By Philip Klein
Friday, June 12, 2026
Not since Sonny Corleone has anybody been as hot for a
deal as President Trump is to strike an agreement with the Iranians. Over the
past several months, by Trump’s telling, we have been days away from signing an
amazing deal with the Iranians, only for nothing to ever come to fruition.
Noah detailed
the latest claims from Iran about what is in the current deal — a totally
implausible set of provisions of which Noah was rightly skeptical. Trump has
already called the terms “fake” and is back to saying that the Iranians are not
dealing in good faith, warning,
“They better get their act together, and FAST!” Even in claiming a deal is
close, the administration has been leaking terms that are completely
incompatible relative to what’s coming out in Iran’s state-controlled media. To
note just one among many, administration officials are telling reporters that
the deal includes the dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program,
while Iran’s media has said that the current agreement includes nothing on the
nuclear issue.
This all comes after a wild day on Thursday, when within
hours, Trump went from announcing plans for the U.S. to hit Iran hard and to
imminently taking over Iran’s Kharg Island oil hub, to calling off the attacks
and saying the war was over and there would be a signing ceremony on a deal
within days.
While a lot of the criticism has been about Trump being
played by Iranians, in reality, I think Trump isn’t getting played by Iranians
per se (whom he isn’t directly negotiating with) but by the mediators. Politico
reports that yesterday, after Trump was gearing up for more
attacks on Iran, senior officials from Pakistan, the UAE, and Qatar called up
Trump to assure him that a deal was close and to persuade him not to attack.
Telling Trump that a deal is close feeds into what he wants to believe — that
the joint Israeli-U.S. operation coupled with threats against Iran have forced
them to submit to his demands. So I think officials from Pakistan et al. are
simply lying to Trump about what Iranians are willing to agree to, while
perhaps telling Iranians that Trump is more flexible on certain matters.
A number of critics of Trump have come to assume that he
will agree to any deal just to be able to declare the war over, so that oil
prices can go down ahead of the midterms. But so far, that has not been the
case. If Trump were willing to sign onto anything, he would have struck a deal
already. At the same time, he is clearly eager to get the war over with and
plainly isn’t interested in a resumption of war on the scale that it would take
to either (a) eliminate Iran’s ability to assert control over the Strait of
Hormuz or (b) topple the regime. This is why we have been in a holding pattern
— Trump won’t agree to just any deal, the Iranians won’t agree to a deal that
respects Trump’s red lines, and Trump won’t go back to full-scale war.
As far as I can tell, the original plan was to bomb Iran
for a few weeks and walk away with a better government, a good deal, and/or a
heavily degraded Iran. But Iran’s harassment of ships trying to pass through
the Strait of Hormuz made it impossible to walk away with that as the status
quo.
It should be abundantly clear that the current regime in
Iran cannot be trusted and will never agree to a deal that would meet the
criteria Trump himself has established. So if he isn’t willing or ready to go
all the way militarily, to me the least bad option would be for Trump to
announce that negotiations are over, as are major military operations, but that
he will maintain the embargo against Iran until traffic is freely flowing
through the Strait of Hormuz.
This obviously wouldn’t be a perfect outcome. It would
not immediately relieve oil prices or resolve Republican worries in November.
It also could linger for quite a while. But the U.S. could withstand the
economic disruption from the Strait of Hormuz longer than Iran could endure an
economic embargo. Given how depleted the Iranian navy is, sustaining an embargo
would take a lot less effort than a resumption of full-scale military action.
Even if an extended blockade doesn’t lead to a complete economic collapse, as
some have speculated it might, it would certainly make it a lot harder for Iran
to rebuild its conventional military and its ballistic program and to restart
its nuclear efforts. It would help lock in place the gains made by the
bombardment of Iran. Meanwhile, Trump would no longer look desperate for a
deal, which ultimately Iran needs a lot more than we do.
No comments:
Post a Comment