Trump’s Appointment of Pompeo: Global Media Analysis

March 24, 2018

President Donald Trump fired U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on March 13, replacing him with the head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Mike Pompeo. “He is the right person for the right job at this critical juncture,” Mr. Trump said. Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Mr. Pompeo’s confirmation hearing would be in April.

There have been mixed reactions to the news around the world. Iran and Russia have been reticent in their response to the firing of Tillerson. Israel and many Arab countries, however, have welcomed the move. The semi-official media in the Gulf states consider the replacement of Tillerson with Pompeo a positive step. The following is a compilation of commentaries published on March 15 by Asharq Al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper.

In an opinion piece entitled “Does Tillerson’s removal matter to us?”, Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, the former general manager of Al Arabiya TV, writes: “The surprising thing about the removal of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is not that Donald Trump fired him, but that he waited a year and a half to do so — given that the president is well known for his outspoken outbursts. Everyone knows that Trump and Tillerson disagreed on many key issues, including the nuclear deal with Iran, North Korea, dealing with Russia, and of course Qatar. His differences with the president aside, the Secretary of State also had disagreements with the government’s most prominent leaders, including the head of the CIA, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, the Homeland Security Adviser, and Trump’s ambassador to the UN.”

Al-Rashed points out that any secretary of state would have a difficult time operating with a high degree of autonomy, particularly under President Trump. He explains: “Does the secretary of state have an important and effective role in a system headed by a strong president like Trump and his assistants? Well, America is a country of institutions, and the State Department and its head therefore have a big executive role. When the White House develops policies and adopts positions, it lets executive bodies take care of the details. A secretary [in the administration] is an important figure as he is one of the ‘king’s most trusted knights,’ advancing across the chessboard and competing against others to score victories.”

Al-Rashed views Pompeo’s appointment as significant, particularly in relations to Arab countries. He explains: “What matters to us is that we have good ties with all state offices, as long as there is agreement with the president on the key issues. Unfortunately, the record of the State Department under Tillerson did not reflect the spirit of the White House and its policies concerning several crucial matters, most importantly Iran. Many decisions taken by the previous Democratic administration regarding Iran are still applied. Until now, the State Department had refrained from supporting the Iranian opposition and its protests against the regime at a time when Trump had declared his support for it.”

Highlighting the main differences between Pompeo and Tillerson, Al-Rashed notes: “Mike Pompeo, Trump’s nominee to replace Tillerson, has extensive knowledge of dealing with such issues, being the director of the world’s most prominent intelligence agency, the CIA. The US is a principal player in all of the Middle East’s key issues, which include confronting Iran’s expanding power, the Syrian crisis, the Yemeni war, and permanent issues like the conflict with Israel and terrorism. Our relations with Washington are significant, from the intelligence report to the bullet, as well as issuing and defeating resolutions at the UN Security Council. We cannot streamline these relations by claiming that they are limited to trade deals and military contracts. There is an eternal struggle among the world’s powers regarding who attracts the US government to its side and its cause, and we suffered a lot with the Obama administration when it stopped selling us weapons and ammunition when we were in the middle of a serious war.”

Shifting his attention to Qatar, Al-Rashed writes: “Qatar is one part of the disagreement with Tillerson, but it is not the main cause. The Qatar crisis is a problem to Qatar but not to its neighbors. It is not an issue like Yemen or Libya. It is one that may be resolved this year, or take several more years; i.e. there is no hurry to resolve it as long as it is merely a political issue with no bloodshed. Doha must now realize that its friend Tillerson did not do it any good, but it did manage to hurt him.”

The former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, Salman bin Yousuf Al Dossary, believes that the Trump-Tillerson combination was doomed from the start. In an opinion piece entitled “The real losers of Tillerson’s departure,” Al Dossary writes: “After a year of constant fighting President Trump finally fired the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. It was obvious from the start that these two men could not work together. Tillerson frequently contradicted Trump in his remarks on foreign policy issues. He was more of a businessman than a politician. He didn’t have the necessary credentials to be an effective Secretary of State. Tillerson’s removal was a significant event.”

Al Dossary added: “It was next to impossible for the State Department to function properly given its adversarial relationship with the White House. Trump was also facing opposition from some of the members of the U.S. Congress. That’s why he couldn’t form a cohesive administration, even after a year in office. The disagreement between the Secretary of State and the president reached boiling point a few months ago after Tillerson called Trump a ‘moron.’ He also said that the president’s tweets didn’t set America’s official foreign policy.”

