 |
| This AI generated images was once thought unimaginable. Now… who knows?! |
What began as a courageous joint effort by the United States
and Israel to confront a regime openly committed to the destruction of both
countries—beginning with Israel and acting through terrorist proxies like
Hamas—has been turned on its head.
In the opening days of the war, Iran’s military was
devastated. Much of its leadership was eliminated, its military infrastructure
severely damaged, and it appeared to have been brought to its knees. That was
certainly the impression many observers had, and I suspect both Washington and
Jerusalem believed the same.
But appearances can be deceiving.
Iran responded by playing its strongest card: seizing
control of the Strait of Hormuz. That single move sent shockwaves through the
global economy. Oil shipments slowed dramatically, shipping traffic was
disrupted, fuel prices soared, and the cost of countless consumer goods
increased. What had been an American economy poised for remarkable growth was
suddenly facing serious headwinds.
To make matters worse, Iran retained enough military
capability to continue attacking Israel and other regional countries hosting
American bases. Despite the destruction it had suffered, Tehran remained as
belligerent as ever, boasting of its defiance while continuing to threaten its
enemies.
The United States had concluded its military campaign, but
the conflict had reached an uneasy stalemate.
Then, almost overnight, the President began insisting that
Iran was “begging” for a deal. That claim never seemed plausible given Iran’s
leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and the damage it was inflicting on the
world economy. Nevertheless, the President repeatedly argued that America’s
military success had placed him in a position of overwhelming strength from
which he could negotiate.
Soon afterward, a memorandum of understanding was signed.
The President hailed it as a tremendous victory, promising that after sixty
days of negotiations America would achieve all of its original objectives.
Since then, however, events have suggested something quite
different.
Even by the President’s own description, the emerging
agreement falls short of the goals he originally declared non-negotiable.
Perhaps the most striking reversal concerns Iran’s ballistic missile program.
Initially, the objective was to eliminate it entirely. Now the President says
Iran may retain some missiles because, in his words, “it’s only fair” if other
countries have them.
There has also been far less emphasis on ending Iran’s
sponsorship of terrorism throughout the Middle East. Although the issue is
occasionally mentioned, it no longer appears central to the negotiations.
There is even discussion of allowing Iran to retain enriched
uranium buried beneath the ruins of facilities destroyed in earlier American
strikes. Reports have also suggested that uranium enrichment could eventually
resume after a waiting period—perhaps twenty years instead of the ten years
permitted under President Obama’s nuclear agreement, the JCPOA.
President Trump was right when he called the JCPOA a
terrible deal. What is remarkable is that the agreement now being discussed
does not appear dramatically different in substance. The President argues that
this deal is being negotiated from a position of strength rather than weakness,
but if the end result is largely the same, that distinction may prove
meaningless.
Worse still, Iran has now demonstrated that it possesses
enormous leverage over the international community. By threatening the Strait
of Hormuz, it has shown that it can inflict worldwide economic pain whenever it
chooses…
To continue reading - and/or to comment on this
post - click on this link: substack. You must
subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.
