Never Give an Inch

Never Give an Inch Plot Summary

Introduction

In the early hours of January 3, 2020, American Hellfire missiles struck a vehicle leaving Baghdad International Airport, killing Iran's most powerful military commander, Qasem Soleimani. Critics warned this bold action would trigger a massive regional war, yet the predicted apocalypse never materialized. Instead, this moment exemplified a fundamental shift in American foreign policy—one that prioritized clear deterrence over strategic ambiguity, national interests over global consensus, and principled strength over diplomatic accommodation. For decades, conventional wisdom in foreign policy circles had insisted that such decisive actions would inevitably lead to catastrophic escalation. The reality proved dramatically different. This diplomatic revolution represented a comprehensive reassessment of America's role in the world. From confronting China's predatory economic practices to brokering unprecedented peace agreements between Israel and Arab states, from imposing maximum pressure on Iran's revolutionary regime to demanding NATO allies meet their defense commitments, this period saw American diplomacy break with longstanding orthodoxies. Whether you're interested in great power competition, Middle East dynamics, the challenges of international organizations, or simply how leadership decisions shape global events, these insights into America's diplomatic transformation offer valuable lessons about how principled strength can advance both national interests and international stability in an increasingly competitive world.

Chapter 1: Rebuilding American Deterrence: The End of Strategic Patience

When Mike Pompeo became CIA Director in January 2017, he inherited an intelligence community that had grown increasingly risk-averse. Years of "strategic patience" had allowed adversaries to advance their interests while America hesitated. This approach had produced predictable results: China's military buildup in the South China Sea continued unchallenged, Iran expanded its proxy network across the Middle East, Russia annexed Crimea with minimal consequences, and North Korea accelerated its nuclear weapons program. The costs of this restraint had become increasingly apparent, with American influence diminishing and adversaries growing bolder. The new administration recognized that effective deterrence requires both capability and credibility—adversaries must believe that crossing American red lines will trigger meaningful consequences. This meant rebuilding America's military capabilities while simultaneously demonstrating willingness to use them when necessary. Defense spending increased significantly, reversing years of sequestration that had hollowed out military readiness. More importantly, the administration proved willing to employ force decisively when American interests were threatened, as demonstrated by strikes against Syrian chemical weapons facilities in 2017 and 2018. Perhaps the most dramatic demonstration of renewed deterrence came in January 2020 with the elimination of Qasem Soleimani. As commander of Iran's Quds Force, Soleimani had orchestrated attacks that killed hundreds of Americans and threatened many more. After an attack that killed an American contractor and wounded American soldiers, the administration made the decision to eliminate Soleimani in a precision strike. Critics warned this would trigger a massive regional war, but Iran's response was limited and calculated, demonstrating that the regime understood the consequences of further escalation. The restoration of credible deterrence extended beyond military actions to diplomatic and economic domains. When chemical weapons were used in Syria, the response was not just military strikes but also the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in history, recognizing Moscow's role in protecting the Assad regime. When China engaged in unfair trade practices, the administration imposed tariffs rather than continuing endless negotiations. When Venezuela's Maduro regime threatened American interests, the administration recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president and imposed crippling sanctions on the regime. This approach to deterrence recognized that in international relations, strength often prevents conflict rather than provoking it. As Ronald Reagan had demonstrated decades earlier, peace comes through strength, not accommodation of adversaries. By the end of this period, America's adversaries had recalibrated their calculations—Iran curtailed attacks on American forces, North Korea halted nuclear and missile tests, and Russia refrained from further territorial aggression in Ukraine. The lesson was clear: when America draws firm lines and demonstrates willingness to enforce them, adversaries adjust their behavior accordingly. The rebuilding of American deterrence represented a fundamental shift from the previous approach of strategic patience and leading from behind. It recognized that in a competitive international environment, respect is earned through strength and resolve, not through concessions designed to demonstrate good intentions. As one senior official noted, "Our enemies don't fear us anymore, and our friends don't trust us." The restoration of deterrence aimed to reverse both trends, creating conditions where adversaries would think twice before challenging American interests and allies could once again rely on American security guarantees.

