The Iran Deal is Already Crumbling

 By Rich Kozlovich 

Since I posted this article on June 15th, "Is the Iran Deal Really That Good?", I've been collecting dozens of articles dealing with the point/counter point arguments about this deal.  In my article I started out saying:

This "deal" Trump has negotiated is being lauded and touted as something great.  Let the oil flow, ships can now start their engines, the world is safe now.  It's being lauded as if it's going to stand the test of time.  I think that might be just a bit premature.  

Premature?  Okay, let's start out with this foundational logic based on factual and historical reality: Any Deal With Iran is Worthless:

Deals between Islamic terrorists and 'infidels' only end one way.  Deals with Islamic terrorists don’t work. Period.  Deals with Islamic terrorists don’t work. Period. The Trump administration should have learned that lesson from its deal with the Taliban, which was negotiated through the auspices of Qatar and assorted ‘insiders’, and which the Jihadist group broke and took over Afghanistan. There’s over a thousand years of history on how deals between infidels and non-Muslims go. For that matter, there’s the humiliating ‘Peace and Friendship’ treaty that John Adams signed with a Muslim pirate state, which was promptly violated, leading to the first Barbary War.

Sane and civilized people are opposed to "forever wars", but what do sane and civilized people do when they're facing adversaries who not only believe in a forever war, they believe those wars are commanded by god?   We  have over 1400 years of Islamic world history that tells that tale, and we have 242 years where America has been fighting an Islamic "forever war". 

Jefferson and Adams both heard directly from the Tripoli ambassador that the aggression “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

“The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute,” Adams wrote in a later essay. “The command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran.”

Critics say this deal isn't appeasement, it's a "pragmatic" victory.  What exactly does that mean?  I think it's a "pragmatic" victory, much like John Adams Peace and Friendship treaty with the Barbary pirates, and we know how well that worked out.  When has it ever occurred when pragmatism overcame insurmountable obstacles?  Often times pragmatism is a justification for appeasement. 

Trump says Iran's regime is finished, but like the Barbary pirates, they've haven't gotten that message yet, since they're still in power and they have all the guns.  

Victor Davis Hanson outlines the bombing wars conducted by both Obama and Bill Clinton, and lists and refutes the Iran War misconceptions saying: "in this confusing, ongoing drama, many fabrications and distortions still circulate", such as:

1.  The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war and is now closed, so the war was a failure.
2.  Trump’s agreement will simply be a copy of Obama’s earlier Iran deal.
3.  The U.S. is bereft of allies and strategically isolated in the war.
4.  The war has torn apart the Republican Party, ensured a Democratic landslide in the midterms, and endangered a Republican victory in 2028.
5.  The Iran War was a betrayal of MAGA’s commitment to no “forever wars.”

He concludes saying:

There is a good chance that less than six weeks of active bombing achieved far more than 20 years in Afghanistan and a decade in Iraq—at a fraction of the human and fiscal costs. The key to negotiating an end to the war is to always remember that Iran’s regime—its theocrats, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, military leaders, and elected officials—has no history of telling the truth or abiding by any agreement it signs. So the only means of enforcing concessions is to use disproportionate force each time Iran inevitably violates the terms of the armistice.

Jefferson's answer to the backstabbing Barbary pirates?  Disproportionate force.  I'll tell you what,  we'll come back to that.  Hanson reaffirms that point here, Iran Deal Can Work If We Hit Them Every Time They Break It.

Hanson is one of my favorite writers and my favorite historian.  History is a story, and there are a lot of great historians out there who are lousy story tellers.  If you're wanting to teach the world history, then great story telling and great history go hand in hand, and Hanson is a great story teller.   In his article, This Is the Trigger That Could Shred the Memorandum of Understanding and Cause All-Out War to Erupt in the Middle East, he starts out saying"

 I cannot understand the people that are dancing around and celebrating the “memorandum of understanding” now that we have the full text of the agreement. After reviewing the document, I am having a difficult time processing how horrifyingly bad it is. JD Vance and the other U.S. negotiators essentially surrendered and gave the Iranians whatever they wanted.

Iran thinks this memo requires Israel to leave Lebanon in order for Iran's terrorist cats-paw Hezbollah to survive.  The U.S. says it doesn't say that at all.  More importantly, no one asked the Israelis what they wanted during the negotiations.  Iran is insisting any attack by Israel on the Hezbollah violates the memorandum.  

1. Vance Issues Reality Check To Israel: America Is Your Only Ally, Start Acting Like It
2. Trump Seeks Ceasefire on All Fronts as Israel Holds Ground in Lebanon

Well, for the next minute or so that's not a problem any longer as Israel and the Hezbollah have agreed to a ceasefire which, based on history,  means Hezbollah can still lob missiles into Israel's civilian population and Israel can protest their violations.  Let's face it, Iran can in no way be considered a civil society, under the rule of the current regime. 

