WASHINGTON — The proposed deal to end the three-month-old war between the United States and Iran, as officials from both countries describe it, represents a major climb-down by President Trump from the ambitious goals he initially hoped to achieve.
In late February, when he launched massive airstrikes against Iran, Trump said his aims were to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, destroy Tehran’s ballistic missiles, end its ability to threaten its neighbors and, with luck, bring about “regime change.” More bluntly, in his words, he sought “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.”
Weeks of U.S. and Israeli attacks succeeded in destroying Iran’s air force and navy and reduced its arsenal of ballistic missiles, although the degree of damage to the missile force has been debated.
But Iran struck back by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supply moves. That gave Iran massive leverage by threatening a global economic crisis — including a potential recession in the United States.
The result was a stalemate followed by a ceasefire and weeks of negotiations that produced a “framework agreement”: a deal to end the war, reopen the strait and begin longer negotiations that would limit Iran’s nuclear program in return for relaxed U.S. economic sanctions.
It was a long way from unconditional surrender.
“The deal is deeply flawed,” wrote Danny Citrinowicz, a former Iran analyst at Israel’s defense intelligence agency. “But given the options President Trump actually had, it was probably the least bad choice. … Trump was forced to accept Iran’s terms because the alternatives were even worse.”
Iran hawks in Washington reacted with fury.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a former Trump appointee, charged that the deal being described would “pay the [Iranian regime] to build a WMD program and terrorize the world.”
“Not remotely America First,” he complained.
“If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected against Iranian terrorism … then Iran will be perceived as being a dominant force,” warned Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “It makes one wonder why the war started.”
Mark Dubowitz, a leading critic of past agreements with Iran, said the terms of the deal that have been described so far sounded like “a foolish agreement” under which “Iran would get real money, but they could continue to close the strait any time they wanted simply by making threats.” He said he hopes the final terms of the deal will turn out to be tougher.
It seemed telling that Trump and his aides, who declared weeks ago that the United States had won the war by every measure, made no claims of victory this time.
Instead, the president reacted to his conservative critics with irritation. “Don’t listen to the losers,” he wrote on his social media site. “[The deal] isn’t even fully negotiated yet.”
Some Trump critics outside the Republican Party were more understanding.
“When you are digging a hole, you should stop digging,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on Fox News.
“The net result of this war is significant damage to U.S. strategic interests,” wrote Daniel B. Shapiro, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Obama. “That said, since the war was a mistake from the beginning, we can at least be thankful it appears President Trump is moving belatedly to end it.”
But Robert Kagan, a conservative foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, wrote that a deal to reopen the strait while deferring the nuclear issue would amount to a U.S. “surrender.”
“On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war,” Kagan wrote in the Atlantic.
Despite the apparent progress toward a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the gaps between the two countries on other issues — Iran’s nuclear program, and the U.S. sanctions that have crippled its economy — remain large.
When the war began, Trump’s goals included completely eliminating the vestiges of Iran’s nuclear program, which the United States and Israel largely disabled with airstrikes last year.
But even there, the setbacks in the war have forced the president to lower his sights. Instead of banning Iranian nuclear activities completely, the recent talks have focused on narrower, more achievable goals: a “suspension” of nuclear enrichment for 20 years or less and removal or destruction of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, the essential ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
“The fact that we’re talking about a suspension of all enrichment, and the question is whether it will be five years, 20 years or halfway in between — that’s important,” said Nate Swanson, an Iran expert who worked at the National Security Council under President Biden and Trump. “That sounds like you really have the basis for an agreement. … But don’t fool yourself to think that completely addresses the situation.”
Swanson said other issues, including Iran’s long-term nuclear research and its advanced ballistic missiles, haven’t been addressed and will remain points of contention between the two sides.
“An interim deal to buy time [is] probably where we end up,” he said. “Buying time is not a bad thing. Ending a war is not a bad thing. But it’s not a comprehensive solution.”
