Zachary Narrett

Ph.D. History/International Relations (Harvard). Lover of great books and the great outdoors.

[Ted Cruz @tedcruz]

That Rob Malley endorses the MOU may be the most serious criticism that can possibly be leveled against it.

[Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow]

MORE ON THE MOU ...

This is the second part of my comments regarding the MOU. I post the first part this morning.

President Trump ordered this military operation to prevent Iran from getting and using nuclear weapons. And the early days of this war was a spectacular success. For some reason, an ceasefire was quickly ordered, and it lasted for over 2-months, despite the scores of violations by Iran and Hezbollah. Great damage has been done to Iran's military. And the president deserves enormous credit for having the courage to do what no other president did before him. My fear is that no other president after him will have the same courage to act should the terms of any agreement be violated.

The president ordered a 2-day return to military operations when the Iranian regime was dragging its feet. That was quickly ended on a promise by the regime that it would sign on to an MOU.

From day one, I have underscored that no deal will be honored by the Iranian regime. Its political-theocratic ideology fuels a revolution that compels the catastrophic destruction of the West. Presumably, the president knew this as he repeatedly warned it Iran got a nuclear weapon, it would use it against us. Moreover, Iran's pattern of conduct over the last 47-years makes clear that it uses negotiations as a tactic to further its aims. Yet, we abandoned the military destruction of Iran and did not use all of our capabilities to destroy the regime, including not arming the Iranian people due, in part to polling and gas prices. To be clear, there was never a plan to use ground forces or be involved in a "forever war." Indeed, in my view, if the MOU is not drastically altered during the 60-day negotiation period, a forever war -- a continuation of Iran's war on the West -- is not in doubt.

So, what does this MOU involve? I am working from the closest draft of the MOU publicly available, which I believe is fundamentally accurate.

Item 1. Upon the signing of the MOU there is an immediate and permanent end to the war, and that specifically includes Lebanon.

This doesn't even make any sense. There are 60-days (or more) to negotiate a deal. Therefore, before a deal is finalized, we just declared a cessation of military action -- permanently. And we committed to not even threatening force. Why would we agree to immediately drop the most important leverage we have over the regime in advance of it complying with MOU requirements and whatever else is decided in 60-days?

On top of this, we do the unthinkable. We capitulate to Iran's demand to protect Hezbollah. As I explained earlier: Hezbollah, which has brutally murdered hundreds of our fellow citizens, is essentially protected by our government in alliance with the Iranian regime, and free to continue to kill Americans, Israelis, and others as the most potent terror weapon of the Iranian regime not only survives but is immunized. And since Israel is the only country that actually fights this enemy with its soldiers and airmen, and whose citizens are in the direct line of fire from missile and drone attacks, nobody in their right mind will tolerate this. No amount of berating our ally or pressuring the PM, which is shocking, changes anything. I want to underscore Hezbollah has killed our people and we've done next to nothing to deal with it. In and of itself, that is shameful. Israel must not and will not adhere to such an egregious capitulation.

Item 2. We refrain from interfering in Iran's sovereignty and they will not interfere with ours. Who believes Iran won't interfere with our internal affairs. We spend tens of billions on counterterrorism against, among others, Iran. Does anyone believe Iran will drop out of its axis with China, Russia, and North Korea? And how do we enforce any deal against these other countries. And if we catch them, then what?

Item 4. We lift the naval blockade 30-days after the MOU, rather than after final negotiations for a deal. That removes another major leverage we have over the regime. And we agree to remove our forces around that area within 30-days after the final agreement. We can always send our forces back, they say. But in all likelihood, we would not.

Item 6. Incredibly, we commit to helping create a comprehensive plan for the rehabilitation and economic development of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. We are told it will not involve any of our tax money. That's a shiny object. Who would have dreamt that after we went to war with this regime because it was within days of having a nuclear weapon, that we would have any role in helping coordinate or raise one dime for this regime. The VP says they don't a dime if they don't meet certain conditions. That's not what it says. Moreover, let's say they meet all conditions, receive the billions, and then tell us to go to hell. And who among us believe any of this money will go to assisting or improving the lives of the Iranian people, who have no rights and are slaughtered by the tens of thousands? In fact, as I write this, they're executing innocent young people. Honestly, this is too absurd to comprehend. It was clearly proposed in lieu of the regime's demand for reparations, which should have been dismissed out of hand.