Chapter 2: China Challenge: Confronting the CCP's Global Ambitions

For decades, American policy toward China was guided by the belief that economic engagement would lead to political liberalization. This "change through trade" theory posited that as China integrated into the global economy, it would gradually adopt Western-style democratic reforms and become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international system. By 2017, this theory had been thoroughly discredited by China's increasingly authoritarian turn under Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, who consolidated power and eliminated term limits that would have ended his rule in 2023. The administration recognized that the CCP presented the greatest external threat to America's way of life. Under Xi's leadership, China had grown more repressive at home and more aggressive abroad. The party had built concentration camps in Xinjiang where over a million Uyghur Muslims were detained, crushed freedom in Hong Kong by imposing a draconian national security law, militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea, and engaged in massive intellectual property theft estimated to cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars annually. These actions revealed the true nature of the CCP: not a partner in a rules-based international order, but a revisionist power seeking to reshape that order to its advantage. In October 2019, Secretary Pompeo delivered a landmark speech at the Hudson Institute that exposed the regime's Communist ideology to the world. He made the crucial distinction that "the Communist government in China today is not the same as the people of China"—a statement that reportedly provoked overwhelming vitriol from CCP propaganda organs. This distinction was vital to understanding the challenge: the problem was not China or the Chinese people, but the Communist Party that ruled them. Previous administrations had carefully avoided this distinction, fearing it would offend Beijing, but the new approach recognized that clarity about the nature of the regime was essential to developing an effective response. The administration's approach to China was multifaceted. On the economic front, it imposed tariffs to address unfair trade practices and pressured allies to exclude Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei from their 5G networks. By 2021, sixty countries and dozens of telecommunications firms had agreed not to wire Huawei into their networks, recognizing the security risks posed by a company legally obligated to assist Chinese intelligence services. The administration also took action against Chinese espionage, closing the Chinese consulate in Houston in July 2020, which had been a hub of Chinese intelligence operations. Perhaps most significantly, the administration called attention to the CCP's human rights abuses, particularly its treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. On January 19, 2021, the administration formally determined that China was committing genocide against the Uyghurs—a designation that the subsequent administration maintained. This determination represented a powerful form of accountability for the CCP's atrocities and demonstrated that human rights would not be sacrificed on the altar of economic interests. Throughout these efforts, the administration faced resistance not only from China but from American institutions with financial ties to the CCP. Universities, corporations, and financial institutions often prioritized access to Chinese markets over confronting the CCP's malign activities. The administration worked to expose these conflicts of interest and encourage Americans to recognize the true nature of the CCP challenge. As one official noted, "The China threat isn't just external—it's penetrated our institutions in ways we're only beginning to understand."

Chapter 3: Maximum Pressure: Iran and the Soleimani Turning Point

When the Trump administration took office in January 2017, Iran's influence was ascendant across the Middle East. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, had provided the regime with billions of dollars in sanctions relief while merely delaying rather than preventing its nuclear ambitions. With these resources, Iran expanded its network of proxy militias across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, creating what some called a "Shia crescent" stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean. American allies in the region, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, watched with growing alarm as Iranian influence expanded unchecked. The administration's approach to Iran began with a fundamental reassessment of the nuclear deal. Critics had identified numerous flaws: the agreement's sunset provisions meant key restrictions would expire within 10-15 years; it failed to address Iran's ballistic missile program; it did not prevent Iran's regional aggression; and the inspection regime contained significant gaps, particularly regarding military sites. In May 2018, after attempts to address these issues through negotiations failed, President Trump announced America's withdrawal from the agreement and the implementation of what became known as the "maximum pressure" campaign. This strategy combined unprecedented economic sanctions with diplomatic isolation and military deterrence. The results were dramatic—Iran's GDP contracted by nearly 12% in 2019, oil exports fell from 2.5 million barrels per day to less than 400,000, and the regime was forced to cut funding to its proxy forces. The Iranian rial lost more than 60% of its value against the dollar, and inflation soared above 40%. These economic pressures severely constrained the regime's ability to fund its malign activities abroad while increasing domestic discontent, as evidenced by widespread protests in 2019 that the regime violently suppressed. As the pressure mounted, Iran lashed out through its network of proxies. In May and June 2019, Iranian forces attacked oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. In September, Iranian drones and cruise missiles struck Saudi oil facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais, temporarily cutting Saudi oil production in half. Most significantly, Iran-backed militias in Iraq launched rockets at bases housing American troops, eventually killing an American contractor in December 2019. These escalations led to the fateful decision to eliminate Qasem Soleimani, the architect of Iran's proxy strategy and commander of the Quds Force. The Soleimani strike in January 2020 represented a turning point in America's confrontation with Iran. For years, Soleimani had operated with impunity across the Middle East, directing attacks that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq and thousands of civilians in Syria. His elimination demonstrated that this impunity had ended and that Iran would face consequences for attacks on Americans. Contrary to predictions of massive retaliation and regional war, Iran's response was limited to a missile strike on an Iraqi base that caused no American fatalities. Through Swiss intermediaries, Iran signaled that this would conclude its response if America did not escalate further. The maximum pressure campaign and the Soleimani strike illustrated a fundamental principle of the administration's approach to Iran: the regime responds to strength, not concession. Previous administrations had often hesitated to confront Iran directly, fearing escalation. This hesitation had not produced Iranian moderation but rather emboldened the regime to expand its aggression. By demonstrating willingness to impose severe costs on the regime, the administration changed Iran's risk calculus and created leverage that could potentially lead to a comprehensive agreement addressing the full range of Iran's threatening behaviors, not just its nuclear program.

