Commentators have noted the symbolism of the US and Iran official signing this agreement in Versailles, the site of the German acceptance of the Versailles Treaty in June of 1919. It was a humiliating moment for Germany, who was the loser in the agreement. And the Treaty itself is genuinely recognized as having been a terrible one from the viewpoint of preventing a future war.
At the moment, many politicians and news analysts are noting that in that analogy, the US is in the position of Germany, having started a war in partnership with Israel and is now essentially surrendering. It’s a valid point and critics are right to point out how it acknowledges in practice what a spectacular failure the war has been for the US and Israel since they began it on February 28.
The MOU text provided by the US even contains 14 numbered paragraphs, which surely some diplomats involved recognized as a remainder of Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points that he had hoped to make the basis for the peace treaty at Versailles.
Trita Parsi cautions antiwar critics about framing that point in such a way that it gives surface validation to the neocons, whose only objection to the MOU is that it could stop the war they want to see continued.
The criticism coming from some Democrats is particularly disappointing because it echoes the same bad-faith tactics Republicans deployed against the JCPOA in 2015. To be sure, Trump has invited some of this treatment. He spent years attacking Obama’s agreement with a barrage of misleading arguments and exaggerated claims.He has this advice for opponents of the war:
But that does not make it wise for Democrats to return the favor.
Trump currently owns this failed war, but if the Democrats help torpedo the MOU and war resumes, then they will co-own the next war. Trump’s disaster will become theirs as well. (1)
Rather than attacking the terms of the MOU, Democrats should pressure the administration to protect it from those who are determined to see it fail. The main external threat is the Israeli government and Benjamin Netanyahu’s obsession with sabotaging any opportunity for Iran and the United States to bury the hatchet.The MOU is not a peace settlement. But the alternative for the US right now in not using the opportunity to push forward to one based on the MOU’s 60-day timetable is basically a choice between resuming the war (Israel’s and Netanyahu goal) or risking Iran continuing the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely.
Instead of relying solely on angry phone calls and public rebukes of Netanyahu, supporters of ending the war should press Trump to act now: suspend military aid to Israel and curtail military and intelligence cooperation. Such measures would limit Israel’s ability to reignite the conflict and dispel any notion in Tel Aviv that Washington will automatically follow Israel into another war. If Israeli leaders understand that the United States will not be drawn into a future conflict on their behalf, their incentive to start one in the first place will be significantly reduced. [my emphasis]
Trita on Substack Notes focuses on the potential political appeal of making a successful peace agreement with Iran:
But the MOU itself states:
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph. [my emphasis]To make Israel comply with a ceasefire with Lebanon, Washington will almost certainly have to actually cut off a significant portion of US aid to Israel and be willing to back that up with a basically complete halt if Netanyahu’s government doesn’t cooperate. Since Netanyahu’s critics in the current Israeli election campaign are criticizing him for not being hard enough with the US, Iran, Lebanon and with the illegal ethnic cleansing and land theft in Gaza and the West Bank, keeping Israel on-side with the ceasefire will require more determination and diplomatic skill than Trump has ever shown in his dealings with Israel so far.
David Hearst speculates that scuttling this deal will be a significant challenge for Israel, although they certainly are trying to do so already:
The pieces of the jigsaw of Israel’s regional strategy that could survive Netanyahu’s strategic setback - the land that Israel has occupied and cleansed of its inhabitants in Gaza, South Lebanon and Syria, the undeclared security pact with Abu Dhabi, the use of Somaliland as base of forward projection - all these remain.After decades of both parties in the US celebrating Israel as a loyal and valuable ally of the US, that’s a hard argument for even Israel’s most devout supporters among in Congress to make coherently. The US support for Netanyahu’s literally genocidal response to the October 7 attack in 2023 drastically changed Israel’s image in American politics and implicated the US in that grotesque war. Now going along with Israel on the Iraq War has turned into a serious strategic setback for the US and further alienated the traditional European allies – who Trump doesn’t want to be allied with any longer anyway. Plus, it demonstrated how little meaning American security guarantees to its Arab allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar may actually have.
The project could be continued at any time. But what Netanyahu has lost is the interest of the current US president in backing this dream.