Regardless of how this slush fund is collected or distributed, here we are committing to helping reconstruct the terror regime we presumably just destroyed. Besides, I thought we hit military structures and targets, not civilian locations.

Item 7. Get this -- we commit, as a nation, to not only lifting all sanctions we have on the regime, but we commit to helping lift all other sanctions, including by the UN, the IAEA, and all other primary and secondary sanctions, on Iran. So, we are now working in the service of the regime with other countries and before international organizations in this regard.

Item 8. "[Iran] reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons." We "have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran's nuclear needs, will be ..." dealt with in the final issue. Shouldn't this issue have been the first item on this list? That said, this actually says nothing. All the relief and other commitments, some which is immediate or in 30-days, comes before any serious effort to lay out with details and specifics the manner in which nuclear program will be permanently ended and enriched uranium will be destroyed? Now they're talking about degrading the uranium? This was supposed to be the core of everything. At best, it does not go beyond broad slogans.

Item 9. We agree not to strengthen our forces in the region pending a final agreement, and we agree not to impose any new sanctions on Iran -- thereby surrendering yet more leverage over the regime.

Item 10. As I go through the points, I just keep shaking my head. Here, with the signing of the MOU, we agree to immediately issue waivers of exports of Iranian crude oil, petro products, all related services, banking, insurance, transportation, and the like. In other words, the Iranian regime is back in business -- immediately. Before any final deal. Billions and billions will now flow into the regime.

Item 11. In addition, "frozen or restricted funds and assets of [Iran] will be released and made fully available. ... " Again, billions more will be flowing into the regime -- immediately.

What is not in this arrangement:

1. Not a word about ballistic missiles, the single most destructive weapon Iran has and has used, and which have the capability of killing tens of thousands and destroying cities if launched in a wave. This is a grave capitulation to the regime.

2. Not a word about promoting and funding terrorism and terror groups. I've no illusions the regime's terrorism and terror-funding will not be curtailed under any circumstances.

3. Not a word about the Iranian people, who we promised to help at the outset. Apparently, they've been abandoned.

4. Not a word about the regime paying reparations to our country, Israel, or the Arab countries for the massive damage cause by their ballistic missiles and other missiles.

AGAIN, DURING THE NEXT 60-DAYS THIS MOU REQUIRES SERIOUS CHANGES IF NOT OUTRIGHT ABANDONMENT.

MORE THOUGHTS LATER

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@AdamMossoff @Cornell Don’t Cornell students need to meet certain standards of basic human decency consistent with the University’s professed values? Doesn’t the University place great importance on accountability? This student must be held accountable.

[Adam Mossoff @AdamMossoff]

When a college student (Austin Franco) at an ivy league university (@Cornell) can write to a potential employer, "I'm not interested in working for a Jew," and this employer is then viciously attacked online for sharing Franco's Jew hatred as an example of antisemitism, we're well past the tipping point of social acceptance of antisemitism in the U.S.

If you ever wondered what you would have done in 1933 Berlin, you're doing it now.

[CAMERA @CAMERA4Truth]

After CAMERA challenged a @SkyNews report that falsely portrayed Israel as the aggressor in the 1948 war while omitting the invasion by five Arab armies, Sky News corrected the record.

The original report erased a central fact of the conflict: Israel declared independence and was immediately attacked by neighboring Arab states seeking to destroy the new Jewish state.

👉 Share now to help fight against anti-Israel bias in the media.
🔗 Read the full report at https://t.co/1PVezLpOcL

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@McFaul @JoshBlockDC European nations among others should speak up (finally) to affirm that the straits are an international waterway through which free passage must be both the rule and practice. There is no longer hiding under Trump’s umbrella when the umbrella is leaking like a sieve.

[Jonah Goldberg @JonahDispatch]

The next time you hear JD Vance casually accuse his critics of unpatriotically spreading misinformation, remember that he described the *accurate* descriptions of the MOU as Iranian propaganda. He says what he needs to say in the moment without regard for the truth — or decency.

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@TrumpDailyPosts @C_3C_3 Hiding his failures with dumb jokes? Pathetic.

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@SGhasseminejad What does “implementation” actually mean in this case? After the MOU is signed or after its various clauses are fulfilled?

