U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a military operation to prevent Iran from obtaining and using nuclear weapons. The early days of the war were a spectacular success. For some reason, a ceasefire was quickly ordered, and it lasted for more than two months despite scores of violations by Iran and Hezbollah.
Great damage was done to Iran’s military, and the president deserves enormous credit for having the courage to do what no other president had done before him. My fear is that no future president will have the same courage to act should the terms of any agreement be violated.
The president ordered a two-day return to military operations when the Iranian regime was dragging its feet. That was quickly ended based on a promise by the regime that it would sign the Memorandum of Understanding revealed by a senior U.S. official.
From day one, I have underscored that no deal will be honored by the Iranian regime. Its political-theocratic ideology fuels a revolution committed to the destruction of the West. Presumably, the president understood this when he repeatedly warned that if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, it would use it against us.
Moreover, Iran’s conduct over the last 47 years makes clear that it uses negotiations as a tactic to advance its aims. Yet we abandoned the military campaign before fully destroying Iran’s capabilities, and we did not use all available means to undermine the regime, including supporting the Iranian people. In part, this appears to have been driven by concerns about polling and gas prices.
To be clear, there was never a plan to deploy ground forces or become involved in a “forever war.” Indeed, in my view, if the MoU is not drastically altered during the 60-day negotiation period, a forever war—the continuation of Iran’s war against the West—will remain inevitable.
So what does this MoU involve? I am working from the closest publicly available draft, which I believe is fundamentally accurate.
End to military action
Item 1 provides for an immediate and permanent end to the war, including in Lebanon.
This makes little sense. There are 60 days or more to negotiate a final agreement. Yet before a deal is finalized, we have effectively declared a permanent cessation of military action and committed not even to threaten force.
Why would we surrender our most important leverage before the regime complies with the MoU’s requirements and whatever else may be negotiated over the next two months?
Even worse, we appear to capitulate to Iran’s demand to shield Hezbollah. Hezbollah has murdered hundreds of our fellow citizens. It remains the Iranian regime’s most potent terrorist proxy. Yet under this arrangement, it would effectively be protected while remaining free to threaten Americans, Israelis and others.
Israel is the only country consistently confronting this enemy with its soldiers and airmen, while its citizens remain in the direct line of missile and drone attacks. No responsible government would tolerate such a concession.
No amount of pressure on Israel or public criticism of its prime minister changes that reality. Hezbollah has killed our people, and we have done next to nothing to hold it accountable. That alone is shameful. Israel must not and will not adhere to such an egregious capitulation.
Giving up leverage
Item 2 commits both sides to refrain from interfering in each other’s sovereignty.
Who believes Iran will stop interfering in our affairs? We spend tens of billions of dollars combating threats from Iran and its proxies. Does anyone seriously believe Tehran will abandon its partnerships with China, Russia and North Korea? And if violations occur, how exactly will we enforce this provision?
Item 4 lifts the naval blockade 30 days after the MoU rather than after a final agreement is reached. Again, this removes a major source of leverage before negotiations conclude.
The agreement also envisions withdrawing forces from the region after a final accord. We are told they can always be redeployed. In reality, that is far less likely.
Rewarding the regime
Item 6 is perhaps the most astonishing provision. We commit to helping develop a comprehensive plan for Iran’s rehabilitation and economic development while facilitating at least $300 billion in financing.
We are told this will not involve taxpayer dollars. That misses the point.
Who would have imagined that after going to war with a regime on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, we would help coordinate or raise funds for its recovery?
Even if Iran meets certain conditions and receives the money, what prevents the regime from later violating the agreement? And who believes these funds will improve the lives of ordinary Iranians rather than strengthen the regime that oppresses them?
As I write this, innocent young people are still being executed in Iran. The entire proposal is difficult to comprehend. It appears designed to replace Iran’s demand for reparations, which should have been rejected outright.
Regardless of how the money is collected or distributed, we are now committing to help rebuild a terror regime we supposedly sought to weaken.
Item 7 commits us not only to lifting our own sanctions but also to helping remove sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and others.
In effect, we become advocates for the regime’s reintegration into the international system.
The nuclear issue
Item 8 states that Iran “reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons” and that the fate of enriched uranium and other nuclear-related issues will be resolved later.
Shouldn’t that have been the first issue addressed?
The agreement offers relief and concessions immediately, while postponing the most critical details about permanently dismantling Iran’s nuclear program and eliminating its enriched uranium stockpiles.
Now there is talk of merely degrading the uranium. At best, this provision amounts to little more than a slogan.
Item 9 prevents us from strengthening our regional military posture or imposing new sanctions while negotiations continue, surrendering even more leverage.
Item 10 immediately grants waivers for Iranian crude oil exports, petroleum products, banking, insurance and transportation services.
In other words, the Iranian regime is back in business before any final agreement is reached. Billions of dollars will begin flowing into Tehran immediately.
Item 11 releases frozen Iranian assets and restricted funds.
Again, billions more flow directly to the regime before it has demonstrated any meaningful change in behavior.
What’s missing
Notably absent from the agreement are several critical issues.
First, there is not a word about Iran’s ballistic missile program, the regime’s most destructive conventional weapon and one capable of killing tens of thousands of people. This omission is a grave concession.
Second, there is nothing addressing Iran’s support for terrorism and terrorist organizations. I have no illusion that Tehran’s sponsorship of terrorism will end under this arrangement.
Third, there is no mention of the Iranian people, whom we once promised to support. They appear to have been abandoned.
Fourth, there is no discussion of reparations owed by the regime to the United States, Israel or Arab states for the devastation caused by its missile attacks.
During the next 60 days, this MoU requires serious changes—if not outright abandonment.
