The nature of the task in Iran invites uncertainty, mixed messages, and a roller coaster ride. The latest is that the U.S. and Iran have declared they are willing to sign a preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) this week. Iran will open the Hormuz Strait to commercial shipping, unencumbered by tolls and other harassment. Simultaneously, the U.S. will terminate its shipping blockade.
The MOU is for 60 days during which elements of a final “no nukes, no terrorism, etc.” agreement will be worked out. Iran will receive oil revenue. Other concessions, such as removal of sanctions, will occur only with implementation of elements in the final agreement. Perhaps oil revenue of approximately $435,000,000 per day will inspire the regime to successfully implement a final agreement. It’s wise to be skeptical whether a final agreement will result.
Trump’s detractors claim the new agreement will merely bring us back to where we were with President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). An objective comparison refutes that.
The JCPOA granted immediate sanction relief and unblocked cash accounts. It’s documented that the cash funded Iran’s terrorism proxies. There were provisions limiting uranium enrichment but there was virtually no “anytime/anywhere” monitoring to control advancing nuclear bomb capabilities. Ballistic missile development continued.
Bipartisan congressional opposition, most prominently from Sen. Schumer, prevented approval of JCPOA because it only delayed Iran’s nuclear development until after the agreement expired. It provided a path to nuclear weapons. The U.S. withdrew from the agreement during Trump’s first term.
Despite JCPOA, Iran gave us “October 7” and more proxy terrorism. By 2025, uranium enrichment had continued almost to “weapons grade,” and Iran’s missiles could deliver a bomb to the far reaches of Europe.
Compare that to where we are today.
Even after the damage from American and Israeli attacks in 2025’s “Midnight Hammer,” in 2026, President Trump recognized Iran’s nuclear capabilities as an immediate existential threat.
America and Israel then destroyed virtually all the enrichment and nuclear bomb manufacturing ability, along with much of its missile and drone capabilities. The army, navy and air defenses were largely destroyed, and top regime leaders eliminated. Iran’s military might and economic strength was virtually destroyed.
Logically, Iran should see the advantage of signing an agreement designed to allow its economy to recover without the burden of financing terrorism and creating nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we’ve been witnessing the regime’s intentions to establish a world-wide Shiite society devoted to eliminating Israel and the Great Satan America. Regime officials are pressured by Allah’s divine judgment if they don’t accomplish those goals.
What happens if we don’t make it to a final agreement, or if an agreement is signed and Iran doesn’t implement the agreement? Has Iran ever complied with an agreement? Would we return to the JCPOA signing date, even if we now understand its failure? Would we choose then, rather than now, the summer of 2026?
Or would we choose to return to early 2026 before Epic Furry? We had just learned, and Iran confirmed, they were days, at most weeks, away from producing weapon-grade uranium. Iran was close to a deliverable nuclear bomb. Would we prefer to go back to that point if we could? Should we forfeit our many successful efforts?
Absolutely not.
Fortunately, we own the successes of Operations Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury in 2025 and 2026. We’ve brought the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to its knees. Iran is isolated militarily and economically. If the new agreement doesn’t develop, or if it does and Iran doesn’t implement their responsibilities, our tactical successes make it possible to take measures to resolve that situation.
Here’s a bonus. World leaders seem to quietly support our venture. Maybe they’ll assume some responsibilities. And thanks to the precedence set by the Abraham Accords, we’ve earned the mostly quiet support of Mideast Arab and Muslim countries.
We’ve established a solid base to build on for our long-sought “no nukes, etc.,” even if Iran doesn’t cooperate. We’re in an excellent position to monitor Iran’s activities and intervene if necessary.
I’m setting aside my idealistic desire for perfection. I support giving the current preliminary MOU a chance to become an agreement that increases the possibility of a peaceful future.
Steve Bakke of Fort Myers is a retired CPA and commercial finance executive.
This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: Is this a path for Mideast peace? | Opinion
Reporting by Steve Bakke / Fort Myers News-Press
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Steve Bakke | USA TODAY Network
