Trump Claims to have Made a Deal.

On Friday, I wrote about the whiplash-inducing changes of direction by cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump with regard to his war against Iran. Thursday morning, Trump declared his intention to invade Iran. But a few hours later, he called the whole thing off and said that terms for an agreement between the United States and Iran had been agreed to by all parties. In that post, I made a number of speculations and predictions. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I'll check how I did and update subsequent developments. The bottom line is that the situation is more hopeful than I had expected, but still must be viewed with extreme caution.

While officials from Trump on down suggested that an agreement between the U.S. and Iran could be signed on Sunday, I suggested that this was overly optimistic and that a signed agreement was not, in fact, imminent. I turned out to be correct in this regard. While Trump "truthed" on Sunday evening that "The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete" and that he authorized the "the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz," Trump appeared to be out ahead of events. Iranian sources put a damper on Trump's optimism, and even Trump had to take a step back within an hour. In a follow-up "truth," Trump wrote that the "deal" would be signed on Friday and that the Strait of Hormuz would not open until then.

As I did on Friday, I want to again emphasize that what has been agreed to is not a peace agreement. Rather, it is a memorandum of understanding that sets conditions for starting formal peace talks. In addition, it is important to stress that no official written version of the MOU has been released. U.S. officials have informally described the contents to reporters, and several versions have been published by Iranian media. Many political commentators, especially those on the left, have been quick to seize on the Iranian versions to demonstrate that Trump made a terrible deal. I have written for months that Trump would ultimately have to accept a humiliating agreement, and I am confident that whatever he has agreed to will be humiliating for him. However, I think a bit of caution is justified, and I am not willing to accept the Iranian versions of the MOU at face value. I'll wait to see a formal, written version before I criticize it.

On Friday, I reiterated my contention that Israel has veto power over an agreement because it will require an end to hostilities in Lebanon. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no interest in bringing an end to that fighting at this point and can derail an agreement simply by launching attacks against Lebanon. Shortly after Trump's "truths" about reaching an agreement with the Iranians, Netanyahu appears to have attempted to do just that. He launched bombing raids against Beirut's southern suburbs. The Iranians had set an explicit redline regarding attacks on Beirut, and this bombing raid apparently provoked Iran to temporarily halt talks with the United States. According to Fox News, this led Trump to make another expletive-filled phone called to Netanyahu where he again dropped f-bombs and told Netanyahu not to conduct any additional attacks. In addition, a Hezbollah official told Reuters that Iranian officials delayed the signing of the deal until Friday so that they could monitor Israel's adherence to the ceasefire in Lebanon.

For Israel's part, the normally combative political factions appear to be united in opposition to Trump's agreement. Yinon Magal, a right-wing political commentator and former Knesset member wrote in very personal terms about U.S. officials. He called Trump a "loser," referred to Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner as "two little Jews" (Israeli reporter Noga Tarnopolsky suggests that this is more accurately translated as "two little kikes"), and said that Vice President and reply guy JD Vance is a "lowlife." Magal also vowed to continue the fighting in Lebanon. Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's finance minister, wrote that "The agreement with Iran is bad for Israel and for the entire free world. Period." He also said that Israel would continue its attacks against Hezbollah. Israel's defense minister, Israel Katz, stated that Israeli troops would remain in Lebanon. Hezbollah is likely to consider any Israeli forces in Lebanon to be fair targets and, as such, this is going to be a continual source of problems. The leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid, also reacted negatively to reports about the agreement, but blamed it on Netanyahu, calling it "one of the most shocking failures of Israel's foreign and security policy, and it is entirely on Netanyahu's account."

Israel is going to be a real test for Trump. The Israelis are not used to being told what to or what not to do. They will likely turn to their U.S. supporters to put pressure on Trump. However, the Democrats are mostly fed up with Israel and with Netanyahu in particular. They will likely have no interest in coming to Netanyahu's assistance, and it would be grievously damaging to their midterm election hopes if they did. Republicans, little more than a MAGA cult at this point, are normally unwilling to challenge Trump and could also suffer politically if they chose Israel over U.S. interests. This week will be an interesting look at how far Netanyahu is willing to challenge Trump and how willing Trump is to push back. So far, signs are not good. Today, Israel launched a drone attack on a car in southern Lebanon that killed at least one person.

In Friday's post, I also questioned why Vance had been picked to sign the agreement rather than Marco Rubio, who is both the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor. An international agreement would normally be the purview of the Secretary of State. Yet, Rubio has returned to hiding under his bed and is nowhere to be seen. Then I remembered a post that I wrote at the beginning of May in which I discussed the differing roles of Vance and Rubio with regard to the war. In that post, I noted that the actions of Vance and Rubio suggest that they both consider the war to be a failure and have tried to distance themselves from it. Rubio's tactic has been to generally be quiet about the war and to stay out of the picture whenever the war was involved. Vance, on the other hand, has tried to present himself as a war critic and to blame others for the failure. Over the weekend, there were suggestions that Trump would get credit for any positive aspects of the agreement but Vance would be blamed for negative parts. Trump's Iran deal may turn out to be a point of contention between Rubio and Vance in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination for 2028.

I also suggested that Trump would not want to miss signing an agreement that he will inevitably portray as the greatest deal in the history of deals. Yesterday evening, Fox News reported that Vance plans to be in Geneva for the signing, but that it is possible that Trump will also be there. Logistics are still being worked out. If Trump is on hand to sign the MOU, it would likely be a great relief to Vance.

If I were to stop here, readers might be led to believe that my prognostication on Friday was nearly perfect. So let me hasten to disabuse you of that idea. I also suggested that Trump might be talking up a peace agreement to hide an intended capture of Kharg Island by the 82nd Airborne. That obviously didn't happen. Win some, lose some.

Again, without the official text of the MOU, it is not possible to provide an accurate critique of it. However, it almost certainly will be worse than the deal that former President Barack Obama signed. At a minimum, Obama did not have to negotiate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz because it didn't close while he was president. It is also possible that the informal agreement that exists now will not last until Friday. That could be due to Trump coming to regret the deal as a result of criticism or because of continued attacks by Israel on Lebanon.