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@TrumpDailyPosts @EricLDaugh Meanwhile the deal has already soured

[Eyal Yakoby @EYakoby]

BREAKING: Hassan Khomeini, a senior Iranian Shiite cleric and the grandson of Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, issues another threat.

“The Ramadan War was the lesser jihad. From today, the greater jihad begins.”

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@JDVance Iran thinks otherwise. You’re not fooling us.

[Eyal Yakoby @EYakoby]

BREAKING: Hassan Khomeini, a senior Iranian Shiite cleric and the grandson of Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, issues another threat.

“The Ramadan War was the lesser jihad. From today, the greater jihad begins.”

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@SenatorAndyKim Senator Kim has deliberately and irresponsibly opposed military action to prevent the Iranian regime from building nuclear weapons and pursuing its murderous policies. The Senator mistakes the symptom of gas prices for the root problem of the Iranian regime’s aggression.

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@mdubowitz @McCormackJohn @miadmaleki David Albright’s important perspective raises a red flag👇

[David Albright @DAVIDHALBRIGHT1]

Only one main paragraph on nuclear in the MOU text that is circulating and has been published by both Bloomberg and CNN. These versions agree on a very dangerous, leaky opening sentence, “Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons.” This commitment is incomplete from normal standards and experience, since it has giant loopholes that could allow an ever devious Iranian regime to continue working on developing nuclear weapons and building components, while insisting it is not producing nuclear weapons.

Perhaps, there is more, either in a newer version or a secret side deal. But at face value, this sentence needs serious amendment. It should immediately be changed to “never develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess nuclear weapons.“

This language would also include a ban on buying a nuclear weapon, something which Trump reportedly has pushed for, and as reported to be there in some German media.

The rest of the paragraph does not provide confidence that robust IAEA inspections will be established that allow the inspectors to verify the end of Iran’s nuclear weapon program, albeit greatly reduced in size and scope by the two wars. Iran has never agreed to the level of needed access to military sites and personnel. That is why the IAEA Board has found Iran in non-compliance with its obligations. So, does the phraseology of the rest of the paragraph, promising to address “all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues” exclude this highly contentious issue from further negotiations?

As a result, “mutually agreed” should be dropped from the paragraph, since the issues are well defined by UN Security Council Resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and IAEA safeguards reports. 

Full paragraph in MOU we have:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article.”

A second paragraph of the MOU mentions nuclear.  Reportedly, "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region."  What is the status quo of Iran's program, given it has undeclared nuclear material it refuses to admit to and has worked on nuclear weapons? Moreover, who will verify it?

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@LindseyGrahamSC Nuclear expert David Albright is asking key questions which remain unanswered 👇

[David Albright @DAVIDHALBRIGHT1]

Only one main paragraph on nuclear in the MOU text that is circulating and has been published by both Bloomberg and CNN. These versions agree on a very dangerous, leaky opening sentence, “Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons.” This commitment is incomplete from normal standards and experience, since it has giant loopholes that could allow an ever devious Iranian regime to continue working on developing nuclear weapons and building components, while insisting it is not producing nuclear weapons.

Perhaps, there is more, either in a newer version or a secret side deal. But at face value, this sentence needs serious amendment. It should immediately be changed to “never develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess nuclear weapons.“

This language would also include a ban on buying a nuclear weapon, something which Trump reportedly has pushed for, and as reported to be there in some German media.

The rest of the paragraph does not provide confidence that robust IAEA inspections will be established that allow the inspectors to verify the end of Iran’s nuclear weapon program, albeit greatly reduced in size and scope by the two wars. Iran has never agreed to the level of needed access to military sites and personnel. That is why the IAEA Board has found Iran in non-compliance with its obligations. So, does the phraseology of the rest of the paragraph, promising to address “all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues” exclude this highly contentious issue from further negotiations?

As a result, “mutually agreed” should be dropped from the paragraph, since the issues are well defined by UN Security Council Resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and IAEA safeguards reports. 

Full paragraph in MOU we have:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article.”

A second paragraph of the MOU mentions nuclear.  Reportedly, "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region."  What is the status quo of Iran's program, given it has undeclared nuclear material it refuses to admit to and has worked on nuclear weapons? Moreover, who will verify it?

