The United States (US) – Iran relations have been characterized by massive, intrusive domestic interference by the U.S in Iran’s affairs. This has been done ostensibly for the safeguarding of reliable access to crude oil and stabilizing the crude oil market. The relationship began going badly in 1951 following growing nationalist tendencies in Iran, the personification of which was not palatable for the west. What has followed is a disagreement in principle between two former allies that has spiraled into a major international standoff, with the infusion of the delicate and equally incendiary matters of nuclear arms and ever-present regional religious tensions. In the article that appeared in the Economist on the 25th of April 2018, with the title “Jupiter meets Mercury: Emmanuel Macron tries to win over Donald Trump on Iran,” the author's portrayal of the U.S-Iran state of relations as yet another stalemate is not surprising. The most perplexing turn of events in the unfolding script that is all too familiar is the entry of the French president into an already murky plot. It is beyond doubt that these are the beginnings of another twist to the U.S-Iran tale to unfold in the near future. However, it is not clear whether this is damage control in the larger and longer-term scheme of international relations regarding nuclear arms proliferation or the U.S-Iran relations for that matter. This paper is an attempt to provide the alternative view that no damage control is implied in the involvement of France. This is because this was already a protracted dispute with no end in site and it is anybody’s guess how it will end.
This paper is about the alternative thesis that the relations between the U.S and Europe have been drifting apart. The election of President Donald Trump only serves to bring this reality to fore but is not the reason for it, quite the contrary. In Donald Trump is the symptom of the disease, the result of an archaic and decadent architectural construct of global international relations and order (Tepperman, 2004; Alvarez, 2000). Therefore, this is a pattern just as in Asia with Japan-China relations thawing, and now South and North Korea. In President Emmanuel Macron lie's one of the multiple responses yet to come, of new partnerships with the aim of shifting the paradigm, and a signal to the end of an era.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Summary of the Argument
The article titled “ Jupiter meets Mercury: Emmanuel Macron tries to win over Donald Trump on Iran ” appeared in the print edition of The Economist , a weekly magazine, on April 25th, 2018 in the Europe section under the heading ‘Jupiter meets Mercury.’ This article refers to the overtures French President Emmanuel Macron is making to the U.S President Donald Trump. It begins with a description of how the speech made by the French President to the U.S Congress during his state visit to the U.S was well received. This on the backdrop of a flourishing relationship between him and the American president. This is odd perhaps but not, when considering that both presidents are perceived as ‘mavericks,' the unlikely choices for president of either of their countries. The agenda for the state visit by French president was, according to this article, an attempt by President Macron to persuade the American president not to walk away from the world. Specifically, it was aimed at persuading President Trump not to walk away from the Iran nuclear agreement and perhaps even the highly improbable prospect of America rejoining the Paris climate change process.
America is perceived to be on the retreat by nations globally, a majority of whom have grown accustomed to the protective omnipresence of the ever-reliable big brother against perennial aggressors such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The unthinkable happened after the election of Donald Trump to the white house. Armed with his ‘America first’ mantra and a legitimacy, multilateralism has crumbled in his wake leaving confusion and consternation in equal measure. The article also reckons that President Trump is interested in a European idea, a deal, ‘an add-on deal’ that will supposedly cover wider American concerns on Iran. The article terms this as a probable gigantic and massive diplomatic coup in the making, with President Macron as its chief promoter. The article proceeds to describe the specifics of the appendix to the original ‘insane’ deal as that which is supposed to cover against the exigencies of Iran’s ballistic missile stash and to act as a leash to tether Iran against regional interference. In this regard, it is believed that President Trump upstaged Europe, drove a hard bargain and now is hopeful of ‘a much bigger deal.’
The article analyses correctly that it is a big gamble by President Macron, but also that he is heavily invested in this. Probably sensing the decline of the UK and the upturned nose of the Germans, he is aiming to prop up the French nation to European leadership. The article describes President Macron’s actions as an effort to discourage the American leader from spurning the world, Europe in particular, for fear that America’s retreat might embolden destructive forces. Further, the authors sound a subtle warning of the perils that await President Macron at home with the domestic politics, despite the very short-term perception of a French renaissance in Europe.
Analysis of the Argument
The argument put forward by the article is an inductive argument. There are no hard and fast premises on which to base a conclusion that the sole and central reason that President Macron was in Washington was to win President Trump over to back the Iran nuclear agreement. The article is logical to the extent that it gives an argument that is probably valid in the claim that the French president is attempting to do pirouettes on an injured ankle, and that it will eventually be painful when America calls it’s a bluff. This is correctly premised on the fact that America is on the retreat from multilateralism and the ‘freeloaders.’ The latter refers to a majority of the nations that are not shouldering a fair share of the responsibility of keeping the world safe and markets fair. However, the deductive logic of whether the French president's actions are being aimed at damage control in light of America turning its back on the Iran deal is flawed, and therefore the argument has minimal deductive logic. The French leader’s actions are purely selfish. Considering that he won the election on the basis of multilateralism, President Macron's actions are purely to save face with France's domestic politics and for misleading the French people concerning the relevance of multilateralism. This is not a good argument but rather is a bad argument. The main concern in the unfolding events should not have been the Iran deal but about where the European nations are left standing, including France. This is particularly in the absence and death of multilateralism and with France being one of its arduous proponents ( Willner-Reid , 2018; Rathbun, 2011; Alvarez, 2000).
There is limited truth value in this article's argument. This is because not all the article’s premises are true. For instance, the true motivation of President Macron’s U.S visit cannot be summarized as the Iran nuclear deal. This is in consideration of the greater picture of the happenings in the global international relations where opposition seems to be building against multilateralism as the basis for world order. Based on this, this article can be considered as presenting a bad argument with little deductive truth value. However, it may be based on a good inductive logic and in this sense might be a good argument with some inductive truth value if one chooses to believe the motives of the French president.
Overall, the article presents a strong argument. However, it is uncogent as it is not possible to verify the motives underpinning the actions described. Hence not all premises are true.
References
Alvarez, J. E. (2000). Multilateralism and its Discontents. European Journal of International Law , 11 (2), 393-411.
Rathbun, B. C. (2011). The ‘magnificent fraud’: Trust, international cooperation, and the hidden domestic politics of American multilateralism after World War II. International Studies Quarterly , 55 (1), 1-21.
Tepperman, J. D. (2004). Some hard truths about multilateralism. World Policy Journal , 21 (2), 27-36.
The Economist (2018, April 25). Jupiter meets Mercury: Emmanuel Macron tries to win over Donald Trump on Iran. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21741118-frances-president-has-little-common-americas-somehow-they-get-along-emmanuel-macron
Willner-Reid, M. (2018). The Rise of Referendums: A Death Sentence for Multilateralism?. The International Spectator , 1-20.