It will be a long time before another Israeli prime minister will be allowed to sit opposite a serving US president in the situation room under the White House, as Netanyahu did with Trump on 11 February, this year, and spin him a bunch of lies. [my emphasis] (2)
Israel has even been saber-rattling against Türkiye, which is a NATO ally even though they can’t count on the Trump 2.0 regime’s support in a conflict. But the European NATO members do take their NATO commitments seriously. And with the US-Iran MOU:
Trump once again counted Turkey, alongside Pakistan and Qatar, among the countries that had significantly helped secure a memorandum of understanding with Iran. He also adopted an increasingly combative tone towards Israel.Michael Nilshtein at Ynet Global looks at the current situation from an Israeli perspective:
... Turkish officials activated contingency plans along the eastern border with Iran to prevent a possible wave of refugees from entering the country. Secondly, Israeli officials had been pushing plans to use Iranian Kurds to spearhead an insurgency in western Iran.
Ankara was worried that the use of Kurdish groups could affect its own peace talks with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and push Turkey into a Syria-like scenario, in which Kurds based near its border took control of territory and posed a security challenge [to the Syrian state from its viewpoint].
As Israeli and US attacks on Iranian targets intensified, so too did rhetoric from within Netanyahu's cabinet that "Turkey is next after Iran", heightening concerns in Ankara about the potential spillover effects of a collapse in Iranian state authority. [my emphasis] (3)
Decision-makers are trying to present the difficult situation created by the bad agreement with Iran, the Lebanon entanglement and the crisis with Washington as a “collective challenge.” The damage and the threat are indeed national, but the failure that led to them stems from the policy of a leadership that does not enjoy internal consensus. …Netanyahu’s current strategic approach involves establishing military hegemony of Israel in the Middle East, with weak regimes in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria; permanent Israeli control and eventual annexation of Gaza and the West Bank; and, periodic “mowing the lawn” attacks on its neighbors to keep their governments weak. Israel is also illegally occupying territory in southern Lebanon and conducting an ethnic cleansing operation there, as well. It has also annexed the Golan Heights and other Syrian territory.
In the face of the multi-front strategic trap in which Israel is sinking, only one achievement remains to wave about: the seizure of territory on three fronts and the claim that this has changed reality and strengthened Israel’s security. Some in the government are even promising to move toward expulsion, annexation and settlement in areas that were taken, in other words, imposing a sectoral vision disguised as “a project that serves us all.”
This is exactly the point at which the public must prove that it has learned the lessons of October 7 and challenge the assumptions handed down to it from above with such certainty. It must ask what the meaning is of a prolonged presence in all the territories that have been captured, what security and diplomatic price that presence carries, and whether there is a sober alternative in the form of bringing local and foreign forces into hostile areas while preserving freedom of action against the enemy. [my emphasis] (4)
So, achieving international stability in the Middle East and orderly passage through the Strait of Hormuz means that the US will have to restrain Israel, now and for the foreseeable future, from its habitual military aggressions against its neighbors.
And in that sense, American national interests are in serious conflict at the moment with the self-definition of Israeli national interest on which the Israeli government is currently operating.
But if the first couple of days of the 60-day ceasefire in the MOU are any measure, it’s going to be a major challenge to keep up with which side is saying what about who violated it when and how.
John Mearsheimer, perhaps defying Trita Parsi’s advice, argues that the MOU represents “unconditional surrender” on Trump’s part. (5)
(1) Parsi, Trita (2026): Trump ended his idiotic Iran war. Good. Responsible Statecraft 06/18/2026. <https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-ends-war-critics/> (Accessed: 2026-20-06),
(2) Hearst, David (2026): Trump's U-turn on Iran war has ended Israel's Middle East dream. Middle East Eye 06/17/2026.
(3) Soyhu, Ragip (2026): Turkey emerges unscathed from the Iran war. Middle East Eye 06/17/2026. <
(4) Milshtein, Michael (2026): Israel’s self-inflicted trap: How fantasy gave way to strategic retreat. Ynet Global 06/21/2026. <https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/ry11hglrffl> Accessed: 2026-23-06).
(5) Prof. John Mearsheimer : Israel Undermining US/Iran Deal. Judge Napolitano-Judging Freedom. YouTube channel 06/20/2026. <https://www.youtube.com/live/YNME3CUvYpk?si=VDLFjoEQfYKK0VoC> (Accessed: 2026-21-06).
No comments:
Post a Comment