By Tom Fowdy
It was reported by the media today that the United States and Iran had agreed on a deal to extend the ceasefire between the two countries for another 60 days and "launch negotiations on the future of its nuclear program." As reported by the media, part of this deal involves an apparent "14-point Memorandum of Understanding" (MoU), which, if agreed, would apparently reopen the critical waterway, the Strait of Hormuz, lift the US blockade on Iranian ports, and lift sanctions in exchange for Tehran's formal commitment to never make a nuclear weapon. Different public narratives of these talks exist, and the White House has subsequently denied the existence of such an MoU.
First of all, I remain very skeptical of this deal, which unfreezes Iranian assets in exchange for nuclear commitments. Where might we have heard that one before? Is that not what Trump and his time claimed of a certain deal they jettisoned in 2018, signed by Barack Obama, of which they spun a narrative that his administration "gave them billions of dollars." Seemingly it is, and the public is quite within their rights to see the obvious similarities, which is a very strange outcome from a US president who only months ago publicly committed to destroying the Iranian regime completely, buoyed on by Israeli lobbying to do so as well.
Thus, the question is, why would Trump and Republicans jump into a new treaty with Iran, exactly the same as the old one they hated? My answer is as I have said before, Trump is looking to de-escalate tensions for his own national interest and does not have the political bandwidth to make massive concessions to Iran when he has failed to terminate the Islamic Republic State and thus make it subservient for energy-based purposes. As I have said before, I believe Trump is aiming to cool the situation, fix the most urgent problems of the conflict (Strait of Hormuz closure), and then simply freeze it indefinitely once he has gotten what he wanted and the heat is off him, precisely because neither side has the trust of the other in order to facilitate massive concessions and surrender leverage. We should assume Trump wants the Strait open and the ceasefire extended, but does not and cannot make massive sanctions relief for Iran.
Again, to understand Trump's operating style and the US foreign policy and defense establishments around him, we need to look back to 2017-2018 regarding his dealings with North Korea. In 2017, Trump – while not resorting to war – escalated a massive campaign against Pyongyang, which he called "maximum pressure" and which was filled with "fire and fury" rhetoric and other bellicose threats. The president wanted the DPRK to denuclearize and surrender its nuclear arsenal, which Kim Jong Un regards as a non-negotiable strategic asset. Nonetheless, talks between the two countries began, and Trump held several summits with Kim. In summer 2018, the two leaders held a historic summit in Singapore, which, like the US-Iran talks now, produced a "Memorandum of Understanding" on a pathway forward that, in theory, could even end the Korean War.
Guess what: despite these talks, which lingered until another summit in Hanoi, nothing ever came of them. Why? Because Trump was constrained by his administration to take a unilateral, non-compromising stance of total denuclearization rather than offering strategic concessions to Kim Jong-un, this soon led to the president walking out of the summit on advice from John Bolton. Thus, as of 2026, the DPRK still has nuclear capabilities, and sanctions have never been lifted. Despite this, Trump proclaimed victory anyway because the crisis scenario he had created was now "resolved" by himself, and there is no doubt he will claim the same with Iran. In the case of Tehran, the president has an interest in de-escalation, but anything else remains highly questionable. This tells us a lot about Trump's style; it is easy for him to shape the optics and thus inject confidence into global markets but less so to actually get down to the details of a comprehensive agreement.
One must ask again, with the US political classes' support, a sweeping deal with Tehran that gives them sanctions relief and returned assets in exchange for nuclear non-commitment, especially when it was already clear this was politically unacceptable in the past, and countries such as Israel have aggressively pushed for more hawkish measures? How does it make any sense from a US national interest perspective? Washington wants to contain Iran, but signing such a peace treaty and giving them sweeping concessions is essentially an admission of defeat from a president whose initial goal was regime change!
In this case, the most likely outcome remains that Trump will seek to strengthen the ceasefire and reopen the strait (which is economically hurting), and then talks with Tehran on everything else will go nowhere, with the US probably tightening, rather than loosening, sanctions. A cold de-escalation, as with North Korea in 2018, is the preferred outcome, simply because it is politically risky and untenable given the trust deficit for either side to go further.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | Is Russia about to escalate in Ukraine
Comment