Update:  Apparently that minute is up as, "Israel launched new airstrikes in southern Lebanon overnight, hitting 80 targets that the Israel Defense Forces said were linked to Hezbollah. According to Lebanon's Health Ministry, 18 people were killed in the attack, while the Israeli military said four Israeli soldiers died."

The Deal

First, let's understand this memorandum isn't "the deal" as it's more like a suggestion on how to behave for the next  60 days of negotiations to actually signing a "deal", and President Trump says he is open to extending 60-day timeline in the Iran memorandum.  How is that not an appeasement?    

• An Iran Agreement Defined by Unanswered Questions - The Trump administration is promoting a new agreement with Iran as a diplomatic breakthrough. White House talking points emphasize Iranian commitments to forgo nuclear weapons, international verification, regional stability and economic incentives tied to compliance. Yet many of the details that have emerged so far raise more questions than answers.
•  Iran’s art of the deal - Consistent with President Trump’s prior formulation, Iran lost the war but won the negotiation. Relying on the Wall Street Journal’s annotated analysis of the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran here, I broke down the provisions of the MOU into winners and losers for each side. NBC has posted a version of the final text of the MOU here. On second thought, however, it seems obvious that on balance the terms significantly favor Iran. Why belabor the obvious?

Both Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law are troubling. I’ve watched their antics for some time and my view is they’re actions and positions are not much different than the positions being taken by the Islam/RINO/Democrat cabal. They suffer from the Nixon Bargain syndrome, and now we’re seeing the disaster of his “bargain” with China, and Carter set all this in motion with his abandonment of the Shah of Iran. One more thing about all these short term fixes that failed to have a low long term vision and wisdom fix; who really is responsible? America’s intelligence community going back decades, and the insanity is still being embraced.   But allegedly the real driving force behind this deal is Vice President Vance,  who I find troubling as a result of his relationship with Tucker Carlson, who has become an irrational antisemitic Islamic supporter, and in my opinion is in serious need of psychological help.   If this deal is flushed down the toilet, which I think it will be, who's going to be blamed?  

1.  Blame Vance' Strategy Emerges on Iran Deal 
2.  Trump Ties His Name and Credibility to Vance's Dubious Iran Diplomacy
3.  READ THE FULL DEAL WITH IRAN: Text of Memorandum of Understanding Revealed

 On June 18, John Hinderaker posted this piece, Some Deal, saying;

 For some weeks now, ever since the bombing stopped, I have been writing and saying on radio and television that there is no point in trying to make a deal with the IRGC, that we should finish up our bombing and go home. I was baffled as to why President Trump was so determined to negotiate an agreement, and chalked it up to his love of deal-making. .........I have no theory as to how Trump could have done something this foolish. It is being viewed everywhere as a massive defeat for the United States, and the Democrats, who are unabashedly on Iran’s side, are turning cartwheels.  

Here's one of the biggest beefs about this deal,  U.S. Pledges to Help Provide the Islamic Republic of Iran With $300 Billion.  Now, Trump called that a lie, and he's right, and has bashed those critics stating this money will not be American tax dollars. While that's true it won't be American taxpayer money, that doesn't change the fact Iran has the potential to be handed 300 billion dollars to rebuild their nation, which has shocked the Iranian people, they can't believe America could make such a bad deal, especially when Trump promised them, "help Is on the way", and demanded unconditional surrender. Guess what, Hezbollah chief is celebrating Iran deal — ‘This is a great victory for us.' 

Here’s what’s in the US–Iran deal - The deal kicks off a 60-day period of negotiations before both sides reach a final agreement.'If it doesn't get done, we'll go back to bombing': Watch Trump take on global media with more about Iran deal

1.  Trump says Iran can keep arsenal of ballistic missiles.
2.  Trump Defends Iran Deal Not Including Restrictions on Iranian Missiles
3.  U.S. and Iran Beginning Discussions on a Final Deal — Here’s What We Know
4.  Details of US-Iran deal revealed in 12-point plan — timeline for US withdrawal, $300B fund, Hormuz passage 

  Arguments For Opposing the Deal

• Iran’s Crown Prince Warns of What’s Coming -  If Trump’s “deal” goes through, the damage won’t be limited to the America-First president’s legacy. President Donald Trump is going full speed ahead with his disastrous Iran deal, and that’s not good news for Americans, Israelis, Iranians, or anyone else. Fox News reported Wednesday that the Trump administration finally disclosed the details, which include “plans for immediate waivers on Iranian oil exports, a framework for at least $300 billion in reconstruction and economic development, and a 60-day negotiation period aimed at securing a final agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.”

Then we have Trump Derangement Syndrome lunatic Senator Cory Booker who would accuse Trump of trying starve the sharks if he saved a drowning child. 

