Editors at National Review Online ponder the current state of President Donald Trump’s Iran war.
In response to hawkish critics of the reported outlines of a memorandum of understanding with Iran, President Trump said he doesn’t cut bad deals. Well, okay, but how about middling deals after an adversary seizes a strategic asset that we haven’t managed to take back?
Negotiations remain in flux and are the subject of leaks and counter-leaks, but reports indicate that the U.S. and Iran have been closing in on a deal to trade our blockade of Iran for a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with a continuation of the cease-fire for 60 days to allow more time for nuclear negotiations.
The U.S. is saying that Iran is making commitments to give up its highly enriched uranium and suspend enrichment for some period of time, but the Iranians aren’t confirming this, and they’d have every incentive to string a second phase of negotiations out as long as possible. If there is an initial deal in the coming days, the most certain result would be a lifting of the dueling U.S. and Iranian blockades, while everything else would be a jump ball.
The critics of this framework are correct that with our blockade lifted and Trump clearly reluctant to restart bombing, we’d lose crucial leverage over Iran. This would especially be the case if we give the Iranians any sanctions relief up front. We’d be going from “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” to TBD on the crucial nuclear issues.
The problem is that once Iran took effective control of the strait and we weren’t willing to undertake a complex, protracted military action to reestablish freedom of navigation, Tehran had a significant strategic chit to play. And so we are now using our blockade to try to force a return of the Strait of Hormuz to the status quo ante. Even that might be overly hopeful, since Iran has now proved that it can easily interrupt international commerce, and even if it formally agrees not to toll the strait, it may extract revenue in some other form.
