Memorandum Sparks Debate
The tentative memorandum of understanding with Iran has ignited sharp reactions, with the Left celebrating peace and the Right decrying appeasement. Victor Davis Hanson, a distinguished fellow at the Center for American Greatness, argues that the agreement must be understood within a broader strategic context.
Critics on the Right claim the deal enables the Iranian regime, while Democrats have shifted from labeling President Trump a warmonger to calling him a Neville Chamberlain-style appeaser. Hanson contends that such views ignore the continuity of Trump's strategy and the domestic political realities shaping U.S. foreign policy.
Strategic Damage Already Done
Hanson emphasizes that the U.S. has inflicted enormous fiscal, economic, and military damage on Iran, the full extent of which will become clear when foreign observers enter the country. Iran's military has been devastated, but the regime does not yet consider itself strategically defeated.
Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran's population of 93 million makes a full-scale ground invasion politically untenable. The American public, weary of Middle Eastern conflicts, would not support a costly occupation. Trump must balance military options with domestic opinion, especially ahead of the midterm elections.
Dual-Use Targeting as Leverage
Hanson notes that the U.S. retains the ability to cripple Iran's infrastructure quickly if the regime reneges on its commitments. He draws parallels to the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, where attacks on dual-use targets like bridges and power grids forced concessions.
Trump has so far avoided such tactics, but the option remains. Should Iran violate the memorandum, the U.S. could disable its utilities and transportation networks within 48 hours, compelling compliance without a prolonged war.
Midterm Calculations
The timing of the memorandum is influenced by the upcoming U.S. midterm elections. Hanson suggests Trump agreed to the deal to prevent an energy-driven recession that could cost Republicans control of Congress. A Democratic victory would paralyze the MAGA agenda and trigger investigations.
However, Hanson argues that a Republican loss is not inevitable. Redistricting gains, the unpopularity of Democratic socialist policies, and falling oil prices could bolster GOP chances. Opening the Strait of Hormuz would further reduce gasoline prices, easing inflation and improving the economic outlook.
New Phase of Pressure
The memorandum is not an end but a beginning, according to Hanson. Once peace takes hold, international reporters will document the extent of Iran's devastation, fueling public anger against the regime. The Iranian people will resent the theocracy's failures and the cost of rebuilding while it subsidizes proxies.
Gulf states, despite promising reconstruction aid, may hesitate to fund Iran's recovery given the damage Iran inflicted on them. Time is not on Iran's side: falling oil prices and the potential for a Republican midterm win could leave Tehran isolated.
Geopolitical Shifts
Hanson highlights that the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz is diminishing as Gulf states build alternative pipelines to the Red Sea, Mediterranean, and Arabian Sea. Within two years, Iran may find itself unable to threaten global oil supplies.
Meanwhile, Russia is weakened in Ukraine, China faces energy and food import dependencies, and Europe is rearming. Israel's alignment with Gulf nations further isolates Iran. The memorandum, Hanson concludes, sets the stage for Iran's eventual fragmentation and the regime's collapse.
