Professor Jacobson said it best. After reviewing the text of the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, signed by President Donald Trump at a Wednesday night dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron, he wrote on X: “Good news is Iran doesn’t need a nuke, it just has to raise gas prices by $1 and we crumble.”
We were told to trust the president. Time and again, supporters assured us that Donald Trump — the man who literally wrote a book on the art of negotiation — would never agree to a bad deal. As rumors about the Memorandum of Understanding’s terms began circulating, skeptics were dismissed, and the reports were written off as Iranian propaganda. Surely, we were told, the IRGC was spreading disinformation to sow division and weaken America’s negotiating position.
Then the text was released on Wednesday afternoon.
What emerged was not the agreement many supporters had anticipated from a president who, just two months earlier, had issued a Churchillian call for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” Instead, it appeared to be the product of an administration increasingly anxious about rising gasoline prices, political pressure at home, and the economic consequences of a prolonged standoff.
Rather than a demonstration of American strength, the MOU was a concession to a regime that only recently appeared to be near collapse.
I have disagreed with President Trump before, but those disagreements typically involved questions of strategy, messaging, or political judgment. This is different. His decision to effectively capitulate to the IRGC’s demands hit like a thunderbolt. Given the administration’s earlier rhetoric, the abrupt shift was not merely surprising — it was genuinely shocking.
Rumors had circulated for days that an internal struggle was underway within the administration. On one side were officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who reportedly questioned whether Iran would honor any agreement. On the other hand was Vice President J.D. Vance, who became the deal’s most visible champion.
Judging by the glum look on Rubio’s face as Trump addressed the MOU at the G7 Summit, it looks like the Vance camp won the day.
The X post below provides a broad, but accurate, outline of the MOU’s pros (2) and cons (9):
One would expect Democrats to come out swinging against any agreement the Trump administration reached with Iran. What is more noteworthy is the extent to which this deal has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. In fact, even before the agreement was made public, a Fox News poll of registered voters released Wednesday found that a clear majority of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of the conflict. Conducted June 12–15, the survey found that 65% disapproved, compared with just 35% who approved.
Among Democrats, 73% believe Iran will not honor the agreement or abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, while 26% believe it will. Among Republicans, 53% remain skeptical that Iran will comply and 47% believe it will. Independents, meanwhile, are far more doubtful, with 69% saying Iran will fail to uphold the deal compared with just 29% who believe it will.
Many Republicans reacted to the MOU diplomatically, urging patience and arguing that the agreement should be judged by its results rather than its initial appearance. Some, however, embraced it outright. Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld defended the deal and sharply criticized his colleague Jessica Tarlov, The Five’s sole liberal panelist, for raising concerns about its terms. It pains me to say it, but for perhaps the first time ever, I found myself siding with Tarlov.
Few were surprised when Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who recently lost his primary to a Trump-endorsed challenger, denounced the agreement as “a tremendous foreign policy blunder.”
But even some of Trump’s closest allies voiced opposition to the framework. In remarks to The Hill, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested that Trump was “not getting good advice from his advisers.” He said, “History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal.”
Trump supporters responded to the criticism, emphasizing that the $300 billion does not come from the pockets of American taxpayers. Yet many skeptics see little comfort in that distinction. Money is fungible. By unfreezing such an enormous sum in the name of rebuilding Iran, the agreement may provide the IRGC with precisely the resources it needs to reconstruct its military apparatus and renew its march toward a nuclear weapon.
https://x.com/bdomenech/status/2067343572223857082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
As word of the agreement’s contents spread through Capitol Hill earlier this week, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) sounded the alarm over its treatment of Israel. The first point declares:
[T]he immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.
During a Monday interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show, Cotton said, “Let me be clear: Israel has been a model partner to the United States in this battle against Iran’s radical regime.”
The deal amounts to a wish list for the IRGC, conceding point after point and even permitting the regime to begin charging tolls or transit fees on ships moving through the Strait of Hormuz after the 60-day negotiation period ends.
What’s in it for the U.S.? Lower gasoline prices heading into the midterm elections?
Whatever one’s view of Trump, his decision to strike Iran required genuine political courage. For nearly five decades, presidents of both parties chose caution over confrontation, issuing stern warnings while ultimately avoiding direct action. Trump broke with that pattern. Unfortunately, the resolve he displayed on the battlefield appears to have dissipated at the negotiating table, undermining much of the leverage and credibility his earlier actions had created.
There is no question that the United States succeeded in crippling significant portions of Iran’s military apparatus and degrading much of its defense-industrial base. Those achievements were real and hard-won. Yet by granting Tehran sweeping concessions at the moment it was at its weakest, Trump risks squandering many of those gains and giving the regime an opportunity to rebuild.
As Trump himself has often observed, Iran has never won a war on the battlefield, but it has never lost a negotiation. Judging by the terms of this agreement, that observation remains as true today as it was before the first bomb fell.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY