"Going big": Inside Trump's great Iran gamble

Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/Axios

World leaders and experts warn of dominoes of destabilization in the Middle East. But a source who was with President Trump yesterday said he was in high spirits about his high-stakes decision to withdraw from the Iran deal.

Why it matters: It's history, his way. The banner headline of today's N.Y. Times: "TRUMP ABANDONS IRAN PACT HE LONG SCORNED ... Move Creates Divide With Allies and Complicates North Korea Talks."

Despite the momentous potential consequences, Trump’s decision to pull out was one of the most predictable of his presidency:

  • Those who thought Trump might stay in the Iran deal were delusional. This was a repeat of the Paris climate deal, where moderates in the administration thought there was a way Trump might "see the light" and stay in the global agreement. Like with Paris, Trump’s view on the Iran deal never changed.
  • He has contempt for the people who negotiated it and to endorse it in any way was never conceivable.
  • He has surrounded himself with officials like national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who reinforce his instincts rather than oppose them, as their predecessors H.R. McMaster and Rex Tillerson did.
  • It used to drive Trump nuts when Tillerson would continually argue to stay in the deal. “He felt like Rex was always making excuses to stay in,” an administration source said.

A White House official told Axios that Trump “likes it when ‘experts’ are on CNN freaking out":

  • "He’s going big, with what he believes, and confident in it all."
  • "POTUS ran against experts — the 'eggheads' — and believes that rebalancing our policies on trade, defense spending, security, etc., simply makes sense."
  • "The status quo itself is what the expert class got us, and isn’t working."
  • "It’s slow-walking a bomb in Tehran/Pyongyang, and steady decline vs. a cheating China."

Ben Rhodes — a former Obama official deeply involved in the Iran deal who's now co-chair of National Security Action, a Democratic response to Trump — said during a visit to Axios yesterday that the announcement reflects “strategic incoherence" and a "bizarre" effort "to precipitate a crisis":

  • “It just makes no sense, other than some political impulse that’s clearly about Obama."
  • "He’s thinking about domestic political announcements, not: What does this mean in Iraq or Syria or Yemen? These chickens will come home to roost.”
  • "He hasn't thought about what it means to own Iran and a potential crisis."

Go deeper, with Axios Expert Voices:

What's next

New York Times endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president

Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warrenand Sen. Amy Klobuchar at the December 2020 debatein Los Angeles. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president, in a decision announced on national television Sunday night.

Why it matters: The board writes in its editorial that its decision to endorse two candidates is a major break with convention that's intended to address the "realist" and "radical" models being presented to voters by the 2020 Democratic field.

Go deeperArrow1 hour ago - Media

What's next in the impeachment witness battle

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Senators will almost certainly get to vote on whether or not to call impeachment witnesses. The resolution laying out the rules of the trial, which will be presented Tuesday, is expected to mandate that senators can take up-or-down votes on calling for witnesses and documents.

Yes, but: Those votes won't come until the House impeachment managers and President Trump's defense team deliver their opening arguments and field Senators' questions.

Inside Trump's impeachment strategy: The national security card

White House counsel Pat Cipollone and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Trump officials say they feel especially bullish about one key argument against calling additional impeachment witnesses: It could compromise America's national security.

The big picture: People close to the president say their most compelling argument to persuade nervous Republican senators to vote against calling new witnesses is the claim that they're protecting national security.