Chapter 4: Diplomatic Innovation: The Abraham Accords Breakthrough

For decades, conventional wisdom held that Israeli-Palestinian peace was the prerequisite for broader Middle East stability. The Trump administration turned this assumption on its head, pursuing a fundamentally different approach that prioritized strengthening Israel, isolating Iran, and building new partnerships between Israel and Arab states. This strategic reorientation led to the Abraham Accords—historic peace agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco that represented the first normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states in over 25 years. The groundwork for this diplomatic breakthrough began with several symbolic but significant steps. In May 2018, the administration fulfilled a longstanding congressional mandate by moving the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing the city as Israel's capital. While critics warned this would trigger massive regional unrest, the predicted violence never materialized. In March 2019, the administration recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in 1967 and essential to Israel's security. These actions demonstrated America's commitment to Israel while signaling to Arab states that waiting for Israeli-Palestinian peace before normalizing relations with Israel was no longer American policy. Several factors made this realignment possible. Small Gulf states like Bahrain and the UAE faced direct threats from Iran across the Persian Gulf and recognized that Israel shared their security concerns. These nations also sought to diversify their economies beyond oil and saw potential benefits in normalized relations with Israel, a technological powerhouse. Additionally, a new generation of Arab leaders did not harbor the same anti-Israel sentiments as their predecessors and were more focused on economic development and countering extremism than on the Palestinian cause. The breakthrough came in August 2020 with the announcement of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the UAE, followed shortly by Bahrain. These agreements went far beyond the "cold peace" that characterized Israel's treaties with Egypt and Jordan. They included provisions for direct flights, tourism, investment, and security cooperation. Israeli tourists soon flocked to Dubai, and trade between Israel and the UAE quickly reached billions of dollars. The agreements demonstrated that peace could bring tangible benefits to all parties, creating a positive cycle of cooperation rather than the zero-sum mentality that had long dominated regional thinking. The Abraham Accords illustrated how creative diplomacy, freed from outdated assumptions, could achieve breakthroughs where conventional approaches had failed. By recognizing that shared concerns about Iran and opportunities for economic cooperation could overcome historical animosities, the administration facilitated a fundamental realignment in the Middle East. As one Gulf official remarked, "We are simply bringing into the light what was already happening in the shadows"—acknowledging that the formal agreements were built upon years of quiet cooperation driven by shared interests. Perhaps most significantly, the Abraham Accords demonstrated that peace agreements succeed when they reflect existing strategic alignments rather than trying to impose external visions disconnected from regional realities. Previous peace efforts had often focused on pressuring Israel to make territorial concessions in exchange for promises of normalization that never materialized. The Abraham Accords reversed this approach, showing that normalization could precede and potentially facilitate progress on the Palestinian issue rather than being held hostage to it. This pragmatic recognition of regional dynamics, rather than adherence to diplomatic orthodoxy, enabled a historic breakthrough that continues to reshape the Middle East.

