Citing Iran’s support for the Taliban as a justification for killing Soleimani is bizarre. The Taliban continues to kill Americans—took credit for attacks just last month—yet Trump invited its leaders to Camp David and Khalilzad is reportedly in talks with them this week.
This demonstrates a policy that is now flailing for justifications as another 10,000 troops move into the Middle East and Esper says “we are prepared to FINISH” a war with Iran — a country 4x larger than Iraq with 3x the population. What does that mean? How? With what allies?
For the good of our country, I want the administration to navigate its way through this crisis—but each day demonstrates complete lack of coordination or serious thought. This was a foreseeable outcome of a maximalist Iran policy (as I wrote six months ago in @ForeignAffairs).👇 
The policy failed to align ends, ways, means. It was based on a false assumption that Iran would not fight back against economic strangulation. It brought no allies with us. And it failed to adapt after an action-reaction cycle began in May, indicating changed circumstances.
This is a problem across the board. Trump’s foreign policies are based on slogans and maximum objectives that sound edifying but bear no relation to reality or how other powers will act in response. From the same article on the fatal ends/means gap in Syria & Venezuela.👇
America must somehow return to basics in foreign affairs: achievable objectives; alignment of ends/means; allies. Pursuing maximalist ends can paradoxically cede initiative to more patient adversaries and gravely set back US interests—as we may now be seeing in the Middle East.
A coda on incoherence: Trump’s grand “national security strategy” focused on reducing Middle East commitments to reposition towards Asia. (As the NYT reported last month.) That was always irreconcilable with his Iran policy. Now likely impossible. nytimes.com/2019/12/24/wor…