•  Booker: Trump’s Horrific Deal Is an ‘Unconditional Surrender’ to Iran - Wednesday on MS NOW’s “All In,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said President Donald Trump’s Iran deal was an “unconditional surrender.”  Host Chris Hayes said, “I think there’s basically two Democratic policy party positions I’ve seen. The war was a bad idea, stupid and reckless to enter into. And we it led to a bad agreement because of that. But that’s basically the best up of bad options. And the other is it was a bad idea to begin with. It led to bad options because of it. But ultimately it’s so bad he shouldn’t have signed the deal. What is your position?”

There's a lot of talk about the nuclear deal, and in my opinion the only thing making that work for the time being is their program is covered by a lot of concrete Trump blew up.  What's interesting is Nancy Pelosi calling ‘Obama’s disastrous nuclear agreement with Iran a masterpiece of diplomacy’.  She's the same nitwit that said the Congress must pass Obama care in order to see what's in it.  Brilliant! So, let's compare the Trump deal to Obama’s deal, point by point. Make no mistake, Iran never followed the ‘very strict’ JCPOA terms, and if given the chance, they won't follow this agreement.  

• General Keane strikes again General Jack Keane appeared yesterday for a brief segment on Fox News with Bill Melugin. He was great, as usual. Vice President Vance turns up in a clip at the beginning of the segment. I cannot square what Vance says in the clip about the right of destruction of Iran’s “enriched stockpile” under the Memorandum of Understanding with the terms as we have received them (no such provision exists). 
• Trey Gowdy is furious over deal with Iran, and his points are well made, but he's gone over the cliff too often to care what he thinks.  
• Mark Levin has "picked the Memorandum of Understanding  - President Trump ordered this military operation to prevent Iran from getting and using nuclear weapons. And the early days of this war was a spectacular success. For some reason, a ceasefire was quickly ordered, and it lasted for over 2-months, despite the scores of violations by Iran and Hezbollah. Great damage has been done to Iran’s military. And the president deserves enormous credit for having the courage to do what no other president did before him. My fear is that no other president after him will have the same courage to act should the terms of any agreement be violated,” began Levin, who continued:
•  Sen. Dave McCormick: Iran Sanctions Must Stay
•  Trump Gives Iran a Lifeline and Calls It Peace 
•  Kellogg: Iran Will ‘Probably Kill Americans in the Future’

Arguments Supporting the Deal

First, there Senator Mark Warner from Virginia who likes this deal because he believes it Pmakes America weaker and that will force Americans to see through it.  His take is strictly anti-Trump even if it hurts America.   

Now this piece has some interesting logic worth your time, The Hawks are Right, Iran Will Cheat...That's the Point.

Here the critics deserve their due, because their central prediction is almost certainly correct. Iran will cheat. It is what the regime does. It denied international inspectors access to the very sites America bombed. It squirreled away highly enriched uranium in a facility that survived the strikes. It has sworn for nearly half a century that it harbors no nuclear ambitions while building steadily toward exactly that.

Even now, before the formal signing, sanctioned Iranian tankers are slipping through Hormuz and the Revolutionary Guard is signing contracts for Russian helicopters. A leopard that has never once changed its spots is not about to start because a memorandum asked nicely.

But turn that certainty over and examine the other side. A performance-based framework backed by an open military threat accomplishes something a blockade alone never could. It converts Iranian treachery into American justification. When the regime reaches for the bomb, or throttles the strait again, or stiff-arms the inspectors, the waivers vanish, the snapback fires, and the case for force becomes cleaner and more defensible before a watching world than it was in February. The trap is baited with the one thing Tehran cannot resist, the appearance of having won, and it springs on the one thing Tehran cannot help but do..............Maximum Pressure, Repackaged as Patience

•  Gingrich Applauds Trump’s Iran Agreement - “Negotiating with Iran, monitoring its commitments and occasionally having to pressure the dictatorship militarily or economically is simply reality. (Remember Ronald Reagan’s advice to ‘Trust but verify’ and Connie Mack’s ‘You get what you inspect, not what you expect.’) There will be no end to the requirement to police, monitor, and occasionally penalize the religious dictatorship,” Gingrich wrote. “The leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will try to push for as much influence and flexibility as they can get away with. It’s simply their nature.”........
•  Republicans Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul Rally Behind Trump’s Iran Deal
•  Trump’s Coercive Diplomacy Exactly How To Neuter Iran 
• These People Are Nuts!

Of course Trump is in favor of this deal saying at G7: Iran Deal Will Bring ‘A Lot of Success to the World’; Demining Process Underway, Strait of Hormuz to Fully Open Friday 

Well, that minute has passed, and Iran Abruptly Nixes Peace Deal Signing in Switzerland, and Good News: Iran Blocks the Strait.  As Victor Davis Hanson noted, "the only means of enforcing concessions is to use disproportionate force each time Iran inevitably violates the terms of the armistice".  And if history is anything, it shows that's the final conclusion dealing with these terrorist fanatics.  

One more point, Rubio hasn't been on the pro-deal circuit, and it's been reported he wasn't in favor of this deal, at least in it's current form.  Rubio has become more impressive by the day.  He's loyal, smart, has a load of character,