Unity vital on US foreign policy

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s delayed denial that he called President Donald Trump a “moron” — issued through a spokeswoman — came not a moment too soon. Evidence of discord between them on crucial issues such as North Korea and the Iran nuclear deal is creating an impression of American incoherence in its vital leadership role in the world. If it continues, the damage will be significant.

US tradition requires great trust and collaboration between the President and the Secretary of State. This is vital to ensure the Secretary represents the President and US foreign policy authoritatively to world leaders. In the case of Mr Trump and Mr Tillerson, their divergent views on talks with Pyongyang were clear. After meeting Chinese leaders, Mr Tillerson disclosed that the US was in direct contact with North Korea, “probing” to see if the regime of Kim Jong-un was willing to talk. Mr Trump immediately undercut Mr Tillerson, telling him publicly he was “wasting his time”. In a tweet, the President said he was thinking of a different solution: “Save your energy, Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!”

Their differences have long been apparent. At his Senate hearing in February Mr Tillerson’s hawkish views on Russia contradicted those of Mr Trump. When Mr Trump decided to pull the US out of the Paris climate change accord, Mr Tillerson expressed support for it. In Australia in June, Mr Tillerson’s calls for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to end their blockade of Qatar were countermanded by Mr Trump, who sided strongly with Riyadh. As Mr Trump reportedly prepares to announce one of the most momentous decisions of his presidency so far — “decertifying” the Iran nuclear deal, a move that would start a 60-day congressional review period to consider the US’s next steps — questions have arisen about whether Mr Tillerson is fully supportive. Such an action would potentially rupture Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement. In July, the administration certified to the US congress, as it is required to do every 90 days on the advice of Mr Tillerson’s State Department, that Iran was complying with the deal. Mr Trump, however, said it was “the wrong thing to do … they don’t comply”.

In his recent UN address, Mr Trump left no doubt about his distaste for “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the US has ever entered into … an embarrassment”. It was “far past time”, he said, to confront a regime that “speaks openly of mass murder, vowing death to America (and) destruction to Israel”. Iran, he said, funded Hezbollah and other terrorist groups as it shored up the Assad regime in Syria, fuelled Yemen’s civil war and undermined Middle East peace by pushing Shia regional hegemony.

Tehran has only itself to blame. Mr Trump was never going to ignore Iran’s blatant support for global terrorism and its persistent flouting of UN resolutions demanding it stop testing ballistic missiles ultimately capable of carrying nuclear weapons. John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the UN, contends the ayatollahs, are “using Mr Obama’s handiwork to legitimise their terrorist state, facilitate (and conceal) their continuing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles programs, and acquire valuable resources from gullible negotiating partners”.

Challenging times lie ahead for US foreign policy. And Mr Trump and Mr Tillerson need to speak with one voice to provide strong, coherent leadership. Contradicting each other plays into the hands of the regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang.