President Trump's Iran Speech, October 13, 2017

Pres. Trump delivers Iran speech from White House

In the second of two important speeches that he delivered yesterday, President Donald Trump announced his new Iran policy from the White House. Fulfilling a major campaign promise, he rejected the multinational deal that President Obama signed to restrict Iran's development of nuclear weapons. He justified his decision by complaining about Iran's past bad behavior, some of which dated back to the Jimmy Carter administration. Mr. Trump had (like many Republicans) repeatedly complained that the agreement was weak. Was it really weak? Or was this just a political talking point? I'm no foreign policy expert, and I don't really know. So, let's look at Mr. Trump's persuasive methods.

In this speech, Trump used three important rhetorical methods: he transcended the immediate issue; he showed how the new policy was tough while he pictured former President Barack Obama to have been weak, and he twisted a few facts. The latter is to be deplored but expected; after all, this is politics.

First, the Iran deal's European partners hold firmly that Iran is upholding its end of the deal and has stopped its nuclear weapons production. Federica Mogherini, the European Union's chief foreign policy officer, complained that this was an international agreement and that no one president can terminate it. Since President Trump could not plausibly claim that Iran had not kept up the bargain (although he valiantly tried), he spent little time on alleged violations and instead brought up various non-nuclear issues: the Iranian hostage crisis, Iranian support of Hezbollah, and Iranian efforts to destabilize the Middle East. In other words, since his narrow case was weak, he moved to a larger case that he could make more strongly.

Second, he repeatedly accused Mr. Obama of making a weak deal. This played into the typical conservative view that liberals are weak leaders. Cognitive scientist George Lakoff has explained that conservatives prefer a strong, tough leader--what he calls a "strong father" metaphor--while liberals prefer a nurturing leader. A nurturing leader is not necessarily weak, but creates a different impression. Thus, Mr. Trump said things that emphasize strength, like this:

As I have said many times, the Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. The same mindset that produced this deal is responsible for years of terrible trade deals that have sacrificed so many millions of jobs in our country to the benefit of other countries. We need negotiators who will much more strongly represent America’s interest.

Map of Iran, Dept of State

Finally, although he did not exactly tell lies, Mr. Trump reinterpreted international events. He claimed that, before the deal was made, Iran was close to collapse. This was unproven. He implied that Iran could resume nuclear weapons production "in just a few years, as key restrictions disappear, Iran can sprint towards a rapid nuclear weapons breakout." This exaggerated the facts, as the deal permanently forbids Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump repeated a common conservative talking point that the United States gave "the regime . . . a massive cash settlement of $1.7 billion  . . .  a large portion of which was physically loaded onto an airplane and flown into Iran. Just imagine the sight of those huge piles of money being hauled off by the Iranians waiting at the airport for the cash. I wonder where all that money went." This misinterpreted the facts, as the money was well-publicized to be Iran's money all along, and it was paid in cash because Iran and the United States do not share banking arrangements. Thus, although the payment may or may not have been wise, Mr. Trump made it sound much more sinister than it was.
misleading

Still, being a bit cagey, Mr. Trump promised to impose certain sanctions on Iran, but did not  specifically try to restore the previous sanctions. This gave him room to maneuver and negotiate, probably a wise idea. That is, he made his actions sound tougher--stronger--than they really were.

Politicians overstate things every day. Still, by overstating the facts, Mr. Trump could ultimately lose some credibility with undecided or middle-of-the-road members of the public.

So, although the speech was measured and professional, its ability to persuade members of the public could be limited. Still, if Mr. Trump's true message was to convey strength, he was successful.