DON’S DEFICIENT DEAL

As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.

Obviously, I have no inside knowledge of the ongoing peace negotiations among the US, Iran, Israel, and other interested parties. All I know is what I have read in the news and seen on tv. The following opinions and comments are based on that.

As most of you know, I have been an avid Trump supporter since 2016. I haven’t agreed with everything he has said and done but based on his many accomplishments I have always given him the benefit of the doubt. All that said, I am appalled at the terms of the proposed peace agreement as disclosed to date. For months Trump has reiterated that the purposes of the war were (1) to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon; (2) Iran must surrender its cache of enriched uranium; (3) there must be a reliable methodology to independently verify Iran’s compliance with #s 1 and 2; and (4) Iran must allow all ships free and unfettered passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

There are significant inconsistencies with respect to this “deal.” Trump has been saying that a deal to “end the war” has been “largely negotiated.” Only some details remain to be resolved, and they will be announced “shortly.” In addition: (1) Iran is reportedly committing to abandon the pursuit of developing nuclear weapons; (2) it is negotiating the surrender of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium; and (3) the Hormuz Strait will be reopened completely. In return, (1) Iran would be able to resume free oil sales; and (2) billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets would be released contingent upon reaching a final nuclear agreement.

Sounds promising, except just today an Iranian spokesperson issued a statement that totally contradicts Trump’s statement. He told a USA Today reporter anonymously that Iran has NOT committed to giving up its stockpile of enriched uranium as part of any settlement. Furthermore, Iran’s Fars news agency reported early Sunday that any agreement would have to continue to allow Iran to control the Strait of Hormuz; Iran is continuing to deny claims that it has pursued or is pursuing nuclear weapons other than for “peaceful purposes,” and it has the right to do so; it wants an end to the U.S. blockade on its ports and the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil sales; and it is insisting it retain supervision of ⁠the Strait of Hormuz.

Also, what will be the procedures for inspections of nuclear sites. For example, who will perform them, how often, will they be surprise visits or scheduled, will the inspectors have complete and unfettered access, and what will be the penalties for noncompliance. Truly, the devil is in the details. Does the foregoing sound like an agreement is “imminent,” and just a few “details” remain to be ironed out? I think not.

Trump’s and Iran’s positions are miles apart with significant unresolved differences. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true. Since Iran’s militant leadership has adamantly and consistently stated it would never give up its stockpile of enriched uranium I believe it is more likely that its statements are more accurate.

One glaring omission from the proposed deal is Iran’s ballistic missiles program. Its missiles represent a clear and present danger. Iran already possesses missiles that can reach all of Europe. It will not be long before it develops missiles that can reach parts of the US as well.

There is also the matter of Israel, which may have different goals and a different attitude toward Iran and its proxies. In my view, there are signs that Israel is more cognizant of the dangers Iran and its proxies still present. Indeed, Israeli media has reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had told President Trump that Israel must “maintain the freedom to act against all threats, including in Lebanon.” I’m not sure if this signifies a slight difference between Trump and Netanyahu or an actual rift.

Conclusion

History tells us that Iran has consistently negotiated in bad faith. Its representatives say one thing and another. Their negotiating strategy has been to lie, obfuscate, deceive and delay, delay and then delay some more. This strategy has been very successful for 47 years with multiple Administrations. Trump has repeatedly denigrated these negotiating tactics and derided those who have fallen for them. Yet, it appears that he may be falling into the same trap.

If we agree to Iran’s current terms the war will have failed to accomplish any of our main objectives. In fact, I could make a case that we would be worse off. Iran would still have its stockpile of enriched uranium; we would not be certain that all of its nuclear material was destroyed; we would have expended a goodly portion of our weaponry; Trump would have dissipated much of his political capital; and many people would perceive Iran to be the winner thus raising its status and diminishing ours in the eyes of the world.

Finally, let’s not forget that we won the war, not Iran. Thus, we should be dictating terms not getting bogged down in prolonged negotiations. Trump has said he is reluctant to attack in force if possible. He wants to give the negotiations a chance to avoid killing innocent Iranians. I agreed up to a point, but we are well past that point. The longer these negotiations drag on the more it will hurt our economy, and a problematic economy will spell defeat in the midterm elections. Remember, America first!

These negotiations have not and will not bear fruit. It’s time to lay down the hammer and end this once and for all.