All Trump Is Saying Is Give Peace a Chance

“Isn’t it worth trying?” So said Vice President JD Vance at a White House press conference on Friday. He was discussing the oft-delayed and widely criticized memorandum of understanding (MOU) designed to end the fighting with Iran and extend the ceasefire for 60 days. That simple rhetorical question may be the best way to unpack President Donald Trump’s decision to continue seeking peace through diplomacy, even as the US controls the skies and seas surrounding Iran, and weeks turn into months since hostilities commenced.

Both hawks and doves have been attacking the president mercilessly in recent days. The usual suspects on the left, most of whom acknowledged the threat posed by Iran for decades but opposed Operation Epic Fury the moment the first shot was fired, see political opportunity as midterms approach and are more than willing to undermine the Commander-in-Chief in the midst of war. They are spinning like a top, making the preposterous argument that, contrary to all evidence from the battlefield, Iran is actually winning the war or even that the Islamist regime is actually stronger now than before Operation Epic Fury. While such arguments should be dismissed with the wave of a hand, the left’s bitter intransigence sends the message to the mullahs that most of the American people oppose the war and thus provides more leverage for Iran at the bargaining table.

Bombing Them Back to the Stone Age

Give them an inch and they’ll try to take a mile. On the other end of the spectrum of opposition to the MOU are neoconservatives sent out to pasture during the Trump era. They are back, many serving the interests of leftist media, attacking the agreement from the opposite perspective. They stipulate that Trump did an excellent job of decapitating the head of the snake and all but destroying Iran’s capacity to wreak havoc beyond its borders. But to no one’s surprise, the likes of former Vice President Mike Pence, among other neocons, argue that the only path to a true victory is to ditch diplomacy altogether and finish what Trump started by bombing the mullahs back to the Stone Age. 

So, with pressure being applied from all sides, what is behind the president’s thinking? He might well have concluded that ground troops would be necessary to topple the remnants of a scattered regime mostly vaporized when the mission commenced, and was not willing to make such a commitment. As the unquestioned leader of the free world, Trump must consider the day after. What comes next after we devastate the Iranian infrastructure? And what guarantee do we have that any successor regime would be any more reasonable? Did we not learn during the Iraq War that if there is no viable, broadly popular alternative government-in-waiting, chaos will erupt? A full-on attack on Iran would make a civil war between Iran’s many competing factions a live possibility. 

Is the president actually prepared to resume bombing if Iran violates the MOU or a subsequent final agreement? That is almost a rhetorical question, given Trump’s demonstrated willingness to launch one daring mission after another to accomplish his short- and long-term objectives. Is there any good reason to doubt he would, if necessary, follow on his threat and drop the sword of Damocles hanging over the Iranians’ heads, as he has so many times before? 

This is not to say there are no legitimate concerns about the agreement, or more specifically, what is not in the agreement. Among them is the fact that proxies – Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis – were not included in the memorandum, and must be incorporated into the final pact because Hezbollah now has arguably more offensive capabilities than the mother ship in Tehran. The pledge by Iran to surrender its enriched uranium is not entirely clear. Then there is the thorny problem of Israel, which was not included in the MOU and continues back and forth attacks with Hezbollah, threatening to blow up the accord. But all the substantial financial incentives for Iran in the agreement are tied to performance with airtight oversight by the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Trump and the Cost of War

Did we presume that the residual leadership of Iran would simply wave the white flag of surrender once the Ayatollah was killed and their military decapitated? These are proud and fanatical leaders not given to rational thought, even as they face extinction. Should we have never undertaken a mission the last seven presidents knew was necessary because there was a cost to the war – as if that is not always the case? Between the loss of Syria, the defeat of Hamas, Trump’s military missions, and strengthened alliances with our Gulf allies, Iran is at its lowest ebb since the revolution 47 years ago, more vulnerable than ever.

Given the circumstances, triumphalism is tempting, but what about the 90 million souls enslaved by a nakedly terrorist regime who are struggling under hyperinflation and a crippling shortage of food and fuel? Are we not to consider their welfare? Trump has always maintained that it would ultimately be up to the Iranian people to determine a post-Islamist future. If we take down their bridges, electrical grid, and other critical infrastructure, what would be left of the country?

In the end, it is more often than not true that a deal criticized by both sides – in this case, both hawks and doves – is probably a fair deal, or at least the best available deal. While it would be oh-so tempting to avenge a country openly committed to the death of America and bomb it to kingdom come, the president must consider the cascading consequences and evidently doesn’t like what the aftermath would look like. The MOU represents a chance, not a blank check. You probably never expected Donald Trump and John Lennon to be incorporated into the same sentence, but here goes: All Trump is saying is give peace a chance.