with the JCPOA, and some climate/environment agreements, counts.
But, yes, GHWB's status as a "one-termer" has led to an under-rating of what he achieved in international policy.
Thank you for this lucid, concise, and accurate portrayal of our history with Iran, and for explaining exactly why Iran has no reason to trust the US - and particularly Trump. How well I recall the "axis of evil" line from Dubya's "They hate us for our freedom" speech. I recall thinking, "No, they hate us when we slaughter their children."
The problem, as always, is that those who need to read this won't, and those of us who read it and understand the provenance of this brief lesson don't need to read it. Every day I see Trump's defenders eagerly "Trumpsplaining" to anyone who reads their comments why our Dear Leader is such a hero for finally doing what no other president in history had the courage to do, and why they are so grateful for his "leadership," and why those of us who know the truth suffer from TDS.
I've also heard that even now, many Iranians remain opposed to their leadership. They are angry with Trump not for invading, but for failing to free them from the heavy yoke of this despotic regime. I suppose that a logical progression would be that if Trump had done so, or perhaps if he can yet do so, they might become his greatest fans.
Yes, agree on all fronts, including, as noted "Trumpsplaining".
I saw an interview last night with people in Tehran. At least the half-dozen people they showed (a) had been anti-regime before the war, (b) now are so pissed about the bombing that they've become more supportive/tolerant of the regime. (Which has generally been the result of strategic bombing over the years, as you know.)
You left out the fact that Bill Clinton’s administration had negotiated a nuclear arms deal with North Korea that Dubya chose to walk away from rather than enforce and strengthen. He was urged to do that by warmongering neocons like John Bolton who also cheerled Trump’s walking away from Obama’s JCPOA. In both cases the neocons used the juvenile point that those deals should be thrown out because they weren’t perfect, as if any human endeavor could ever be perfect.
Dubya thought he would be able to get a better deal with North Korea. Instead NK is now a nuclear power with the missiles necessary to deliver its nukes long distances, possibly as far as our West Coast. The media has buried that story.
The media ignored the obvious — why should any country negotiate with the US if Republican presidents casually walk away from agreements made by Democrats?
Any discussion of the Biden years as they relate to Iran can’t ignore his mulish refusal to put any daylight between the US and Israel after 10/7/23, likely dooming his own or Harris’s (re)election and further entrenching Bibi in power.
"and capped its uranium stockpiles at 300 kgs, enriched to a paltry 3.67%"
Paltry? I'm no nuclear engineer, but what I can find online suggests that between 3% and 5% is sufficient for light-water reactors.
Great wrap up.
For the record, I am not a journalist, and I vividly remember the "Axis of Evil." And GBW's televised Iraq War announcement. That was craziness.
GWB did deal a terrible blow to "accountability." GBW gutted the word, too: he was always yapping about holding this person or that person or group or regime accountable. I don't know that anything much ever came of it.
Finally, on the Jimmy Carter Poetry front, my friend Karl, who was Carter's editor on three books, told me the decision to publish the poetry book was a no-brainer. Carter's books sold so well that Peter Osnos, his publisher, wasn't concerned. And in fact, the poetry book did pretty well.
How about a Trump poetry book? Check out this video from "Bad Lip Reading." I'd say he did pretty well on that poetry thing. Easy sell to all MAGA readers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC4YpPspnUc&t=5s
The only good thing he will be remembered for is being the only human ever to grow back an ear.
Thanks. My favorite was Mike the Merry Cricket.
One doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry: in attempting tonprevent Iran from acquiring a weapon of mass destruction, the Trump administration has given Iran a weapon of mass destruction in the form of navigating the Persian Gulf!
Fine series, thanks for digging into this James. I have always thought detractors of the JCPOA were engaging in naive cynicism - the BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement) was always going to be worse. Small consolation to be proven right.
Thanks. Agree.
I think it is useful to recall that the JCPOA was never a ratified treaty because in the end only 42 Senators, some grudgingly, supported a resolution signaling they could sustain a Presidential veto of a resolution of disapproval that would have killed the deal. Sadly, there was never a majority for this deal.
Yes, that is true and useful to remember, as you say.
However tactically successful the first Gulf War may have been it turned out to be a strategic disaster. The Gulf War resulted in US and allied soldiers being stationed in Saudi Arabia, where we had non-Muslims defending the holy sites. This offended conservative Muslims such as Osama Bin Laden who vowed to push us out. This, ultimately, led to 9/11.
During the runup to the war I was in college at SUU and one of the TV stations in SLC came down to see what the students thought of the war. I wonder if they still have the tape? I pointed out that once the US military was in a place it usually took a LOT of effort to get it out. We still have troops in Korea 70 years after the cease fire was agreed. In Germany (well, for now) and Japan 80 years after the war ended. It took a volcano blowing up to pry us out of the Philippines, where we'd been since the Spanish American War. Heck, we still have bases scattered across the American West in case the Sioux and Cheyenne get troublesome.
