Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The memorandum of understanding (MoU) the United States and Iran have signed is not a peace treaty. It’s not a reliable setup for one. A chorus of critics rushed to portray it as an embarrassment — evidence that President Donald Trump had lost track of the negotiations and pulled out a poor deal from the administration that outlasted him.
That reading misses the point. The Trump administration went into these negotiations with a clear understanding of who the Iranian regime is, what it wants and what any deal with it is worth. No one in the negotiating team has any illusions that Tehran is willing to respect what hinders its main goals. The MoU is not peacemaking. It’s a pause that makes sense – a deliberate pause chosen by both parties for reasons that have nothing to do with trust and everything to do with timing.
To understand why, you only have to look at Iran’s unbroken history. That history is not a matter of interpretation or political debate. It is a written record of the agreements that were made, those that were granted and those that were systematically abandoned whenever they conflicted with the government’s goals.
The approach is too consistent to be a theory: Iran negotiates under pressure, signs the necessary compromises and resumes its course once the threat has passed.
The landmark 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the latest manifestation of this cycle. Presented as a sign of multilateral negotiations, it was a measure of financial restraint – a breathing space that Iran used to consolidate wealth, maintain a proxy network and continue to advance its program. The JCPOA did not change Iran’s behavior. It funded and protected it.
The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign directly addressed this lesson: This type of governance cannot be controlled by diplomatic means. It can be forced and pressured so much that there is no better way to obey.
The new MoU does not indicate that Iran has changed. The calculation remains what it always has been – survival and expansion, pursued by whatever means necessary. When problems arise, Iran negotiates. As the crisis eases, Iran moves forward. Its negotiators are, on all available evidence, ready to make assurances they have no intention of keeping. This is not a failure of diplomatic skills. This is how it goes in any negotiation with a government like Iran.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Iran’s nuclear program. As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has repeatedly committed to transparent cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It has repeatedly broken those commitments, blocked inspections, built secret facilities, destroyed evidence and systematically deceived nations. The pattern is not one of occasional disagreement. It is a deliberate, systematic deception aimed at achieving one unshakable goal: obtaining a nuclear weapon.
A government that is truly committed to conventional nuclear power does not need a large and expensive domestic enrichment program. Nuclear fuel can be bought – from Russia, among others – at a low price and without international confrontation, such a program provokes.
Iran has chosen the most expensive and dangerous path for one reason: Enrichment is not a means to an end, but the end itself. Its administration is committed to nuclear weapons, and that commitment has survived personnel changes, word changes and pressure over the years.
It will not be discussed again – and here is a crucial point that no diplomatic hope can solve. Iran’s rulers aren’t exactly price-gouging exercisers. Their motives are divine and intellectual in a way that defies ordinary conversation.
They do not rule in the interest of the Iranian people. The sanctions they endured have devastated ordinary Iranians – they have led to poverty, disrupted the middle class, denied people access to medicine and opportunities. None of that has moved the government from its path.
This is an authority that can, if it chooses, change its position completely. It can make peace with its neighbors, restore relations with other countries, remove sanctions that have destroyed its economy and change the lives of Iranians. The price is unreachable: stop the nuclear weapons program, stop the production of weapons of mass destruction and stop supporting terrorists. The Iranian authorities have rejected this deal consistently and completely.
This is an important part of understanding what the Trump administration is doing. It would be a grave mistake to read this MoU as evidence of American weakness or confusion. The group that designed and carried out the most compelling campaign against Iran in recent memory was unaware of this enemy.
Trump goes into this knowing that Iran will not honor its demands. They don’t expect anything else. Neither side, either, works by trickery – which is what makes critics complain about “bad work” beside the point.
You can’t be fooled by an agreement that you didn’t expect the other person to keep.
What this MoU represents is a clear pause, a pause that both sides have chosen, for different reasons, in the conflict itself. Iran needs economic relief. A regime facing internal bankruptcy and limited resources has an incentive to buy time, restore its resources and wait for what it considers the final window.
Tehran is well aware that Trump is almost two and a half years old. According to his opinion, surviving beyond that time is the only kind of victory.
Washington’s calculations are different. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is an immediate, non-negotiable goal – a choke point means a shock to energy prices with global consequences. Beyond that, the US also has its own reforms to fulfill. Military records taken as a result of recent operations are also being preserved. Smart options are being maintained and expanded.
A break that helps to rebuild, and avoids a long argument with bad words, is not allowed. It’s preparation.
Trump has not wavered in his commitment to eliminating Iran as a threat — not through targeted negotiations, but through the pressures that predict decisions. That commitment did not end with the signing of this MoU. The question for Tehran is not whether America’s resolve exists but whether it can last. It is money that the Iranian government has already made and lost.
The international community, as always, will watch from afar. Many countries have called for Iran to be stopped as it takes steps to stop it, criticizing the US
Trump understands this. That’s the core of his strategy for building alliances — insisting that partners shoulder more of the burden rather than simply adopting American ideals while giving up their own.
The MoU will not solve the problem of Iran. It was not designed to. When his time is up or when Iran thinks it has achieved its goal, the nuclear program will resume its advance, the proxies will be better armed, and the Strait of Hormuz will be a beacon again.
Those results are not possible. Considering Iran’s history, it is certain. The only question is whether the US and its allies will be ready to act when the time comes. Rather surprisingly, the evidence suggests that this is exactly what the organization is trying to ensure.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
