Opponents and supporters of a U.S.-Iranian deal are looking at the same event through opposite ends of a telescope.
The extremism of the reaction to an announced “memorandum of understanding” between the U.S. and Iran has been something to watch. Rumors of $300 billion that Gulf states might invest in postwar Iran, if it meets certain criteria, were immediately misinterpreted. Marjorie Taylor Greene put a post up on X that subtly implied but did not outright say that this $300 billion was direct foreign aid — pallets of American cash.
The fact is that many Iran hawks are committed to a view that the Iranian regime cannot be bargained with at all, that it must be removed. No deal would assuage them because they believe that the Iranian regime is ideologically committed to deception and will only pretend to respond to carrots and sticks in the hope of getting its teeth nearer to the hands wielding each of them. I think many of these hawks hoped that once Trump got stuck, his stubbornness would lead him to their analysis.
Those like myself who think of the Iranian threat as one that can be managed from afar are more likely to welcome the deal, which is said to open the Strait of Hormuz and thus provide some relief to energy inflation in the coming months.
Thus people are looking at the same event through opposite ends of the telescope. Those saying the deal is a national humiliation don’t seem anxious to admit that some of the premises behind our attack on Iran, like the flimsiness of its regime or the ability of Iranian dissidents to take over, were wrong. And if they do admit this, their inclination is to view the Iranian threat as even more dire.
Those currently promoting a deal are staking it on a premise that Iran will respond to incentives going forward.
Many commentators will want to wash their hands of the whole thing and say that America’s Iran policy is or has been a total failure. But can we just acknowledge that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon? And we’ve shown what we will do if we think they’re getting too close for comfort. Even if this regime is still committed to getting one, the actors in it know what happened to their predecessors.