Paragraph 2 provides that the US and Iran "undertake" to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. That's certainly consistent with Paragraph 1, which provides for the "immediate and permanent termination of military options on all fronts." If regime change was ever on the table, it's not now. And forget about telling the Iranian people that "help is on the way." Remember that?
Paragraph 4 of the MOU provides that immediately upon signing, the US will begin to remove its blockade. So, there is nothing that Iran must do first to get that benefit. Paragraph 8 says that Iran "reaffirms" it will not procure or develop nuclear weapons. In other words, Iran is reaffirming what they already promised, yet violated, as they were well on their way to making nuclear weapons. Basically, Iran is saying we promise again, but we lied the first time and mostly got away with it, so we're lying again. And it looks like they can get away with it again.
Paragraph 9 says the two sides will maintain the status quo. The US will not impose any new sanctions nor will the US deploy additional troops in the area. And Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program. What? Assuming all of Iran's enriched uranium is not buried deep beneath a mountain, and at least some of the material is accessible, that means Iran would likely be able to make weapons grade uranium within a few days. Unless, of course, all their centrifuges were in fact destroyed. Hard to know, as Iran still manages to launch missiles at other countries.
If stopping Iran from obtaining nukes was the highest priority, why isn't removing all of Iran's enriched uranium the top priority? Which should be removed immediately. No? Anybody? Trump now seems to have backed off from that, saying all the uranium is buried under so much rubble that Iran won't be able to access it. Can we really be sure of that? Why doesn't the deal provide for immediate access by the US to take the enriched uranium out? Whatever happened to Iran not being allowed to keep any enriched uranium?
Everybody remember when Trump said, back on March 2, "Our objectives are clear. First, we are destroying Iran's missile capabilities...and their capacity to produce brand new ones." Defense Secretary Hegseth repeated that. As did Press Secretary Leavitt. Fast forward to now. Trump: "If other countries have them (ballistic missiles), it's a little bit unfair for them not to have some." WHAT? Other countries are not launching ballistic missiles into neighboring countries. That is like saying that when the police and SWAT arrive at a shootout with their automatic rifles, it's just unfair that the criminals do not have them also. Has Trump completely lost it? It appears so.
Then we have this doozy by Trump: "Missiles aren't the problem. They hurt a little location, but they don't blow up the planet." Perhaps that explains why there is nothing in the MOU about ballistic missiles. But do I really need to explain to Trump that Israelis have to constantly run to shelters when missiles are incoming? Do I have to explain that people are killed and injured by missiles? And do I really need to explain that this is not a situation that calls for some misguided sense of equality. Not when Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Meanwhile, Iran issued this statement today: "It is hereby announced that the Strait of Hormuz will be closed to vessel traffic; it is noted that this first step is a response to the enemy's breach of promise, and if the aggression continues, further steps will be planned and taken to force the enemy to comply with its obligaions." What is the alleged breach? Hezbollah launched numerous missiles into Israel, and Israel had the temerity to fight back. But recall what Part II of this blog post said - Paragraph 1 of the MOU "ensured" the "territorial integrity of Lebanon." It did not ensure the territorial integrity of Israel.
As I said in Part II, Iran will object to Israel having troops in southern Lebanon, and will certainly object to Israel defending itself against Hezbollah, which operates out of Lebanon. And just who is Iran referring to as the "enemy"? Can't be Israel, as they are not a signatory to the MOU. It appears that Iran is blaming the US for not preventing Israel from defending itself. Just how can Trump tolerate Iran continuing to refer to the United States as the "enemy"? That attitude does not suggest that Iran is sincere about abiding by any agreement. Which, to anybody with knowledge of Iran's actions over the last 47 years, would be - should be - obvious. Iran cannot be trusted to abide by any deal!
Why did Trump do this deal? Some thoughts in Part IV. (Maybe Part V.)
No comments:
Post a Comment