The Iran Deal is Part of Vance's POTUS Audition
Opportunity or punishment?
The Iran deal was signed on Sunday and per the President’s remarks with Emmanuel Macron earlier today, we’re to see it 24-48 hours (we were told later it will be available on Friday, at the end of the news week, the day the markets close).
So what’s in it? That’s just it, no one knows. I’m disinclined to believe the Iranian propaganda currently circulating and as I’ve said previously, Trump has earned the benefit of the doubt, so I’m waiting for the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). The Iranians have issued what they say is a 14-point list of agreements constituting the MOU, but none of this was confirmed by the admin — although Vance muddied the waters on CBS this morning:
From the embedded video above (bold my emphasis):
VANCE: “Well, that’s the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gold Coast coalition so long as they honor their end of the obligation. I think that one of the things you’re gonna see, and people have to be skeptical of this, is that the hardliners in the Iranian system will overemphasize the benefits that Iran gets while underemphasize all the things they have to concede and all the things they have to provide in order to get these benefits. We absolutely are open to the Gulf coast countries investing in the reconstruction of Iran but only if Iran ends the nuclear program, ends their enriched stockpile of material, and is really open to an inspections and enforcement regime that gives the American people the confidence they’re never gonna have a nuclear weapon. So I think the dance you’re gonna see, which is gonna be interesting, is that the Iranian media, especially the hardline media, they’re gonna talk a lot about what they get without talion about what they give, it’s important for all of us to correct that record.”
When has Iran ever honored any obligation or allow for any inspection, uncontested? Ever? What does it matter if it’s the hardline-not-hardline media? This just seems like word salad.
Why are they getting any benefits? There is no negotiation with unconditional surrenders. Iran’s military is decimated. Their air force is gone. They are low on all munitions and relay heavily on drones. Their leader is gay, burnt up, and one-legged, also maybe dead, who knows? No one sees him. It’s all IRGC, or what’s left, plus their misfit crew of rag-tag terror proxies.
First, Vance didn’t deny that there was a potential payout for Iran. His caveat is that Gulf nations would pay it (really?) when it’s likely cheaper to bypass Iran altogether with the sort of pipelines that comprise their overland oil network. As part of their contingency plan for such an event, the Saudis did just this, kicking their existing structure into gear and rerouting ships to ports in the Red Sea. The UAE expedited construction of another pipeline that will double the capacity to the port of Fujairah and bypass the Strait of Hormuz.
Money to Iran revisits the fungibility argument: if they are given money, it adds to the pile of money they have and frees them up to spend money on enrichment, munitions, et al.
Second, what of the Strait?
Third, what is there to reconstruct? We hit mostly military targets. We owe the IRGC nothing. A friend said it’s like passing the Marshall Plan with the Nazis still in charge.
Trump demanded “unconditional surrender.” Judging by Vance’s soundbites alone, this isn’t that. Is that why Vance was on the Sunday circuit redefining Japan and Germany’s inarguable unconditional surrender that ended WWII? Because the “negotiations” were bombs and guns.
(My grandfather, who served on the USS Alabama, was taken aboard the USS Missouri to witness Japan’s delegation sign the official Instrument of Surrender. There was no negotiation.)
Iran can’t have nuclear weapons. They can’t enrich uranium, they can’t control the Strait, nor can they fund terror proxies. Vance mentioned in several interviews yesterday some sort of enforcement mechanism — but is the U.S. part of that? What of the regime? Lebanon cannot be part of any agreement, especially while Iran and the rest of the world ignore Hezbollah’s constant rocket attacks and feign Pallywood outrage whenever Israel defends itself against them. Israel cut its own deal with Lebanon anyway, and it neither requires the IDF to leave southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah is headquartered, or forfeit defending itself if attacked.
So why is Vance in front of this deal when he disagrees with Trump on Iran (privately and apparently through leaking to the press) and, at least optically, has been back-burner while Trump, Rubio, Witkoff, and Kushner took the lead with negotiations? Is this a way to give him more ownership in the decision process? Or is Trump setting him up to take the fall for a deal where we gave more than we wanted to give? Or allowing him to take the fall because those who prefer the JCPOA approach won the fight over direction? Palace intrigue plays a role here, as does misdirection for leakers still within the admin — and some of the Woke Reich-adjacent still embedded within the executive sphere of influence. Perhaps Trump realizes that a faction of the right believes it has to tear him down to prepare the way for their chosen successor.
Vance is absolutely going to run in 2028, he just has to convince people right now that he isn’t sure yet. His entire career, from having McConnell bail out his Senate race, his book launch, to his friend Tucker Carlson pushing for him to be the VP, has been carefully curated stagecraft designed to yeet him into the White House post-Trump. If giving him responsibility in the Iran operation is a screen test for such a moment, I don’t think Vance rose to that occasion. Opportunity or … something else?
It's obvious this is a disaster and the fact that Trump turned on Israel has really disappointed me. It's simple Iran cannot be trusted so fight them to the end with Israel until the IRGC are defeated, then devise a plan to assist the Iranian citizens. I can't possibly believe Marco Rubio would have gone along with this disaster. Is this just for the midterms? Has the woke right caused Trump and JD Vance to give in. This will not end good and the bombing should have continued.
Personally, I think Trump got played - or that he played himself through his constant harping on “making a deal.” We’re walking away with the Islamists and IRGC still in charge. We’re making a “deal” (I’m heartily sick of that word) with an enemy who hates us, wants us under their heel, and is now spoiling for revenge. How is that beneficial?