The only places where we've fought in the past century where we don't still have soldiers stationed are Vietnam, because we lost that war, and Afghanistan where we just gave up.
"Heck, we still have bases scattered across the American West in case the Sioux and Cheyenne get troublesome."
Oh please...
Very good points; thank you.
The irony of Vietnam, as you know, is that starting about 15 years ago, US Navy ships began making regular port calls on ... .Cam Ranh Bay, as part of a general Western Pacific presence to contain/offset China. My how things change.
Am I mistaken to see the first Gulf War as the only war the US won since WWII?
Thank you. I’ve been wanting to see that chart about JCPOA. It doesn’t indeed say it all. I’m sad that media coverage doesn’t show it every day with every story. Instead they report on the constant gusher of lies as if it were news.
I didn't know about the chart and was amazed to see it. Talk about one picture/a thousand words. It should go on milk cartons or something.
Brilliant. And billboards and Times Square.
Yes!
Thanks, yes. The memory-hole into which the JCPOA seems to have vanished, from mainstream media's point of view, is indeed sobering. It's treated as just one more instance of a Trump/Obama feud, instead of a catastrophic and wholly self-inflicted wound by the US. Indeed, a wound inflicted by one resentment-driven man, and inflicted on the entire world.
Exactly.
Canadian-American David Frum was the principal author of the "axis of evil" phrase in President George W. Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address. While he has not issued a formal "apology" in the traditional sense, he has acknowledged that the policy and rhetoric surrounding the phrase led to a "reckless mistake" and has expressed regret over the failure of the Iraq War.
In late 2001, as a White House speechwriter, Frum was tasked with helping to write a section of the address that justified potential action against Iraq. Frum initially coined the phrase "axis of hatred," which was later edited by President Bush to "axis of evil," with North Korea added to the list.
The authorship became public knowledge in February 2002 after Frum's wife, Danielle Crittenden, emailed friends expressing pride in his contribution; the email was leaked, leading to significant controversy. Later that month, Frum quit the White House job.
In interviews and later writings, Frum has stated that using the strong, confrontational language without a firm, effective plan was a mistake. Years later, Frum described the 2003 Iraq invasion as a "misadventure" and an unwise decision, while simultaneously defending the initial intention of identifying threats.
While taking credit for the phrase in his book, *The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush*, Frum has also noted that his role was small, emphasizing that "the speaker of the words bears the responsibility for them".
In a 2022 article for *The Atlantic*, titled "The Enduring Lessons of the ‘Axis of Evil’ Speech," Frum looked back on the speech, outlining the failure of the Iraq War while arguing that the concept of addressing hostile states remained relevant.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/axis-of-evil-speech-frum-bush/621397/
Based on his recent YouTube remarks, Frum views the Trump-led war with Iran as a strategic failure, describing it as an impulsive, poorly planned conflict. He argues the war has created economic pain and serves as a dangerous expansion of executive power, ultimately favoring Iranian interests in the Strait of Hormuz.
My own view is that Iran should recognize that it no longer needs nuclear weapons now that it has demonstrated the power it wields through asymmetrical warfare and control of the strait. That means it can use the nuclear issue as a powerful bargaining chip to get concessions -- lifting sanctions, freeing frozen funds, perhaps shipping tolls or even reparations -- from Trump and his regional allies, who must realize what a quagmire they face otherwise. The people of Iran, and their neighbors, deserve better.
Very interesting about Frum. I read him occasionally, tend to like him, and had no idea about the connection to the "Axis of Evil." He seems to have learned from his mistake, which is good. But now I have a little more context for future pieces of his I read.
Thanks very much for this background and overview.
As it happens, I have come to know David Frum and have talked about all of this with him. I was very much against the Iraq War, and he (as you say) was very much for it — and in a consequential way, "axis of evil" and all. I agree with you about how he has dealt with the aftermath.
I have great respect for David Frum's intellectual integrity.
Today’s videos out of the Oval Office wherein children were subjected to the worst of his blathering made me weep. I can’t imagine that anyone in power, anywhere around the world, still thinks that the USA is rational.
Compare those with, say, videos of Obama showing kids around the Oval Office — of even Ronald Reagan at Easter Egg rolls. Or any decent person.
The “Axis of Evil” phrase was certainly burned into my mind, even though I was in high school at the time.
It was a ridiculous callback to WW2 and made no sense.
Yes.
Thank you, Jim. A wonderful distillation of years of history, and how Trump sent us back to the Dark Ages. So unnecessary, so pointless, so tragic. And the pain Trump’s recklessness is now inflicting will be felt for years to come.
Richard, thanks you. And agree.
(And thinking back to our "lost golden age in Beijing," in what seems like a previous millennium.)
