More on the Iran deal – maybe
I continue to be disheartened as news like this comes out. I try to wait for the actual unveiling on Friday – and even after that, to see how it plays out in reality, which is the most important thing of all.
But how can this possibly be reassuring? Is it even correct, though? It’s based on Israeli sources, and I imagine Israel knows quite a bit, but who are those sources and what is their agenda?
Anyway, here’s some of the story:
Newly revealed details of the secretive US-Iran MOU lay out that it would extend the cease-fire to Lebanon, allow Iran to manage the Strait of Hormuz, temporarily waive Iranian oil sanctions and establish a pathway toward a comprehensive peace agreement, Israel’s Channel 12 reported Tuesday.
The framework, which would serve as the basis for broader negotiations between Washington and Tehran, outlines commitments on nuclear issues, sanctions relief, maritime security and the eventual withdrawal of American forces from the region.
Channel 12 is called both mainstream and center-left, but the NY Post reporting the story is on the right.
At any rate, it sounds like the agreement is just an agreement to ease pressure on Iran in order to have some future negotiations. Why? Is this mainly a temporary measure about oil prices?
There are 12 points listed at the article, but the points were revealed by Axios. That doesn’t automatically make them wrong. But we’ve had so many articles and supposed revelations of this type that have turned out to be wrong, and so I refuse to believe the report until the official word comes out.
Trusting Iran on anything seems like a fool’s errand to me, however.
I hate reading articles like that. But my Inbox is bombarded with them, with titles like “worst deal ever.” I remind myself that we still don’t know. But all the reports resemble each other, and so I wonder if that’s because they’re based on the real thing.
Trump has already announced no Strait toll. I’m waiting until Friday.
The Editorial Board at the WSJ vents its frustrations.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/iran-deal-donald-trump-cease-fire-nuclear-weapons-e2ce72ef?st=V2Wn6q
They go on to praise his willingness to use military force when no one else would and acknowledge the damage done to the nuclear program, military and industrial base.
Then they get nasty, even hurling the ultimate insult – comparing Trump to Obama.
Read the whole thing, as they say.
Someone I greatly respect tells me to ignore the details because this is really just a deal to make a deal. Iran is in a mess and no one knows what Trump has up his sleeve, which is of course exactly how he wants it.
By the way, Walter Russell Mead also has a great editorial today on Trump and his style.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-cynicism-and-the-deal-00cfce74?st=FXiq3h
Our time is better spent listening to the complete piano works of Louis Moreau Gottschalk than fooling around with these enemy ops as they repeat week after week in endless hyperbolic succession. It’s crap. We’ve seen it over and over again. How come we can’t learn from the fourth time rather than wait around for the seventh?
Our time is better spent listening to the complete piano works of Louis Moreau Gottschalk…
Agreed.
How come we can’t learn from the fourth time rather than wait around for the seventh?
I don’t know, but it seems to be something fundamental to human nature.
I am told time after time by various sources that Trump knows what he is doing and will not accept a bad deal.
I hope they are right.
As for me, I listen to a couple of people.
Gen Keane. He is fairly diplomatic, but—.
Brit Hume doesn’t appear often, and he doesn’t say a lot when he does; but his tone sounded a lot like Gen Keane’s last time I heard him.
Victor Davis Hanson. He has been pretty quiet; but sounded concerned.
My opinion which is worthless; but it is mine.
Trump has lost a ton of credibility. Maybe he will recover it; but he has work to do.
I honestly believe that Vance is taking himself out of the ’28 sweepstakes. First, he would not distance himself from Carlson; now he is mouthing inanities about the deal.
Rubio is suddenly very quiet. I find that significant
Vance just had this to say:
“Look, they’re going to have to do some serious compliance of very good things for the Americans in order for them to get any of the benefits of the bargain,” Vance said of the Iranian regime.”
He continued:
“”I kind of want to figure out how real are they, how fake are they,” he said. “They’re making a lot of promises. Are those promises actually going to be met with real action?”
