Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/23/2026 5:54:57 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Trump’s Iran memorandum is not a surrender or a new beginning—it is the next phase of a strategy built on pressure, deterrence, and avoiding another costly Middle East war.
The tentative “memorandum of understanding” with Iran has caused glee on the Left and furor among many on the Right. The Left might welcome “peace,” but surely not as much as it enjoys infighting on the Right over the details.
If last week Democrats were calling Trump a fascist warmonger, now they deride his peace efforts as those of a Neville Chamberlain patsy. Within 24 hours, the Left’s talking points shifted from a mad bomber-style Curtis LeMay in the White House to an impotent appeaser.
A week ago, some Republicans were arguing that not one of the prior seven presidents had dared to use force to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Now some of them are deriding him as an Iranian enabler.
What We Are Missing
There are legitimate concerns about the tentative memorandum, including the idea of third-party cash infusions to the regime and claims that violence in Lebanon is somehow Israel’s fault. In truth, history shows that Hezbollah, with Iranian financial support, consistently instigates the killing and then whines when Israel—or the U.S. in past conflicts—responds disproportionately.
That said, much of the current hysteria assumes a radical change in Trump’s strategy rather than a continuity that has brought us to the current denouement. It also does not consider the wider strategic context of the memorandum, the critical role of domestic public opinion in shaping how wars are conducted, or the broader strategy of isolating and weakening the regime.
A closer look at the current position of the U.S. suggests it has done an enormous amount of fiscal, economic, and military damage to Iran—the full extent of which will not be known
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
VDH ping
The problem with negotiating with Iran is that they will make concessions in private then deny them publicly, and don’t honor anything.
In sum, the memorandum and what follows are not the end of the story but merely the beginning. What will follow—years of costly Iranian reconstruction, the absence of a nuclear deterrent, the ability of the U.S. to strike at will, an increasingly sidelined Strait of Hormuz, the Israeli diminishment of its proxies, new anti-Iranian alliances, the loss of nuclear patrons, and an even angrier and more restive populace—will not require an Iraq- or Afghanistan-like intervention.
An excellent summary from Prof Hanson about the agreement with Iran. You may not agree with all points, but he spells out each section.
FR Index of his articles: Victor Davis Hanson on FR
Town Hall: Victor Davis Hanson on Town Hall
American Greatness: Victor Davis Hanson on American Greatness
His website: Victor Davis Hanson The Sword of Perseus
One of his sponsors' website: The Daily Signal
Please let me know if you want on or off this new VDH ping list.
As a reminder, Professor Hanson has asked that we do not post the full article of his writings. Thank you for following the link to finish his article.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience.
Like all camel jockeys.
Do you agree to pay the contractor before or after he does the work?
VHD One of the great writers of our time It’s hard to disagree with anything he writes Thanks for posting the article
Good article. Thanks for posting.
I recall reading about officials meeting at the German Foreign Ministry during WW2. They were going to present the Nazi foreign minister (Ribbentrop) with a scroll honoring all the treaties he had negotiated.
Then someone realized every one of those treaties had been broken by the Nazis. That was a bit awkward.
How are Muslims different than the Nazis?
They aren’t.
A contractor has to buy supplies usually and also do physical work....he should not be working for nothing for 3 months...
Trump on X -—
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!
12:44 PM · Jan 3, 2020
Within 24 hours, the Left’s talking points shifted from a mad bomber-style Curtis LeMay in the White House to an impotent appeaser.
What are their FR nicks?
Exactly, the US is the customer and Iran is the contractor.
That’s interesting. 2020
If the contractor breaches the contract a the customer has options too.
Democrats, & RINOs are always goint to criticise Trump regardless as to what he does, because they bohth hate him, for it helps Americans and ruins their control over us. In addition, he is better at being a politician then they have ever been, and they resent that as well.
“The problem with negotiating with Iran is that they will make concessions in private then deny them publicly, and don’t honor anything.”
***********
The Iranian regime has suffered major damage for sure, but in their view survival of the theocracy, the retention of power, the ongoing ability to cause oil supply problems, and taking the battle to the negotiation table are considered victories. Their goals right now are to buy time and hope for economic and political pressures to soften Trump and/or influence the outcome of the mid-term elections.
In the philosophy of tribal raiders, (and Islam - all versions! is an embodiment of that philosophy) if you survive the hostile encounter you have won. You live to raid and fight another day - that’s winning!
Example the 1973 October War: A large Egyptian force crossed the Suez Canal against a company size Israeli force. Later the almost the entire Egyptian Army and in the east almost the entire Syrian Army ended up surrounded by the Israelis. The US intervenes diplomatically threatens to cut off military supplies to Israel if the don’t accept a cease-fire. Supposedly the USSR was going to directly intervene if that didn’t happen. Point of that long winded explanation, Egypt views the initial incursion of their massive force across the canal against the Isrsli company as a great victory. In their minds they fought Israel to a stand still even won a victory. It’s celebrated as a modern feat of Egyptian arms!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.