No deal with Iran

If the reported details of a proposed U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are broadly accurate, then it would represent a loss of American nerve and a damaging strategic reversal in recent American policy, abandoning many of U.S. President Donald Trump’s prior red lines, undercutting many of the tremendous achievements of the military campaign and undermining U.S. credibility.

I hope the president recognizes the enormous dangers posed by this reported MOU and rejects this disastrous arrangement. He should reverse course and restore American credibility by resuming military action that further weakens Iran’s conventional military and nuclear capabilities; ensuring the freedom of commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, maintaining economic pressure on the Tehran regime; and supporting Iranians seeking to bring about the regime’s collapse, which is the ultimate strategic prize for the United States.

The U.S.-Israeli military campaign made major advances in curbing Iran’s ability to project power and weakening the regime, for which both countries’ militaries and political leaders are to be commended. However, rather than degrading Iran further, this deal would strengthen and enrich it, thereby prolonging its survival.

Comparisons to former President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) would be immediate and deserved. The United States would again be financially rewarding the Tehran regime to negotiate on its nuclear program while not addressing Iran’s missile capabilities or its aggressive regional activities.

In some respects, this agreement is even worse than the JCPOA, since the United States would be relinquishing leverage accumulated through 38 days of direct military confrontation, strategic isolation, maritime pressure and visible deterioration of Iran’s internal and regional position.

If Iran will not agree to acceptable American terms on its nuclear program during a ceasefire—while facing a blockade, economic strangulation, internal instability and the credible prospect of renewed severe U.S.-Israeli military operations—then there is no serious reason to believe lifting that pressure will produce a better outcome.

Without the complete, permanent and verifiable dismantlement of Iran’s entire nuclear program, the regime’s pathway back to nuclear-weapons capability is preserved and will restart, no later than after Trump leaves office.

The Iranian regime and its supporters will rightly see this agreement as a victory over the United States, emerging not only intact but with new life thanks to the unfreezing of assets, the resumption of significant oil sales (mostly to China) and effective control over the Strait of Hormuz. Trump would also be abandoning the Iranian civilian population—with whom he has repeatedly expressed solidarity and support—by rescuing this brutal and corrupt regime from collapse.

It betrays Israel, our full-fledged partner in the war, which reportedly opposes this deal and was given little say in it. Jerusalem will undoubtedly need to conduct another military action against Iran at some point to undo the damage from this deal. It also cannot be expected to adhere to any Iranian veto over Lebanon and will be compelled to maintain its military action against Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah that continues to threaten Israel’s northern towns.

The MOU also leaves our Gulf Arab allies exposed to an emboldened Iran as America retreats from the region.

The lesson for the rest of the world will be that America can be coerced through brinkmanship, defiance, and threats to maritime commerce and energy markets. China will take note and is a clear winner, and Taiwan a loser.

There should be no MOU, interim deal or partial arrangement with the Tehran regime, as it will not be worth the paper it is written on.

A deal that leaves the regime stronger, wealthier and intact guarantees neither peace nor stability. It guarantees only that the next war will come under worse conditions.