“That’s why I’m going to show up to the negotiation”
I also think the timing is to get the oil prices down.
Since the American public will not support a boots-on-the-ground military ouster of the Iranian theocracy… and since Congress won’t support a continuance of Trump’s proactive ‘police action’… all Trump can really do is set back the Mullah’s nuclear timetable. Such that he can rightly say that on his watch he kept America safe.
It’s probably best to remain calm until we see what actually happens.
“Worst deal ever” is what Obama did. For this one, whatever its shape, the Iranian military has been heavily damaged, its capacity to produce replacement weapons has been heavily damaged, its funding mechanisms for regional terror groups are heavily damaged, and its enriched uranium is entombed. No deal at this point is going to be like what Obama did.
We all hoped that the mullah/IRGC control would collapse, and we’re disappointed it hasn’t so far. Try to recall that “regime change,” while hoped for, was never one of the objectives of the military operation.
Oil at around $76/barrel today. Down from a high of something like $114, though that was quite brief.
I was shocked to hear today that Iran is free to sell oil. Yes, that will help bring the price down, but it smacks of capitulation.
Since the American public will not support a boots-on-the-ground military ouster of the Iranian theocracy… and since Congress won’t support a continuance of Trump’s proactive ‘police action’… all Trump can really do is set back the Mullah’s nuclear timetable. Such that he can rightly say that on his watch he kept America safe.
I think GB’s comment bears repeating.
The negotiations did not happen in a vacuum, and the snakes are not all on the other side of the negotiating table.
The same people who were mad at him for not doing something when the IRGC was killing Iranians were also mad at him for threatening to rain death and destruction down on everything in Iran (OMG WWIII!). The people who were mad at him for continuing the police action past the initial bombing runs (OMG no new wars – he promised!) are now mad at him for negotiating for peace. No matter what he does there will be hand wringing and pearl clutching.
He is negotiating from the position that whatever he does will be touted as the worst thing ever, and I’m pretty sure he knows that both the US and the IRGC will stab him in the back first chance they get. Congressional support is a joke – they’re more likely to work against whatever he tries to do.
I like the comment I saw somewhere recently that when (not if) the IRGC goes back on their side of the bargain, Trump can then go back to raining death and destruction down on their heads – after all, he did give peace a chance. And that would also reset the Congressional approval clock too, so no need for an official declaration of war.
There have to be other major factors. I suspect we are running dangerously low on some major weapons systems,
TommyJay thinks allowing Iran to sell oil “smacks of capitulation.”
That was my first reaction, then I reflected on the fact Iran’s economy is teetering right now. Some 75% of their oil storage capacity is filled, and when they can no longer store or move oil after it comes out of the ground, they have to shut down wells. That’s a death sentence unless the well is re-opened very soon.
So my question is, if Iran loses its ability to produce and sell oil, what do they have left? Pomegranates, pistachios and terror. Maybe we’d rather have them exporting oil to the world than terror.
I don’t worry about Iran earning an honest living off the sale of oil. I do worry about them exporting terror and putting a “service fee” on passage through the straits. I cannot say the draft agreement we are hearing about will stop the export of terror, but I’m pretty sure it will give the an alternative that gives us a little leverage.
My main concern about the agreement is one Neo has written about: the trustworthiness of the Iranian government. I don’t trust them. I would not trust them if we had concrete promises written down on paper and signed. They have lied and they will in the future. If the alternative is to invade and conquer, we won’t be doing that. So maybe, just maybe, we can identify issues that will make them accept alternatives to nuking Tel Aviv.
neo writes, “At any rate, it sounds like the agreement is just an agreement to ease pressure on Iran in order to have some future negotiations. Why? Is this mainly a temporary measure about oil prices?”
Anybody here think that the fact that the midterm elections are only four-and-a-fraction months away plays into things?
(physicsguy (6:18 pm) did mention timing “to get the oil prices down.”)