“It’s Noon In Israel” is a weekly column written by Amit Segal – An Israeli journalist/media personality who, among other activities, hosts the Israeli version of Meet The Press.
Mr. Segal is, in my opinion, a brilliant analyst who provides the kind of information integral to understanding Israel’s circumstances in world politics and what its options are as events unfold.
His latest commentary is titled: “Iran Deal: It’s Worse Than We Thought”. It eviscerates the Trump/Iran deal, and fully – compellingly – explains why.
Here is how it begins:
It’s Thursday, June 18, and the official terms of the U.S. Memorandum of Understanding are out—and it’s worse than anticipated. The official signing ceremony isn’t until Friday, but the agreement was already signed digitally last night during a dinner at the Palace of Versailles. Anyone familiar with the palace’s history knows this makes the MOU the second great surrender signed at Versailles. Except this time, the U.S. is the one capitulating.
Here’s why it’s worse than we thought. As the details slowly leaked, it became clear that this agreement is not a pause—the status quo held in place while negotiations ran their course. It was a rewind, actively restoring the Islamic Republic. The only question left was how fast it would run, and according to these clauses, faster than we would like.
U.S. officials, including the vice president, previously assured reporters that the agreement provides a “dial,” with economic and sanctions relief increasing only as Iran demonstrates good behavior and compliance. The text is less specific. The clearest financial concession involves the issuance of oil waivers in Section 10, which on their own will return monthly revenue of $5 billion; meanwhile, Section 11 seems to imply that all of the regime’s assets will be made available immediately—best case, that remains credit the Islamic Republic can use only for humanitarian purchases; worst case, it is transferred to them directly. Either way, money is fungible, and besides, I’m not sure exactly what leverage the U.S. assumes it will retain once it has surrendered Iranian assets up front.
As has been clear for the past couple of months, two of the conflict’s four goals—the funding of proxies and the ending of the ballistic missile program—have been abandoned. In fact, Trump defended the omission. “If other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for them not to have some,” Trump said in France, where he held a press conference on the sidelines of a Group of Seven summit. “If Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and they all have some, I would say that in relative proportion, I think it’s okay” for Iran to have ballistic missiles as well. I haven’t seen Saudi Arabia firing those missiles at the U.S. recently, but I digress. The JCPOA famously made the same omission—but at least it didn’t promise the removal of all primary and secondary sanctions on the ballistic missile program and on terror sponsorship. Section 7 provides for the removal of all sanctions pending a final deal—so even if Trump somehow clutches victory from the claws of defeat and secures a strong nuclear deal, Iran’s other malign activities can continue without sanction. Indeed, Lebanese and regional sources told Reuters that Iran has promised to increase Hezbollah’s funding “as soon as possible” once the United States unfreezes Iranian assets. Chalk up a point for the JCPOA.
And here’s how it ends:
The silver lining, thin as it is, is that the U.S. military is not withdrawing until the conclusion of a final deal. As Trump put it yesterday, “If I don’t like it, if they don’t behave, we’ll go right back to dropping bombs.” With sanctions relief and waivers already forthcoming, the threat of military action is fast becoming the only stick left in the American arsenal. Do I believe him? Less than I did two months ago, and less still than a week ago—but it remains, at the very least, an option on the table.
Trump, for his part, seemed unbothered by the holes in the deal. At a press conference in France—shortly before he declared the agreement “signed” at Versailles—Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy read him back a famous line of his own: that Iran “never won a war, but never lost a negotiation.” Trump asked who had said it. Told it was him, he replied that he’d figured as much, then drew the distinction he wanted on the record: this time, Iran “lost militarily.”
Yes, Mr. President, they always do, that’s the point.
I keep hoping to find something wrong with Mr. Segal’s analysis…and keep not finding anything. All I can do is hope that Trump has something cooking beyond this terrible-on-paper deal that he is withholding; something that makes it more acceptable.
I’m not confident that it’s there.