In retrospect, the deal we had with Iran really was the best we could get. But I remember the arguments at the time. I was ambivalent - I didn't have a strong opinion of the deal at the time - but I was ambivalent because of the limited duration of the deal. Ten years, wasn't it? That was the Republican criticism - that we'd be back in the same place all over again ten years hence. Again, at the time, it felt like there was an element of just kicking the can down the road a little. And while I think Trump blew up the deal in large part just to be able to say "I'm the only genius deal-maker, and Biden is fool", at the time Trump exited the deal, I thought "this'd be okay if he can get us something better". Which was a pipe dream, of course, because Trump doesn't negotiate, he bullies, and he was bound to screw it up. But - getting back to the original Republican criticism of the deal - what was your take on that? Not in retrospect, but at the time?
I understand that it was controversial and imperfect even at the time. I think the stated duration was 15 years, rather than 10. But the pro-deal argument was (a) 15 years is better than nothing, and better than just unleashing Iran right now, and (b) 15 years is a *start*, and we can look at the next 15 years after that.
My understanding is that Trump blew it up 90% out of pique/resentment about Obama, and 10% because Netanyahu had been beating the drum incessantly about its evils.
At the time, my argument was: This isn't perfect, but it's better than any of the evident or plausible alternatives. So I was 100% in the "vote Yes" camp.
It was either kicking the can down the road or building on that agreement over ten years. It might have been possible with competent leadership. Its not as if Iran had no reason to be wary.
Agree (as above).
Jim -- this has been an excellent series on the US and Iran. There is little that is more lacking these days than historical perspective, and Americans seem more historically myopic than any other people.
I see the GHW Bush Administration as the last US government with a competent foreign policy. Our generation has royally screwed it up, taking the US from an unprecedented historical position of dominance and security to the present morass. And I give no bye to the Clinton or Obama Administrations (though, as you say, the Iran nuclear deal was the best available). But Bush I and James Baker et al much surpassed anything that our generation of presidents has offered. The first Gulf war and managing the breakup of the Soviet Empire stand out among much else as successes, especially in light of later failures. Bush and Baker also, being oil-men, understood the Middle East much better and more realistically than those who came later
Perhaps their competence comes in large part because their generation actually understood global war and its uncertainties and horrors and effects. They came from a very different and complex world than we did. I share Bush's heritage of Episcopalian wasp-y elite culture (including Greenwich CT), and for all of its many shortcomings, it did impart a sense of decency and proper form as you say, but it also demanded public service and responsibility toward those less favored by fortune.
I believe that a lot of this sense was reinforced by the War (WWII) where men like Bush served along with all other sorts of Americans, utterly dependent upon each other, and in the end victorious together. (President Carter of course also exemplified what was best of that generation, that sense of public service, while certainly not being of the wasp-y elite...) And that sense of us all being in it together persisted into the first couple of decades after the war. That sense of commonality has long since been lost, and our generation should shoulder our share of the blame, for whatever else might have been our merits.
Very well put about the achievements and experience of the Bush I team.
I think the Clinton team also deserves credit for a lot (eg Dayton accords, Northern Ireland, Ukraine giving up nukes — which mixed consequences of that) with some obvious missteps, like Somalia, and the still-debated effects of China in the WTO. And Obama with the JCPOA, and some climate/environment agreements, counts.
But, yes, GHWB's status as a "one-termer" has led to an under-rating of what he achieved in international policy.
Thank you for this lucid, concise, and accurate portrayal of our history with Iran, and for explaining exactly why Iran has no reason to trust the US - and particularly Trump. How well I recall the "axis of evil" line from Dubya's "They hate us for our freedom" speech. I recall thinking, "No, they hate us when we slaughter their children."
The problem, as always, is that those who need to read this won't, and those of us who read it and understand the provenance of this brief lesson don't need to read it. Every day I see Trump's defenders eagerly "Trumpsplaining" to anyone who reads their comments why our Dear Leader is such a hero for finally doing what no other president in history had the courage to do, and why they are so grateful for his "leadership," and why those of us who know the truth suffer from TDS.
I've also heard that even now, many Iranians remain opposed to their leadership. They are angry with Trump not for invading, but for failing to free them from the heavy yoke of this despotic regime. I suppose that a logical progression would be that if Trump had done so, or perhaps if he can yet do so, they might become his greatest fans.
Yes, agree on all fronts, including, as noted "Trumpsplaining".
I saw an interview last night with people in Tehran. At least the half-dozen people they showed (a) had been anti-regime before the war, (b) now are so pissed about the bombing that they've become more supportive/tolerant of the regime. (Which has generally been the result of strategic bombing over the years, as you know.)
Oh my! Haven't there been enough historical lessons on the failure of bombing? Bombing is incredibly seductive, addictive.
Liked: "Trumpsplaining."