There Is No Deal

President Trump's new agreement with Iran falls far short of the one he shredded

“There is no spoon,” a young child tells Neo, played by Keanu Reeves, in one of the most iconic scenes in The Matrix. The world we have been programmed to believe is real is just an illusion.

I thought of this when asked by New Lines Magazine to write a summary of the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran signed by Donald Trump this week in, of all places, the palace at Versailles. The “deal” is an illusion. The humiliating culmination of an illegal, unnecessary, unauthorized war that was itself based on a series of lies and fantasies pushed for over forty years.

Iran was never the threat claimed by the Israelis, Saudis and U.S. neoconservatives. It was certainly not an immediate threat, as Donald Trump claimed. It was never “two weeks from a nuclear weapon.” War was not necessary to “save Israel,” as Trump boasted. Nor would Iran, if it developed a bomb, immediately use it to attack Israel in a suicidal spasm.

Trump leaves Versailles after signing the terms of surrender.

But the Iranian nuclear program was real. I have been tracking this program since before there was an actual program, just a research project in the 1990s building its first experimental centrifuges.

There are only two ways to contain this program and prevent it from proceeding to a bomb: Negotiations or War. For three decades, I have been on the side of those who argued that the only effective way to stop the program was to convince the Iranians to limit it. War would be a disaster and might accelerate the program not end it.

We have now reached the culmination of that debate. From 2013 to 2018, we earnestly and successful pursued negotiations. They worked. Obama’s 2015 agreement shrank Iran’s program to a fraction of its former size, locked it in a box and surrounded it with cameras, seals and inspectors. It verifiably blocked all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb for 15 to 25 years.

Trump tore up that agreement in 2018, promised a “bigger, better deal” that he never delivered. This year, he started a war that he promised would topple the Iranian regime, obliterate its nuclear and missile programs and liberate the Iranian people. It did none of that. It was a catastrophic defeat for the United States, perhaps the worst in its history.

Some will continue to argue that we just didn’t wage the war properly or with sufficient power. That we should have invaded Iran. Or that we must just keep “dropping bombs on their heads,” as Trump threatened if Iran does not now negotiate in good faith. But they are a minority. The overwhelming consensus is that this war failed. The only viable solution is negotiations.

But now we are in a much weaker position. Iran won this war. As negotiations begin, its leverage will only increase; Trump’s will decrease. It is hard to say what a final nuclear deal with look like, or if we will ever get one. Like Trump’s reflecting pool, already turning from American Flag Blue to Iranian Flag Green and its paint pealing from the bottom, Trump’s agreement may fall apart as soon as it is completed.

That is what happened to his much ballyhooed 21-point Gaza Plan. None of that plan has materialized. There is no reconstruction, no funding, no civilian authority, no viable “Board of Peace.” Even the ceasefire exists in name only. Israel has killed over 1,000 Palestinians since the war “ended. “Its efforts seemed geared more to encouraging Palestinians to leave Gaza than rebuild it.

Israel is doing its best to sabotage the agreement. Nuclear talks set to begin in Geneva on Friday had to be called off because Israel is still bombing Lebanon, contrary to the very first point of the MOU which commits the United States and Israel to end the war in the Persian Gulf and Lebanon that they began on Feb. 28.

Even if Trump pressures Israel into compliance, I fully agree with Timothy Snyder: “The United States has capitulated to Iran. There is a ‘deal,’ which has been signed, on terms that can only be described as those of complete Iranian victory.”

I also agree with Jonathan Lemire, who voices the majority view of analysts that not only did Trump lose, but “the United States is left weaker—diminished militarily, strategically, economically, and perhaps morally.”

Below, in my most objective voice, is my analysis of the MOU, as published this week by New Line Magazine. It is not pretty.

---

There Is No Iran Deal and There May Never Be

The agreement President Donald Trump has reached with Iran is not, strictly speaking, a nuclear deal. All the key elements of limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities are to be negotiated over the next 60 days. But that period could be extended. It is possible that there will never be a completed agreement.

So it is difficult to say definitively how this new agreement compares to the highly detailed 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by a team of experts at the direction of President Barack Obama.

