Trump’s Proposed “Deal” with Iran Gets a D-Minus

President Trump has told the nation that a peace agreement was at hand – and that America comes out the winner. He grades himself with an A-plus. At this juncture, I give the reported deal a D-minus – and could sink to an “F” depending on the final agreement.

So far, no agreement has been forthcoming. What we have is a potential Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). That is not an agreement. MOUs are signed by the billions in government and in business. In the vast majority of cases, they lead to nothing.

(During my business dealings in China, I signed scores of MOUs. Many were ceremonial – promising to like one another. Some involved projects that never came to pass. Perhaps I am jaded – no pun intended – but I do not put a lot of credibility behind MOUs. But I digress.)

With that in mind, we can at least examine the terms of the proposed MOU’s since they could lead to an actual agreement. Public reports answer a number of questions – but many more remain.

In terms of the objectives laid out by Trump in attacking Iran, it seems a clear win for Trump –assuming the reports are correct. According to reports, Iran will:

1. Totally abandon its nuclear weapons program.
2. Give up all its enriched nuclear material. How and when will be determined in the future negotiations. (That does not sound like a deal).
3. Allow international monitors access to ensure compliance. (Iranian official has disagreed).
4. Cease funding terrorist groups. Presumably, that means Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc. (Is that trustworthy, even if they say so?)
5. Reopen the Strait of Hormuz as an international waterway with no control or tolls imposed by Iran. (That appears to remain a point of contention).
6. Possible limits on intercontinental ballistic missile development.

Of particular interest are the concessions to be made by the United States. This includes:

1. Lifting the blockade.
2. Allowing Iran to freely sell oil on the open market. (Does this include sales to Russia, China, North Korea and other American adversaries?)
3. Lifting of some sanctions.
4. Possible release of $25 billion in Iranian frozen assets – but only to purchase humanitarian goods for the people of Iran. (Iranian officials say they can use money as they please).
5. Retaining current Iranian leadership. (Puts any agreement into question).

None of these concessions are consistent with an American victory. In fact, many see such an agreement as a win for Iran.

Then there are issues that should be – but as far as we know are not – part of any proposed agreement. Such as:

1. Disbanding of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
2. Release of political prisoners.
3. Ending domestic oppression of the population.
4. Ending of hostilities with Israel.

The difference between the Obama agreement and the Trump proposals are significant – despite self-serving claims to the contrary. The Obama agreement was not a forever ban on nuclear weapons. It had a sunset provision after 15 years – which is only three years from now. The Obama agreement intentionally did not address the issue of sponsoring international terrorism. It intentionally deferred that issue to another time – which never came, of course. The Obama agreement did not address development of ICBMs.

Trump made the correct decision when he cancelled the Obama agreement. The current resolution is now on Trump. What will Trump finally agree to – or more accurately, what will the Iranians agree to? And so far, I do not like what I hear.

When the United States and Israel launched a major defensive military action against Iran’s decades of terrorist attacks on the United States, Israel, Europe and other Muslim states, Trump said he was determined to take care of the problem once and for all – and that is what it looked like he was going to do..

There can be no refutation that the United States and Israel were very successful in crushing the Iranian Military and the Iranian Republican Guard. As a result, the Iranian Navy and Air Force were, for all intents and purposes, destroyed. The majority of the country’s missiles were taken out of commission. The nation’s air defense system was taken down. The top leaders were killed. It looked like a quick and certain victory was in the offing. But Iran still retains miliary capability, especially in terms of drone warfare.

So, what happened?

Things started to change when the Iranians closed the Strait of Hormuz and created a global oil shortage. Why Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the leaders of Europe and the Middle East acquiesced is an unanswered question. Why did not American forces take control of Kharg Island to cut off exportation of Iran’s oil? Some argue it would require boots on the ground. Probably. But that does not seem to be sufficient reason to back down on the cusp ofa decisive victory.

Trump’s response was a blockade and a cease fire. The former was predicted to bring Iran to its knees. It did not. The latter had the smell of the old endless diplomacy that only produced broken agreements and prolonged hostilities. Without a regime change that changes Iran’s rogue policies, no deal can be trusted. The only discernible benefit from a ceasefire has been to allow Iran to regroup, reorganize, re-arm and eventually repeat its old terrorist policies.

For some reason, Trump turned from total victory (unconditional surrender) to some sort of prolonged and fruitless diplomatic compromise. He morphed from a hawk to a dove – starting to sound more like a lot of his predecessors.

What we hear about the specifics of an Iranian agreement suggests some far less than victory. In many ways, Trump has undermined his own winning strategy. Based on what is known, no agreement is going to be the victory Trump promised.

So, there ‘tis.