More Developments in the War with Iran

The past 24 hours have seen a whirlwind of activity surrounding the United States-Israel war against Iran. Cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump has gone from threatening an invasion of Iran to claiming an agreement will be reached this weekend. But can Trump be believed? Past performance would say "no." My guess is that while some progress towards an agreement may have been made, both Trump and Iranian officials are still engaged in public relations games that obscure the reality of the situation.

On Monday, I wrote about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's de facto veto over peace negotiations. Netanyahu has this power because Iran is demanding that any ceasefire or peace agreement include Lebanon. Therefore, Netanyahu can sabotage any accord simply by continuing attacks on Lebanon. It appeared that Netanyahu, ignoring Trump's explicit request and attacking Beirut, had done exactly that. This led Iran to fire missiles at Israel and Israel, again ignoring Trump's request, launching attacks against Iran.

This tit-for-tat round of attacks had just settled down when Iran shot down an U.S. Apache helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz. This led to U.S. strikes against Iran, which, among other targets, damaged two drinking water facilities. Attacks on such targets are war crimes, though the U.S. doesn't seem to be concerned about the legality of its actions. In return, Iran reportedly attacked U.S. military bases in neighboring Gulf countries.

Yesterday morning, Trump posted the following on Truth Social:

The United States will be hitting Iran (Whose Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE!), VERY HARD TONIGHT. At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Like much of what Trump says these days, it was not clear what should be made of it. Further U.S. bombing was easy enough to believe, but an invasion and seizure of Iranian territory? Trump seemed to be forecasting a long-term U.S. occupation of Iran. I have written repeatedly that Trump faces two options with regard to Iran: a humiliating agreement or military escalation. This "truth" seemed to indicate that Trump had chosen escalation.

The seizure of Kharg Island, Iran's primary facility for loading oil onto ships, has long been discussed by U.S. officials. The theory seems to be that if Kharg is taken, Iran will have little ability to continue to export oil and, therefore, will be forced to the peace table. This ignores the fact that due to the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is already mostly unable to export oil. However, Trump probably has it in his head that he can also take control of the oil stored on or near Kharg and sell that himself. That would be the "Venezuelan" solution that he frequently mentions. Theoretically, this could be true of oil reserves on Kharg or ships docked near the island. However, Iran would surely cut off future oil supplies to the island.

While a U.S. seizure of Kharg is certainly feasible, it would probably not happen without U.S. casualties. More importantly, holding the island could be problematic as Iran could easily attack targets there as well as ships and aircraft meant to resupply the occupying troops. Overall, the cost-benefit of occupying the island doesn't seem to favor the United States. Nevertheless, Ken Klippenstein recently got hold of a document showing that paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne have been deployed to Israel as part of "new U.S.-Israeli joint contingency plans, completed since February, for seizing Kharg Island and carving out coastal territory inside Iran." So, the idea of taking Kharg does not appear to be off the table.

Just a few hours after Trump's threat to invade Iran, Trump TACO'd. In another "truth" on Truth Social, Trump wrote:

Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening. Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved, including the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others. The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized — Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly.

DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Trump threatening increased attacks on Iran, once even threatening to end its civilization, and then TACOing is nothing new. CNN, for instance, found that Trump has claimed that a deal with Iran is close at least 38 times. It has not been true in one of those instances and, therefore, skepticism is warranted that it is true now.

However, the suggestion that a deal was imminent continued to gain traction with rumors spreading that Vice President and reply guy JD Vance could potentially sign an agreement in Geneva, Switzerland, on Sunday. Trump said that he himself was too busy to attend the signing. The UFC fight at the White House is scheduled for Sunday evening. Sunday is also Trump's birthday.

Early this morning, Yaroslav Trofimov, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, tweeted the text of what was alleged to be the draft agreement that had been published by Iran’s Mehr news agency. According to the text, Iran would keep control of the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. and its allies would promise $300 billion in reconstruction money for Iran, $24 billion in Iranian frozen funds would immediately be transferred to Iran, sanctions would be suspended, the U.S. would withdraw its forces from the Middle East, and Iran could continue to maintain its missile stockpile and support its proxies. The U.S. would also restrain Israel in Lebanon. This is essentially an Iranian wishlist and it is simply not believable that the U.S. would agree to such a thing.

Much of the world believes that Trump is desperate to get a deal with Iran. It is also thought that Trump is likely to give up too much to reach a deal. My guess is that Iran is playing games and hoping to provoke friction between the U.S. and Israel and the U.S. and the Gulf Arab countries by suggesting that Trump has completely caved to Iranian wishes. For his part, Trump took to Truth Social to deny that the published text was accurate, saying "The terms that Iran leaked out to the Fake News have NOTHING to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing."

Meanwhile, a "White House official" told Fox News that Iran had agreed to an entirely different deal. In this version, Iran's nuclear program would be dismantled and their nuclear material destroyed and removed. "The Strait of Hormuz will reopen, Iran will no longer fund terrorist groups and none of Tehran’s frozen assets will be released until the regime performs, the official added." The Fox News and Mehr versions are completely reconciliable and the Fox version may well be the White House's attempt to spin the agreement in the same manner the Iranians likely were.

Kayleigh McEnany, Trump's former press secretary, tweeted that a "Senior Administration Official” told her that there was no deal yet but that they were 75% there. The official was confident that a deal would be signed in the next few days. To me, this is contradictory. Anyone who has followed any sort of negotiations knows that the last few percent are normally the hardest part. 75% is nowhere near to getting an agreement finished. On the other hand, McEnany reported a list of points that were much more realistic than the other two reports. However, what she outlined did not differ much from the agreement to which former President Barack Obama and the Iranians had previously agreed. Trump had torn up that deal. To fight a war to get the same deal that he previously rejected would be a significant setback.

Finally, in one of the more surreal developments, the Iranian foreign minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi tweeted that an agreement had never been closer but that the media should refrain from speculation about its content. Trump then "re-truthed" that tweet on Truth Social.

One point about which I should be clear: What is being discussed is a Memorandum of Understanding that will outline how formal peace talks will proceed. This is not the final deal. In all likelihood, an MOU will be sufficient for Trump, and therefore, I am pessimistic that the actual peace discussion will take place or, if they do, make progress. I believe Trump will settle with an MOU and move on to something else. He is tired of Iran and the Iran conflict.

Here is my speculation for the weekend: Regardless of the terms of any deal, if one actually comes about, Trump will declare it to be the greatest agreement in the history of agreements. Therefore, I am very skeptical that he would miss the opportunity to sign it. Trump loves being the center of attention, and he loves signing documents. The signing could easily be delayed a day or two to allow Trump to attend. Because Trump is not planning to attend, I don't think an actual signing is imminent as we are being led to believe. I am happy to be wrong, however.

Along those same lines, negotiations are normally led by the U.S. Department of State, and Marco Rubio is the Secretary of State. Therefore, why is Vance, instead of Rubio, slated to sign? I suspect that Vance is simply more willing to participate in a ruse.

Which leads me to the suggestion that this entire thing may be a cover for a U.S. ground attack, likely aimed at Kharg Island. The U.S. twice attacked Iran during negotiations. Trump took considerable pleasure in recounting how he had fooled the Iranians last summer. It is very possible that yesterday was less of a TACO and more of a ploy to string the Iranians along while U.S. forces prepared for an attack. Again, I am happy to be wrong and will proudly live with egg on my face. But, I think this is a realistic possibility.