We can, however, compare the Obama deal with some of the elements released Wednesday in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was electronically signed on Sunday by Trump, Vice President JD Vance and the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. It will be formally signed on Friday in Geneva.

The MOU basically commits the United States and Israel to end the war in the Persian Gulf and Lebanon that they began on Feb. 28. (Israel is referenced in the text as a U.S. ally but did not sign the agreement and may openly oppose it.)

The first five paragraphs of the MOU detail a ceasefire, an opening of the Strait of Hormuz, a pledge to keep the strait toll-free for 60 days and a nonaggression pact wherein Iran and the U.S. pledge to “undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.” The U.S. will, within 30 days, withdraw all its forces “from the proximity” of Iran.

The most controversial part of the agreement is Paragraph 6, which establishes a $300 billion fund for the “reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” This is very close to the reparations fund that Iran demanded before it would end the fighting. It is unclear exactly who will contribute to this fund.

Paragraph 7 starts the flow of additional revenue to Iran. The U.S. pledges to immediately begin the process of terminating “all types of sanctions” against Iran. This is expanded in Paragraph 10, wherein the U.S. pledges to immediately “issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil.” This means all restrictions imposed upon Iran’s oil sales since the 1980s will be lifted.

Paragraph 11 opens up another tranche of revenue for Iran. The U.S. pledges to “make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets” of Iran. Tehran will determine how those funds are spent.

The only mention of nuclear issues is in Paragraph 8. It says Iran “reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.” This is a somewhat weaker pledge than in the JCPOA, which stated that the Islamic Republic “reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” It is similar to other pledges that Iran has made going back to 1957, during the time of the shah.

All other nuclear issues are to be resolved in later negotiations, including “the disposition of stockpiled enriched material.” It allows that one way of disposing of that material would be “down blending on site.” It does not mention actually shipping the uranium out of Iran.

Until these and all other issues are resolved, Iran and the U.S. agree to “maintain the status quo,” meaning Iran’s nuclear program remains intact and the U.S. does not apply any further sanctions or deploy any further forces in the region.

The JCPOA was a far more detailed agreement that took 18 months to negotiate. Its more than 150 pages provided for the dismantling of most of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, forced Iran to ship all but a token amount of its enriched uranium out of the country and destroy its plutonium-producing reactor, and froze development of its centrifuges and other technology for 10 to 25 years. It established the most intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated, allowing the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor every ounce of uranium in Iran from the time it was mined until it was stored as fuel. The MOU does not provide for any inspection regime. That is to be resolved later.

The JCPOA also allowed Iran access to some of its frozen assets, but not until Iran had completed the dismantling of most of its complex and shipped out 8 tons of enriched uranium. Trump’s MOU seems to pay Iran upfront, with nuclear issues resolved after payments. While the JCPOA allowed Iran access to some $50 billion in frozen funds, at least half of that was paid directly to Iran’s debtors. This MOU would allow Iran immediate access to $24 billion and potentially much more.

After Trump tore up the JCPOA in 2018, Iran slowly rebuilt its nuclear complex. It now has much more advanced centrifuges (prohibited for 10 years under the Obama deal) and a stockpile of 11 tons of enriched uranium, including about 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%, just shy of the 90% purity required for the core of a nuclear bomb. The JCPOA prohibited Iran from stockpiling more than 300 pounds of uranium, and that was limited to 3.67%, the purity required for fuel for its power reactor at Bushehr.

One troubling aspect of the MOU is that it refers to “Iran’s nuclear needs” in Paragraph 8. This may refer to Iran’s claim that it needs to continue enriching uranium to both the low levels required for its power reactor and the 20% level required to fuel its research reactor at the University of Tehran. It appears that any deal will, like the JCPOA, limit Iran’s nuclear complex, but not eliminate it.

The last paragraph of the MOU says that the final deal will be endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. That was also true of Obama’s deal.

Any further comparison of the two agreements would be like comparing a fully constructed house with the concept of a new building. There is not yet an actual agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and there may never be. As the negotiations begin, Iran’s leverage will only increase, while the United States’ will decline.