The terms of the U.S.-Iran Memorandum are now being announced, supposedly “settling” the Iran war. Before this, the Western world had long been clear as to who should get the benefits of a conflict that saw America bringing Iran to its knees economically and militarily.
However, the IRGC is wildly celebrating today, accompanied by widespread reports of its bold talk of the future. But shouldn’t it be mourning Iran’s long-presumed humiliating surrender? It is not, and for good reason.
The United States sought from Iran four benefits: 1) opening of the Strait of Hormuz with no tolls; 2) no nuclear weapons, including destruction of all centrifuges and nuclear dust; 3) no ICBMs or other large missiles; and 4) no support for terrorism, including aid for proxies.
THE EMPEROR’S NUCLEAR CLOTHES: TRUMP IRAN DEAL AND THE NAKED KING
So, did a weakened, destitute, and chaotic Iran agree, as expected, to all four requests, in exchange for the cessation of America’s strategically effective bombing, destruction of Iran’s conventional military force, and its economically strangling Strait blockade? Well, not exactly.
What did America (and the world) get out of the big, beautiful Memorandum? First, the Strait of Hormuz will not be bombed by Iran for at least sixty days. Second, the price of oil will come down, maybe $1 a gallon, whereas present prices are still below Biden-era highs. Third, America gets the right over the next 60 days to say, ‘pretty please, give us the four things we truly want,’ even though Iran still is resistant. This doesn’t sound like much, does it?
In contrast, what does Iran get out of the deal? Some more than modest benefits: 1) the immediate right to sell oil without sanctions, worth billions; 2) apparently, the unfreezing of some billions of frozen Iranian assets, which otherwise would have gone into the fund for American victims of past Iranian terrorism; 3) removal of the U.S. blockade strangling the Iranian economy; 4) $300 billion in investment from other countries, brokered by the United States; 5) apparently, the potential future right to charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz; 6) the ability to force America to restrain Israel in its anti-terrorism fight against Iranian proxies; and 7) the IRGC remains untouched.
Clearly, the items for which America will still be begging Iran will be subject to counterclaims by Iran. Of course, had we bombed for 30 or 60 more days, we would have forced a surrender-in-fact and a dismantling of the IRGC. Now, with billions of U.S. dollars likely going to the IRGC, indirectly, America will have resurrected this terrorist organization as it neared elimination. Terrorism will now be with us for the foreseeable future.
President Donald Trump has explained that he did not want to be “another Herbert Hoover” and “cause a depression.” Obviously, while this president normally shows common sense, his historical analogs lack any sign of erudition. Hoover did not cause the Depression, which resulted from a restricted money supply, although he did little to cure it. We today may have an inflation issue, but not a possible depression.
A more proper historical analogy is the Munich Agreement reached by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain with Germany’s Adolf Hitler, for “peace in our time.” The then-widely applauded deal turned into a horrid World War II, with millions dead, and four continents devastated. Chamberlain’s deal became the classic example of cowardly appeasement.
The instant deal is far worse than Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement, because Hitler at the time had not suffered any defeats militarily. It is perhaps marginally better than the Obama/Kerry JCPOA Agreement with Iran, which, in essence, paid Iran to enrich uranium, but perhaps slightly delayed it from having a nuclear bomb.
The president should begin to think that the present deal will cement the political impression fostered by his opponents that his presidency was feckless and foolish, even though he has accomplished some very admirable things. But this deal defines him, notwithstanding the good he has wrought.
The Memorandum, unfortunately, will reinforce the perception that his egotistical wish to be seen as a peacemaker reveals he is not the vaunted deal-maker he claims to be. His tilt toward Russia in the Ukraine peace talks, pushing territorial concessions on ally Ukraine that would benefit rival Russia, will be viewed as of a piece with the instant Memorandum, also seemingly tilted against America. Does this deal-making make America great?
Here, Trump’s push for a deal with a severely weakened foe now motivates him to put the clamps on our strongest ally and Mideast opponent of terrorism, Israel, which restraint, by the way, Iran will be demanding over the next 60 days.
Rightly so, conservatives are criticizing this Memorandum while Democrats are braying, “told you so!” This is the ultimate TACO, a self-inflicted wound on a president who credibly claimed to lead a conservative coalition, but now is destroying it as we speak.
TRUMP’S ISRAEL HYPOCRISY: RULES FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME
Unless Trump seizes quickly on Iran’s anticipated continued recalcitrance and bombs the blazes out of this theocracy once more (in the process decimating the IRGC), nothing good comes out of this deal. If all we get is a seeming restriction on developing nuclear bombs (could they still outsource?), we thereby achieve a goal that could have been accomplished with an occasional Midnight Hammer, bombing nuclear development sites. Trump may believe his own nonsense, but commonsensical Americans will not.
This present Memorandum is such a weak capitulation to terror that it may win him a Nobel Peace Prize, as Former President Barack Obama won for betraying Ukraine in taking its weapons, after which he stood by as Russia took Crimea. But at the very least, the IRGC should invite Trump to its celebration, sure to occur when it grabs its first billions, and looks forward to an era of terrorism protected by Trump’s version of a “peace” deal.
John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the books Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism and The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened. O’Connor and Mark Felt also collaborated on the 2006 book, A G-Man’s Life.