Chapter 5: Demanding Reciprocity: Transforming NATO and Alliance Dynamics

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has served as the cornerstone of transatlantic security since its founding in 1949. Yet by 2017, the alliance faced significant challenges: many European members had allowed their military capabilities to atrophy, Russia had grown increasingly aggressive following its 2014 annexation of Crimea, and questions had emerged about NATO's relevance in addressing 21st-century threats like terrorism, cyber warfare, and China's rise. The Trump administration approached these challenges with a philosophy of "America First, Not America Alone"—demanding greater burden-sharing from allies while maintaining America's commitment to collective defense. For decades, American presidents had urged European allies to increase their defense spending to meet NATO's guideline of 2% of GDP, with limited success. By 2016, only five of NATO's 29 members were meeting this threshold, with the United States accounting for over 70% of total alliance defense spending. This imbalance had created a situation where America bore disproportionate costs for European security while some wealthy European nations effectively free-rode on American military guarantees. The administration addressed this imbalance through direct, often blunt communications that generated significant controversy but produced tangible results—by 2020, nine NATO members were meeting the 2% threshold, with most others on track to reach it. Beyond burden-sharing, the administration pushed NATO to adapt to contemporary security challenges. At the 2019 London Summit, NATO formally recognized China as a strategic challenge for the first time, acknowledging that the alliance's focus needed to expand beyond its traditional Euro-Atlantic orientation. NATO also increased its counter-terrorism activities and enhanced its presence on its eastern flank following Russia's aggression in Ukraine. These adaptations reflected a recognition that the alliance needed to evolve to address 21st-century threats rather than remaining fixed on its Cold War origins. The demand for reciprocity extended beyond NATO to bilateral alliances. With South Korea and Japan, negotiations led to increased host nation support for American forces. With allies in the Middle East, expectations of greater regional security responsibility were paired with unprecedented American support, including arms sales and intelligence sharing. Throughout, the message was consistent: America would stand with its allies, but partnerships needed to deliver mutual benefits and shared responsibilities. This approach to alliance management demonstrated that demanding more from partners was compatible with strengthening alliances, not undermining them. By insisting on reciprocity and mutual benefit, America actually reinforced the foundation of its alliance network. As one European defense minister acknowledged, "The uncomfortable conversations about spending have made NATO stronger, not weaker." The lesson was clear: alliances thrive when all members contribute meaningfully and when the benefits and burdens are equitably distributed, not when one party carries disproportionate weight while others take the relationship for granted. The transformation of alliance dynamics during this period reflected a broader recognition that the post-Cold War international order had failed to evolve with changing power dynamics and emerging threats. Alliances remained vital to American security, but they needed to adapt to new realities rather than operating on autopilot. By demanding more from allies while maintaining American commitments, the administration sought to create more sustainable partnerships capable of addressing the complex security challenges of the 21st century. As Secretary Pompeo noted, "We're not abandoning leadership—we're restoring it by ensuring our alliances are strong, fair, and fit for purpose."

Chapter 6: Pandemic Accountability: Confronting China's COVID Cover-up

The COVID-19 pandemic that emerged in late 2019 represented not just a global health catastrophe but a profound failure of international accountability, particularly regarding China's initial handling of the outbreak. What began as a localized epidemic in Wuhan quickly escalated into the most severe global pandemic in a century, causing millions of deaths, unprecedented economic disruption, and revealing critical vulnerabilities in international institutions designed to prevent exactly such disasters. The timeline of China's early response proved crucial to understanding the pandemic's global spread. In December 2019, doctors in Wuhan began noticing unusual pneumonia cases. When physicians like Dr. Li Wenliang attempted to warn colleagues about the emerging disease, they were silenced by Chinese authorities and forced to sign confessions for "spreading rumors." Dr. Li later died from COVID-19, becoming one of the pandemic's early victims and a symbol of the costs of China's suppression of information. Concurrently, internal documents later revealed that Chinese officials knew human-to-human transmission was occurring weeks before acknowledging this publicly, during which time international travel from Wuhan continued unabated. The World Health Organization's role during this critical period came under intense scrutiny. Despite Taiwan warning the WHO about human-to-human transmission on December 31, 2019, the organization continued to echo China's misleading assurances throughout January 2020. On January 14, the WHO infamously tweeted that Chinese authorities had found "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission," even as cases were appearing in Thailand, Japan, and South Korea. This deference to Chinese narratives cost the world precious weeks of preparation time and raised questions about the WHO's independence from Chinese influence. As the virus spread globally, China pivoted to an aggressive propaganda campaign. Chinese diplomats and state media promoted unfounded conspiracy theories that the virus originated in a U.S. military laboratory, while simultaneously blocking an independent investigation into the pandemic's origins in Wuhan. The Chinese government also leveraged pandemic-related medical supplies for geopolitical advantage, practicing what some called "mask diplomacy" by providing assistance to countries willing to praise China's pandemic response or support its positions in international forums. The question of the virus's origins became particularly contentious. While initial focus centered on Wuhan's wet markets, growing evidence pointed to the possibility of a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which conducted coronavirus research and had documented safety concerns. Rather than permitting a transparent investigation, Chinese authorities destroyed samples, disappeared whistleblowers, and imposed a comprehensive information blackout. The WHO's initial investigation in early 2021 was severely constrained by Chinese authorities, with investigators given limited access to raw data and original samples. The Trump administration took a different approach, demanding accountability from both China and the WHO. Secretary Pompeo publicly criticized China's handling of the outbreak, stating, "At the beginning of this, when it was clear that this was an issue, China knew about it, they were the first country to know about the risk to the world from this virus, and they repeatedly delayed sharing that information with the globe." In July 2020, the administration announced America's withdrawal from the WHO, citing its failure to hold China accountable and get to the bottom of the outbreak. This decision reflected the administration's broader approach to international organizations: they must fulfill their missions and hold wrongdoers accountable, or the United States would withhold support.

