National Review Online
Thursday, July 09, 2026
There are times, however distasteful it may be, when this
country is obliged to accommodate and maybe sign agreements with unsavory
regimes, but it should do so without illusions. Such regimes don’t change their
nature just because they have inked some sort of deal with the U.S. Such a
signature may be a tactical necessity, or a tactical opportunity, but it is
highly unlikely to signify any change to their longer-term strategic aims.
President Trump’s boosterish assurances about the
greatness of the Iran cease-fire made it sound like he thought, to the
contrary, that the Islamic Republic of Iran had indeed turned over a new leaf.
Obviously, before Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian
signed the memorandum of understanding supposedly establishing a cease-fire in
the Gulf, Iran was a revolutionary state set on spreading its revolution by
whatever means it could. It loathed the West and was intent on wiping out
Israel. And none of that changed when he signed the MOU. To believe otherwise
would be remarkably naïve. President Trump told a
reporter that his reason for concluding that the Iranian leadership were
“scum” rather than, as he had said previously, “very rational people, nice to
deal with, strong and smart” was that he had gotten “to know them.”
Really? What more is there to learn about the nature of
an Islamic regime based, to a significant extent, on hostility to the United
States?
True to form, it appears that the erstwhile “very
rational people” may have reignited the war with the U.S. by firing on three
commercial vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. They had, the
Iranians maintained, taken the “wrong” course through the strait, a nonsensical
claim that should not be allowed to obscure Tehran’s serious breach of the MOU.
Under that agreement, Iran was obliged to use its “best
efforts” to ensure the “safe, toll-free passage of commercial vessels through
the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days.” The attacks, which presumably were ordered
mainly to bully others planning to pass through the strait, were the opposite
of that.
In response, the U.S. hit back with strikes against targets in Iran, which, in
the view of NATO Secretary General Marc Rutte, was an “absolutely necessary” response to Iran’s breach of the MOU,
as indeed it was. The U.S. has also reinstated sanctions on Iranian oil sales, and Trump has
said that he thinks the cease-fire deal is over. The oil price jumped, and
stocks slumped on the news. The U.S. has just announced further strikes.
After the MOU was signed in June, we noted that it was “lopsided in Iran’s favor.” What events since then, including these latest Iranian attacks, have underlined is
that the Iranians would not only cheat, but also use the MOU as a “base” from
which they could by a series of ever-greater provocations expand their sway
within the region and undercut our ability to rein them in. Their ability to do
so would be considerably enhanced by the cash that, under the terms of the MOU,
is supposed to be heading Tehran’s way. Moreover, the countdown to the midterms
will do nothing to discourage Tehran from seeing how far it can go.
If there’s one thing Trump has demonstrated during this
whole episode with Iran, it’s that he’s perfectly capable of changing his tack.
He should use the opportunity presented by Tehran’s actions to do it yet again.
The president should make clear to the Iranians that he is prepared to discuss
a new deal, but only one that genuinely delivers freedom of navigation in the
strait in a way the first cease-fire and the MOU have not. This demand should
be a nonnegotiable backed by force of U.S. arms.
Accepting effective Iranian control of the strait was a
formula for heartburn and humiliation, and so it’s proved.
No comments:
Post a Comment