In recent days, we’ve been exposed to claims from parties sympathetic to the Islamic regime regarding the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached after many months of negotiations. Those reports have raised concerns in many quarters but have been denied as “fake news” by the administration, which as of this writing has not released the text.
Read more The Four Jokers of the Apocalypse: Carney, Starmer, Macron, and Merz
But now that the text has been leaked, and confirmed as legitimate, we see that the terms are even more egregious than feared. Many of us who have supported this administration are left dumbfounded that Trump, who laid out both the justification for war and its objectives in the opening days, has cast it all aside in what can only be seen as a craven submission to Iranian demands.
Trump insists that this agreement is a great victory, one laying the foundation for a peaceful and prosperous Middle East. But this is gaslighting.
V.P. Vance has taken the lead role in portraying a capitulation as a great accomplishment. There has been no “unconditional surrender” to U.S. terms — rather, the opposite. In failing to translate military achievements into strategic wins for the U.S., Trump has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Trump certainly saw Iran as a vague threat down the line, whereas our ally in the fight, Israel, saw Iran as an existential threat that would remain so as long as the regime remained in place. So for Trump, it was more transactional, even as his internal “peacemaker” made promises he was not prepared to keep. Whether from a lack of patience or a determination that the cost exceeded the potential gain, we witnessed a continuous abandonment of objectives down to the bare minimum of a reopening of the Strait and limitations on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump no longer discussed the missile threat or the proxies — never mind the Iranian people’s quest for freedom.
How did this play out?
First, Trump entered the fray assuming that a vast show of military might would so frighten the Iranian leadership and that they would quickly come to terms. One carrier group, then two, then three. “Why won’t they give in?” he was asking, clearly not understanding the religious and cultural motivations of the Iranian regime. Shia Islam is all about resilience, perseverance against a stronger foe, and the willingness to bring chaos on the way to the End Times. Neither Trump nor his team of negotiators (including two prominent real estate developers) understand this in the least. Since the U.S. side, from the beginning, disregarded Israeli efforts at regime change, it fell to Israel to conduct the “decapitation” operations that took out much of the top-tier leadership, and target the Basij militia enforcing Iranian checkpoints. But when Trump ordered an end to offensive operations, those activities ended. Trump needed people with whom to “make a deal.” But despite the claims, this was not a “new regime,” nor one more rational or more interested in a deal — except on its own terms.
Read more Your Freedom Vs. Democrat Control: The 2026 Midterms Will Decide America’s Future
Second, despite the extensive war planning, it’s clear there was insufficient planning for Iranian attacks on uninvolved Arab Gulf states, while efforts to maintain the flow of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz were seriously lacking. Even the touted Operation Epic Freedom was abandoned after barely a day. So the economic impact was intense and mostly unaddressed. One might wonder if the downing of the U.S. F-15 and the associated cost of recovery brought home to Trump the potential cost of war, and he was simply unwilling to accept it.
Third, Trump and his team fell into the same negotiation trap as Obama and Kerry more than a decade earlier. The US and Iran entered these talks with very distinct motivations. As then, Iran sought an end to the sanctions regime, and additionally this time an end to war. Trump, having lost faith in kinetic action as a means of bringing Iran to heel, and feeling both the political and economic pressure, chose to “give diplomacy a chance,” meaning he wanted a “deal.” Though Trump years earlier had noted how Iran had “never lost a negotiation,” he nonetheless chose that path. And as anyone who’s ever experienced a Middle Eastern bazaar knows, the merchant quickly recognizes a customer too eager for a deal and bargains accordingly. The desperation for a deal meant the concessions were almost entirely by the U.S. side.
And so we ended up with a 14-point plan paralleling the early demands of the Iranian regime. As with the JCPOA, Iran gets many benefits “up front,” including a lifting of the blockade and the ability to sell oil — surrendering our economic leverage — while our demands are relegated to months of further negotiation. The White House makes claims for what we will get on the nuclear front; the MOU confirms only that Iran will discuss them.
And what of the fallout from this deal on U.S. interests if allies conclude they can’t count on the U.S.? (Enemies, too, take note of this.) The Iranian protesters have been abandoned, while Israel — which fought and flew shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. — is disrespected, its interests dismissed, seen as less reliable than Syria. Trump allowed Iran to tie the fate of its forces in Lebanon to the deal, but Israel insists it is not party to this agreement and is not bound to its “understandings,” however much it displeases the president, as it clearly does. Going forward, Israel will have to address its security threats even as it contends with a less supportive U.S. As for the Gulf states, they will seek new arrangements with a newly empowered Iran. There will be no expansion of the Abraham Accords.
Trump claimed he was tackling a problem his predecessors had failed to address. He promised peace through strength. But the terms of the agreement as published ensure that Iran remains an ongoing threat to the region and beyond.
Read more Is The Iran Deal A ‘Breather?’
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.