The new U.S.-Iranian memorandum of understanding is a diplomatic victory for the Iranian regime – and a problem for America’s Mideast posture.
AFP via Getty Images
Back in January of 2020, on the heels of his first term decision to eliminate Qassem Soleimani, the notorious head of Iran’s Qods Force paramilitary, President Trump famously tweeted that “Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!” Those words have now come back to haunt him. The terms of the new Memorandum of Understanding agreed to between Washington and Tehran over the weekend have now been made public, and the agreement as currently formulated is more lopsided and less favorable than even the skeptics had initially predicted. The shortcomings include:
NO PLANS FOR COMPLIANCE. The new U.S.-Iranian MoU outlines no verification mechanisms, contenting itself with codifying a vague promise by the Iranian regime “that it will never produce nuclear weapons.” (Article 8) Iranian officials have reiterated that pledge for years, but the evidence to the contrary is extensive – and includes, most spectacularly, the daring 2018 Israeli heist of 100,000 documents detailing Iran’s extensive covert atomic weapons plans between 1999 and 2015. How, then, does the Trump administration plan to account for Iran’s persistent will to nuclear power? The MoU doesn’t say, although the nuclear agreement to be negotiated next by the two sides presumably will.
EXTENSIVE ECONOMIC RELIEF. Back in 2015, when President Obama negotiated with the Islamic Republic, a major criticism of the resulting nuclear deal (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was that it was far too generous, providing the regime in Tehran with $100 billion or more in near-term sanctions relief. Indeed, that was one of the cardinal reasons that President Trump himself blasted the agreement as the “worst deal ever.” But Trump’s MoU repeats that error, and does so in potentially more generous terms than the 2015 JCPOA. In addition to a rollback of U.S. and international sanctions, the MoU commits America to help raise “at least $300 billion” for the “rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” (Article 6) Such a provision is nothing short of an economic lifeline for the beleaguered Iranian regime. If history is any indicator, it will also be a boon to Iran’s remaining rulers in their effort to rebuild their government’s strategic capabilities and military might.
PROTECTION FOR HEZBOLLAH. For decades, Hezbollah has served as Iran’s chief terrorist proxy, and its mechanism of choice to shape Lebanese national politics. In recent weeks, that status has come under threat as a result of renewed Israeli military action and a newfound commitment from the Lebanese government to disarm the Shi’ite militia. However, the new MoU effectively blocks any such effort, making clear that Lebanon is a front in the current U.S.-Iran confrontation and insisting on an “immediate and permanent end” to hostilities there. (Article 1) That pledge serves to frustrate any meaningful effort by either Israel or the Lebanese state to eliminate (or even potentially lessen) the terror group’s current, corrosive influence.
AN IRANIAN STRATEGIC VETO. Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the Memorandum, however, deals not with the disposition of the Strait of Hormuz or Iran’s nuclear program, but America’s future regional presence. As part of the agreement, the Trump administration pledges that, in exchange for Iran’s abiding by nuclear curbs, the United States will not “strengthen its forces in the region.” (Article 9) That formulation puts Iran at the very center of U.S. regional policy, providing Tehran potential veto power over America’s military footprint in the Middle East, irrespective of what other crises or contingencies might arise there.
Coming days will undoubtedly bring us all of the expected defenses from the President’s political stalwarts: that the deal is a near term victory because it stabilizes global markets, that it will hinge on strict Iranian compliance, and that it doesn’t bear any resemblance to the 2015 JCPOA. Indeed, surrogates like Vice President JD Vance and Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL-13) have already begun making precisely those points on assorted talk shows and social media platforms. Still, an initial parsing of the details makes it hard not to conclude that the Iran war has ended not with a bang but a whimper – and, at least for now, a resounding Iranian victory at the negotiating table.