Chapter 7: Sovereignty First: Standing Firm Against Global Pressure

The concept of national sovereignty—a nation's right to govern itself without external interference—has been fundamental to the international order since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Yet in recent decades, this principle has been increasingly challenged by transnational institutions, multilateral agreements, and globalist ideologies that seek to subordinate national interests to international consensus. The Trump administration entered office deeply skeptical of arrangements that constrained American sovereignty without delivering clear benefits to the American people. This skepticism manifested in a willingness to withdraw from agreements perceived as unfavorable to American interests, even when doing so provoked international criticism. The Paris Climate Agreement, from which the administration withdrew in June 2017, exemplified this approach. The administration argued that the agreement imposed significant economic costs on the United States while allowing China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, to continue increasing its emissions until 2030. Similarly, the administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, arguing that it merely delayed rather than prevented Iran's nuclear ambitions while providing the regime with billions of dollars to fund terrorism and regional aggression. The defense of sovereignty extended to immigration policy, where the administration sought to reassert control over America's borders. Working with Mexico, the administration developed the "Remain in Mexico" policy (formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols) to address asylum claims. This policy required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed, rather than being released into the United States. The policy aimed to prevent individuals from disappearing into the country while their cases were pending, which could take years. The administration also confronted international bodies it viewed as hostile to American interests or ineffective in their missions. In June 2018, the United States withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council, citing the body's bias against Israel and the presence of human rights abusers among its membership. Similarly, in July 2020, the administration announced its withdrawal from the World Health Organization, arguing that the organization had failed in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic and shown deference to China. Perhaps the most significant confrontation came with the International Criminal Court (ICC), which in November 2017 opened an investigation into U.S. personnel who had served in Afghanistan. The administration viewed this as an assault on American sovereignty, as the United States is not subject to the court's authority. In March 2020, Secretary Pompeo announced visa restrictions and potential economic sanctions against ICC officials pursuing cases against Americans, declaring, "We cannot, we will not stand by as our people are threatened by a kangaroo court." Throughout these confrontations, the administration emphasized that defending American sovereignty benefited other nations too. A strong, prosperous America could be a more effective partner and ally than one constrained by international bureaucracies or unequal agreements. As Secretary Pompeo explained, "An America that is powerful, yet humble and restrained, drives the world forward toward greater prosperity and greater dignity for every human being." This approach recognized that in a world of sovereign nations, American leadership is most effective when it respects the sovereignty of others while firmly defending its own. The sovereignty-focused approach extended to economic relationships as well. The administration renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which included stronger protections for American workers and intellectual property. It imposed tariffs to counter unfair trade practices by China and other nations. And it blocked Chinese technology companies that posed security risks from operating in the United States or accessing American technology. These actions reflected a belief that economic sovereignty—the ability to set economic policies that benefit American workers—was as important as territorial sovereignty.

Summary

The transformation of American foreign policy during this period represented a fundamental reassessment of how the United States engages with the world. At its core was a recognition that the post-Cold War international order had failed to evolve with changing power dynamics and emerging threats. China's rise as a systemic rival, Iran's revolutionary regime exploiting regional vacuums, North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship, and the pandemic's exposure of institutional failures all demanded responses that broke with conventional diplomatic orthodoxies. The common thread connecting these challenges was the need for American leadership grounded in realistic assessment of national interests rather than idealistic abstractions or institutional inertia. This recalibration offers enduring lessons for future policymakers. First, effective foreign policy must balance idealism with realism—promoting American values while recognizing the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. Second, diplomatic creativity and willingness to challenge established paradigms can unlock solutions where traditional approaches have failed, as demonstrated by the Abraham Accords. Third, alliances remain vital but must be based on genuine reciprocity and shared burden, not American sacrifice without commensurate partner commitments. Finally, international institutions serve important functions but cannot substitute for sovereign nations protecting their vital interests. As global challenges grow more complex in the decades ahead, these principles provide a framework for American engagement that is neither isolationist nor naively globalist, but instead pragmatically focused on advancing security, prosperity, and freedom through clear-eyed pursuit of national interests.

About Author

Loading...

Mike Pompeo

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.This is Mike^Pompeo, where ^=space. (default profile)

Read more