A Cautious Optimism: Jake Sullivan Expounds on Potential for International Agreements and Bipartisan Compromise in Conversation with Daniel Benjamin

By Bryan Thomson

On January 28th, Daniel Benjamin, director of the Dickey Center for International Understanding, introduced Mr. Sullivan as one of the few people in Washington who everyone knows by a single name – “Jake.” The youngest-ever Director of Policy Planning for the Secretary of State (Hillary’s Ear), Mr. Sullivan assisted Secretary Clinton, and later Vice-President Biden, on a host of critical national security issues for over five years. Even after stepping down from his influential roles in the Obama Administration to teach at Yale Law School, Mr. Sullivan has continued to utilize his policy-crafting and diplomatic expertise in the ongoing Iranian nuclear talks.

The current political and economic context of American foreign policy is simultaneously uplifting and dispiriting – the dollar is strong, oil is cheap and relations with countries like Iran and Cuba are more promising than anytime in recent memory. Yet, ongoing, ‘frozen’ civil wars in Syria and Ukraine, rising tensions with Russia and whispers of the looming possibility of a Cold-War style confrontation with China leave many skeptical about America’s security and ability to support democratic peace and international economic cooperation. After spending years working on these issues in over 100 different countries and 150 different cities, Mr. Sullivan has interpreted these conflicting indicators as a confirmation that America must be firm in her resolve to support like-minded democracies and liberal market economies. Mr. Sullivan explains, that with a strong and consistent foreign policy that prioritizes American security and alliances with like-minded states, the U.S. is poised to excel in the coming years as a moral and economic leader.

Mr. Sullivan’s policy decisions are formed by a convincing pragmatism built on a realist understanding of the modern international system. Mr. Sullivan claims that, in the recent successful multilateral sanctions of Iran, “countries are coming at this from their own self-interest.” Because “the United States has made this a high priority,” Mr. Sullivan asserts, “I think countries have responded to that.” Touting the recent breakthroughs in the nuclear talks with the country, Sullivan notes how even the Russians and Chinese have come on board to put pressure on Iran for a solution. The bottom line for Mr. Sullivan in the Iranian case and others is that when the U.S. seeks to improve security worldwide, “all our partners can understand the technological and strategic interests” behind decisions, and policy goals can be realized through cooperation.

In building a new nuclear policy with Iran, the U.S. has strived for “a massive increase of transparency measures” that incentivizes cooperation and permanent progress. Because of ongoing conversations with Iran in Oman over the past two years, Mr. Sullivan and others have ensured with high confidence that the Iranian nuclear program is not “moving forward in any meaningful way.” Now, daily inspector access is granted, and joint European and American pressure through sanctions has been successful in creating the very real possibility for a deal with Iranian leadership. Mr. Sullivan stated, “There is a deal that can give the international community confidence… the world presently lacks confidence… but Iran has been complying.” In addition to the European-American cooperation on Iran, Mr. Sullivan contends that increasing European defense budgets and strengthening the continent’s economic prospects needs to be a major strategic goal of the United States.

Mr. Sullivan also sees hope in the political gridlock of Washington – an issue many have lamented for years. Though bipartisan agreement has been scant in the past decade, a “fair degree of commonality between Congress and the Executive Branch” can and will be found if an agreement with Iran regarding their nuclear program is reached, claims Mr. Sullivan. In defense of this claim, he cited the recent bill to arm Syrian rebels that passed after ISIS increased their territorial holdings in late 2014. Mr. Sullivan argues that, “In moments of crisis, especially in a national security crisis- there still is the wherewithal, not just for parties to come together, but to do so quickly.” While he is “not saying it will be easy,” Mr. Sullivan has “seen enough of the areas where bipartisanship is still possible to believe this can be carried out.”

If Mr. Sullivan is to be believed, a new type of American exceptionalism that acknowledges other countries’ sovereignty and mutual interests has begun to guide policy across the globe. In India, President Obama’s recent visit affirmed that historical Indian “nervousness has been slowly receding.” No longer does the nation feel a disconnect between a strategic partnership with America and her own autonomy. This sentiment applies elsewhere across the globe; America should not think in Cold War terms like ‘spheres of influence’ in the Baltics and Ukraine, but rather encourage deliberated self-determination and participation in the international system. Mr. Sullivan stressed the need to allow Ukraine to choose her own leaders and own path out of civil war – ideally not one that spurns Russia, but embraces the nation’s longstanding ties to both the east and west. At the same time, we must not turn our back on Putin, but rather “offer him an opportunity to choose a different path” in line with both our interests and those of the Russian people.

Though talk of compromise and global integration through increased cooperation may seem idealistic and impractical in the face of seemingly intractable conflicts, Mr. Sullivan cautioned that this path forward is not preordained nor decided by the United States alone. Progress is “driven by state decision-making,” and progress in Iraq must come from Baghdad, movement in Donetsk from Moscow, and peace in the East China Sea from Beijing and Tokyo. However, Mr. Sullivan cautions, “keeping the pressure on Putin is important: it has got to be a high priority… we can’t, at the end of the day, dictate [his choices] for him.” A positive, long-term improvement in American diplomacy worldwide will come from a combination of American willingness to support democratic and economically free states, and leaders like Putin realizing that aggression and hostility “is not a path that will produce anything but problems down the road.” Without both pieces of the solution, this cautious optimism may be sadly misplaced.

The conversation between Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Sullivan ultimately centered on the idea that, as a nation, we must move beyond a “historical amnesia” – the false notion that the United States has ever been a colossus capable of determining the fate of far-flung regions of the world liable to conflict, such as the Middle East, Ukraine, Iran and the South and East China Sea. Our path forward is not one of frequent unilateral action as the world’s policeman – a route that has already proven costly and ineffective –rather, it is one characterized by a capacity to cajole, promote growth and freedom, and to build institutions based on commonalities. The future of our diplomatic relations rests on American moral earnestness and willingness to act in mutual benefit with other nations – from Europe to India and China to even Iran and Russia.