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@JDVance You haven’t answered important questions👇

[David Albright @DAVIDHALBRIGHT1]

Only one main paragraph on nuclear in the MOU text that is circulating and has been published by both Bloomberg and CNN. These versions agree on a very dangerous, leaky opening sentence, “Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons.” This commitment is incomplete from normal standards and experience, since it has giant loopholes that could allow an ever devious Iranian regime to continue working on developing nuclear weapons and building components, while insisting it is not producing nuclear weapons.

Perhaps, there is more, either in a newer version or a secret side deal. But at face value, this sentence needs serious amendment. It should immediately be changed to “never develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess nuclear weapons.“

This language would also include a ban on buying a nuclear weapon, something which Trump reportedly has pushed for, and as reported to be there in some German media.

The rest of the paragraph does not provide confidence that robust IAEA inspections will be established that allow the inspectors to verify the end of Iran’s nuclear weapon program, albeit greatly reduced in size and scope by the two wars. Iran has never agreed to the level of needed access to military sites and personnel. That is why the IAEA Board has found Iran in non-compliance with its obligations. So, does the phraseology of the rest of the paragraph, promising to address “all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues” exclude this highly contentious issue from further negotiations?

As a result, “mutually agreed” should be dropped from the paragraph, since the issues are well defined by UN Security Council Resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and IAEA safeguards reports. 

Full paragraph in MOU we have:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article.”

A second paragraph of the MOU mentions nuclear.  Reportedly, "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region."  What is the status quo of Iran's program, given it has undeclared nuclear material it refuses to admit to and has worked on nuclear weapons? Moreover, who will verify it?

[David Albright @DAVIDHALBRIGHT1]

Only one main paragraph on nuclear in the MOU text that is circulating and has been published by both Bloomberg and CNN. These versions agree on a very dangerous, leaky opening sentence, “Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons.” This commitment is incomplete from normal standards and experience, since it has giant loopholes that could allow an ever devious Iranian regime to continue working on developing nuclear weapons and building components, while insisting it is not producing nuclear weapons.

Perhaps, there is more, either in a newer version or a secret side deal. But at face value, this sentence needs serious amendment. It should immediately be changed to “never develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess nuclear weapons.“

This language would also include a ban on buying a nuclear weapon, something which Trump reportedly has pushed for, and as reported to be there in some German media.

The rest of the paragraph does not provide confidence that robust IAEA inspections will be established that allow the inspectors to verify the end of Iran’s nuclear weapon program, albeit greatly reduced in size and scope by the two wars. Iran has never agreed to the level of needed access to military sites and personnel. That is why the IAEA Board has found Iran in non-compliance with its obligations. So, does the phraseology of the rest of the paragraph, promising to address “all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues” exclude this highly contentious issue from further negotiations?

As a result, “mutually agreed” should be dropped from the paragraph, since the issues are well defined by UN Security Council Resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and IAEA safeguards reports. 

Full paragraph in MOU we have:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article.”

A second paragraph of the MOU mentions nuclear.  Reportedly, "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region."  What is the status quo of Iran's program, given it has undeclared nuclear material it refuses to admit to and has worked on nuclear weapons? Moreover, who will verify it?

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@mattyglesias The JCPOA controversy is only a symptom of the long-term drift of the Democrats toward a highly critical position toward Israel. The Left in all Western nations has embraced Third Worldism and built Red-Green alliances with an anti-Israel focus feeding antisemitism. Look within.

[Mike Pence @Mike_Pence]

According to language that has been reported about MOU with Iran, there is:

🔴 NO mention of dismantling the nuclear program or the ballistic missile program.

🔴 NO commitment to ending support for Hamas, Hezbollah, or other terrorist organizations

But remarkably, the MOU with Iran reportedly includes:

🔴Immediate sanctions relief from the moment the MOU is signed. This means $3 BILLION a month into the coffers of Iran.

🔴A pledge of $100 billion in Iranian frozen assets being freed up based only on “progress” in negotiations

🔴The U.S. & others to arrange for a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran.

The reported MOU with Iran smacks of the kind of appeasement that we saw during the Obama years, the kind of appeasement that Joe Biden tried to accomplish and was ignored by the Iranians, and the kind of appeasement we categorically rejected during the first Trump administration.

[Zachary Narrett @ZNarrett]

@jaynordlinger But the U.S. didn’t come close to throwing its worst at the Iran regime. Not by a long shot. Hence the problem.
The regime will rearm and get ready for the next round.