World Review: Iran on the Brink. The West Divided. Trump Unbound.
A synopsis of this week's edition of World Review
Each week, I host a video podcast called World Review with Ivo Daalder where journalists from major news outlets around the world join me to discuss the latest global news stories of the week.
Yesterday, January 16, we discussed the evolving situation in Iran, the growing transatlantic divide over Greenland and Ukraine, and whether anyone can constrain President Trump on foreign policy. Joining me this week were Yasmeen Abutaleb, Politics Reporter of The Washington Post, Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator of the Financial Times, and Christopher Miller, Chief Ukraine Correspondent of the Financial Times.
“World Review is always fascinating. I love the fact that you can get journalists from around the world to participate since zoom is the medium.”
— A Subscriber to America Abroad
While I encourage you to listen to the episode (and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts!), here are a few interesting things I took away from our discussion:
As preparations are underway for President Trump’s meeting with President Zelenskyy in Davos, divisions in the transatlantic relationship are growing over Greenland, raising questions about whether Europe can rely on US security commitments, including in Ukraine. Chris described Kyiv’s strategy as a race to get commitments in writing, hoping in particular for Trump’s commitment to security guarantees. But as Gideon warned, the credibility of such commitments is highly questionable. Without a credible U.S. backstop, the proposed European reassurance force also does not seem to be a viable alternative. What may be motivating the Ukrainians is avoiding further blame for impeding peace, but as Yasmeen pointed out, President Trump continues to reserve the most vicious rhetoric for Zelenskyy. Whether we can actually expect any progress in Davos remains unclear.
The Iranian crackdown on protests this week was a grim lesson in how quickly a moment of hope can collide with the hard reality of state repression. Gideon argued that the central fact was not the scale of the protests but the regime’s willingness to use massive violence, and that without a split in the security forces, crackdowns can succeed even when the underlying legitimacy crisis deepens. What could have changed the calculus is outside intervention, but President Trump did not deliver on his threats. The external pressure from partners in the region, who were unprepared for retaliation, and the lack of viable military options that could deliver a quick win, likely led the President to walk away. As Yasmeen pointed out, looking at the history of the Arab Spring, even if the President had intervened, regime change cannot guarantee a solution to Iran’s problems. Instead, the government may simply be replaced by a more repressive one. Drawing comparisons to Ukraine, Chris noted that the key to success is organizing and laying the groundwork for a successful transition once the opportunity arises. While the protests may have stopped, the underlying grievances remain and will likely fuel future challenges to the regime.
All of this leads to the most unsettling question: if Trump can move this fast across so many fronts, who can stop him? Domestically, Yasmeen suggested that Congress has largely surrendered the tools that usually restrain a president, and the courts have not provided a consistent restraint either. Republicans remain unwilling to restrain his authority, which was made clear this week when Senators Hawley and Young flipped and voted against the War Powers Resolution. Until Democrats control one or both chambers of Congress, he remains unbound. Internationally, Gideon noted that Europe’s history of dependence on the US has made European leaders hesitant to push back, only inviting further demands from Trump. As long as Europe is unwilling to entertain the possibility of breaking with America, Trump will continue to do what he wants. Credible pushback appears to be the only language the President respects. Chris noted that Ukraine’s leaders have repeatedly tried to manage Trump through personal persuasion and high-stakes meetings, with mixed results. The real constraint may ultimately come not from appeals to shared values, but from the costs of failure: a collapsed peace process and political consequences at home that reintroduce limits President Trump does not currently feel.
Those are my quick takes on this week’s episode here on World Review. To get the full story, please listen to the episode itself.