Highlighting the main differences between the president and his Secretary of State, Al Dossary added: “Trump and Tillerson disagreed on four major issues including the U.S. defense strategy unveiled in January. In Tillerson’s view, the strategy which focused on ‘great power competition’ was not in line with U.S. policy. The two also clashed over North Korea which led Trump to publicly criticize Tillerson’s position on the issue. The U.S. President and his Secretary of the State were also at odds over the Iran nuclear deal. Tillerson’s position was much closer to that of former President Barack Obama than Trump. The fourth area of disagreement was Qatar. While Trump accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, Tillerson was trying to convince Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to lift the sanctions against Doha.”

In conclusion, Al Dossary noted: “Tillerson sided with Qatar instead of Washington’s Arab allies. The appointment of Pompeo will mark a massive shift in the U.S.policy towards Qatar and Iran. I believe we’ll soon see a significant change in the American foreign policy. Iran and Qatar will be the biggest losers. Tehran and Doha must formulate clear, concise and coherent strategy towards the U.S.”    

Eli Lake, a columnist at Bloomberg View, highlights President Trump’s unorthodox way of firing senior cabinet officials. In an opinion piece entitled “Impact of Tillerson’s exit on Iran deal, Korea talks,” he writes: “As far as firings under President Donald Trump go, Rex Tillerson’s is not the most humiliating. That dishonor would have to go to the former chief of staff, Reince Priebus. He learned he was fired through three Trump tweets and soon after was decoupled from the president’s motorcade. But Tillerson’s departure is nonetheless a slap in the face to a former CEO who advised and quarreled with Trump. But the truth is this was a long time coming. Inside the State Department, Tillerson’s allies have long whispered about the rumors of his imminent departure.”

Lake also notes: “Tillerson had a close relationship with Defense Secretary James Mattis. They usually met at least once a week and were often aligned on important foreign policy tussles inside the national security cabinet. But over time, Tillerson found himself frozen out and in disagreement with the man who mattered most. Also, Trump considered the Iran nuclear deal ‘terrible’ which put him at odds with Tillerson. Tillerson’s State Department is in charge of prodding European allies to go along with fixes to the nuclear agreement ahead of the next deadline for the president to certify Iran’s compliance.”

Lake believes that Pompeo will have a profound impact on U.S. foreign policy. He explains: “ In his year leading the CIA, Pompeo approved the targeting, through intelligence operations, of leaders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. Inside the cabinet, Pompeo argued against certifying Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal while Tillerson made a case for not rocking the boat. To get a flavor of how Pompeo approaches the nuclear pact, look no further than his work as a member of Congress representing his home district in Wichita, Kansas. After the 2015 nuclear agreement, Pompeo worked tirelessly as a member of Congress to meet with European bankers, diplomats, and CEO to make the case that investing in Iran was not as safe as they were hearing from John Kerry, who was secretary of state at the time. Pompeo laid out his arguments six weeks before the 2016 election in an essay for Foreign Policy with the pithy title ‘Friends Don’t Let Friends Do Business With Iran.’”

Lake points out that Russia and North Korea would remain significant issues for the U.S. irrespective of who takes over the State Department. He explains: “On two other important foreign policy areas, Russia and North Korea, the differences between Pompeo and Tillerson are less pronounced. Pompeo too has taken a harder line than Trump himself on Russia. As CIA director, he said last April that WikiLeaks, the web community that posted the emails of prominent Democrats hacked by Russia’s military spy agency, would be treated as a ‘hostile intelligence service.’ More recently, Pompeo’s CIA has stepped up intelligence sharing and contacts with Ukraine’s spy service, which is fighting a war on its eastern front against Kremlin operatives and Russian-backed separatists.”

Highlighting Tillerson and Pompeo’s different approach to North Korea, Lake writes: “Finally there is North Korea. Notably, Tillerson was on a trip through Africa when Trump announced that he had accepted an invitation — conveyed through a South Korean delegation — to meet with North Korea’s tyrant, Kim Jong-Un. Two administration officials, however, tell me that this did not mean Tillerson was out of the loop on the planning over the weekend. When asked about the potential summit, Tillerson was cautious. He said planning remained in the ‘very early stages.’ Compare Tillerson’s response to that of Pompeo. Speaking about the prospect of a Trump-Kim meeting, the CIA director played up what Tillerson played down. ‘These are real achievements,’ Pompeo told Fox News Sunday. ‘These are conditions that the North Korean regime has never submitted to in exchange for conversations.”