A Real Ceasefire? Or Just Another Cease farce?

So we have a “ceasefire” with Iran. Previous “ceasefires” were more like cease farces with occasional attacks on our Gulf allies, the US firing on a ship and killing three Indian sailors, a few Iranian missiles lobbed at Israel with Israeli continuing operations in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah. Trump reportedly had a heated argument with Netanyahu telling him to stand down but in more colorful language. We don’t know what Netanyahu said back, but Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz told Trump to pound sand— the Israelis will stay in Lebanon “without any time limit” and will clear the Lebanese population from the areas it holds. So much for that.

Now comes a bilateral agreement between the US and Iran that leaves Israel out entirely. Of course the Iranians were never going to sit at the same table with the Israelis making the United States serve as Israel’s de facto proxy.  For the agreement to hold, Israel would presumably have to accept its terms. Yet that raises an equally difficult question: would Israel be expected to withdraw from southern Lebanon, leaving Hezbollah’s military infrastructure intact and the security of northern Israel compromised threatening the lives of thousands of Israelis?

We don’t know the full terms. What we do know is that Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and we will lift our blockade. Trump, never one to miss a moment, went full NASCAR on us: “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” There are reports that the US will also release some of Iran’s frozen assets — which is interesting, given how loudly Trump criticized Obama for doing the exact same thing in his “peace” agreement. And let’s be clear about what this actually is: a 60-day truce, during which the two sides will try to hammer out a final deal. Where have we heard that before?

Iran has broken every agreement it’s ever made. You’d have to be an optimist to think this one will be any different. That said, there is one small reason not to be completely pessimistic. Iran’s military has been seriously degraded – even though they do seem to have an unlimited supply of missiles and drones. Breaking the agreement would likely cause Trump to go full UFC and really try to bomb them into oblivion – a prospect the Iranian leadership would be unwise to dismiss.

Whether Israel convinced Trump to enter the United States into the conflict remains a matter of debate. What is less debatable is whether Trump’s stated objectives have been achieved. Is Israel safer now that Iran’s military has been severely diminished? What about the nuclear threat and Iran’s capability of delivering warheads to Europe? Trump said that he was going to war with Iran to accomplish three goals: the destruction of Iran’s ability to wage war; stopping its nuclear weapons program; regime change and the liberation of its people. So when the final deal is signed – if it is signed at all – will any of these goals be accomplished? 

On the military side, Iran has been weakened militarily, which is good news for its Gulf neighbors. On nukes, Iran has always insisted its program was purely civilian and not military. Almost nobody believed them. Whether the program gets fully dismantled and whether Iran will accept real inspections, are still open questions. And regime change? Forget it. Regime change is not part of the agreement. In fact, when the ceasefire was announced, many Iranians took to the streets in protest — not against the government, but against the deal. Crowds chanted “death to the compromiser” – Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi – who was called on to resign. A member of the Iranian parliament Mahmoud Nabavian called the agreement a “total loss.” Back here at home, I’d bet Tucker Carlson, Lindsey Graham and other war hawks are equally unhappy, pushing for the war to keep going until the Iranian government actually falls.

So does Trump get anything out of this? The Iranians have played seven US presidents and Trump has been no exception. The TACO label — “Trump Always Chickens Out” — has been following him around for a reason. His latest reversal came when he threatened to bomb and occupy Kharg Island to shut down Iran’s oil supply entirely, then backed off at the last minute claiming that more fruitful discussions were underway. A friend of mine said that threats are the only thing the Iranian regime understands, which is why Trump does what he does. Maybe. But couldn’t he make those threats quietly, instead of publicly, looking like he’s constantly backing down making him seen like a wuss?

It looks like Trump wanted one thing above everything else, to get the Strait of Hormuz open. And he got it. I suggested early on that if Iran just offered to rename it the Strait of Trump, this whole thing would have been over much sooner. But the broader problem hasn’t gone away. Iran will find a way to eventually get a nuclear weapon. I wonder why they haven’t just bought one or two from North Korea? And if Trump can’t get Israel to stop fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, how does the deal survive? Iran seems to consider Hezbollah a core strategic asset and will defend it — and its foothold in southern Lebanon — no matter what.

At a minimum, here’s what Trump should have demanded: no highly enriched uranium, with real inspections to back it up; limits on how much Iran can rebuild its military; a guaranteed open Strait of Hormuz; and an end to Iran’s support for its proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. After World War II, both Germany and Japan were forced to cap their military capabilities. The same standard should apply to Iran. And it should be made crystal clear: violate any term of the final agreement, and the bombing starts again — this time for real and no TACO.