Some alarming datapoints regarding a memorandum of understanding the Trump administration still refuses to publish.
Again, it’s the Trump administration’s own fault that there is speculation (some educated, some not) about the terms of its memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran. That’s the price to be paid for simultaneously refusing to disclose the MOU and having Vice President Vance hold forth extravagantly on what we should think about what he won’t let us see.
It is not a totally ineffective strategy: Some analysts reasonably resist drawing conclusions until there is a published, verified MOU for our consumption. I respect that position though I don’t subscribe to it, at least not fully, because it’s obvious what some of the terms are based on what was in dispute during the war, what Iran is saying, and how Vance is dancing.
There is, however, a report by Hudson’s Josh Block about what the text of the MOU says, although he adds a caveat along the lines of “If this is even remotely accurate” and doesn’t identify his source(s). I suspect it’s accurate, in part because it doesn’t seem to guild the lily — e.g., it doesn’t say Iran gets to toll the strait, it just says Iran will “take steps” regarding the transit of merchant ships, not what these steps will entail. This is consistent with what I’ve long supposed would be the Trump administration’s tacit agreement, so it’s not surprising that I’m inclined to believe it. (Given that the strait was open and free when Trump started the war, it would be hard for him to admit in writing that it won’t be free in the future — even if we hope it will be reasonably open. As I’ve speculated on the podcast, and as the New York Times is reporting, Iran plans to impose “fees” without calling them “tolls.” Here’s to truth in semantics.)
I lay all this out because I’ve assumed one of Iran’s main objectives was to drive a wedge between its two main enemies, the United States and Israel, by nudging the Trump administration into shielding Hezbollah from attacks by the Israel Defense Forces. To my mind, any written MOU would almost certainly be ambiguous on this point; after all, (a) Israel is not a party to the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, (b) the U.S. cannot legally bind Israel, and (c) Hezbollah, which came into being murdering Americans, has been a formally designated terrorist organization under American law for nearly 30 years (among the first when such designations began).
With that in mind, two datapoints.
First, if the text of the agreement is what Block has reported, then I was wrong — there is no ambiguity. Rather, the very first term is explicit that the United States will immediately and permanently end the war in Lebanon — i.e., Israel’s war in response to attacks on its homeland by Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah. To wit:
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. [Emphasis added.]
Second, I recommend this morning’s report on the CBS News website, “Iran says deal with U.S. requires Israeli forces to leave Lebanon.” After noting President Trump’s rebuke of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu due to how Israel’s “minor war” against Hezbollah was complicating Trump’s negotiations with Iran, the report elaborates:
Iran’s foreign minister said any Israeli forces remaining in southern Lebanon, or any Israeli strikes on the country, would constitute a violation of the U.S.-Iran deal. Israeli officials said Monday that troops would stay in Lebanon, as “Trump’s agreement does not bind us.”
We really need to see the MOU.
Like Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it appears the Trump-Iran deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and will do little, if anything, about Iran’s ballistic missile programs and material support to terrorist proxies — indeed, the reportedly contemplated $300 billion “rehabilitation and development” fund will help Iran mightily in reviving those regime priorities. (See paragraph 6 of Block’s report.) But if the Trump administration, with Vance on the point, has agreed that the United States will protect Iran’s Hezbollah jihadists from the IDF, we would truly have hit a historic new low.