Our Sycophantic Memorandum Of Understanding

By Ellis Stevenson

The U.S. and Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has fourteen sections. The tone of the entire MoU is that of a contract, that is, an “understanding” being reached by two equal parties. As in a contract, there are mutual responsibilities to be fulfilled. The defeat of Iran as an enemy power is not even hinted at in the document. This defeat has occurred, but because of the fanatical Shi’ite ideology of the leaders of that country and the President’s need for “a deal,” the defeat is not even acknowledged.

A firm, not flaccid, document is needed. A proper MoU with an aggressor rogue state that is defined by fanatical ideology, terrorist actions, and threats against its neighbors and against Israel and the USA in particular for almost five decades should read something to the effect that:

1. The Republic of Iran agrees to cease and desist from threats against other countries, including but not limited to Israel and the USA. 
2. Iran agrees to stop funding and arming any terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Yazidis, and the Houthis.  
3. Iran agrees to live in peaceful coexistence with all its neighbors in the Middle East and throughout the world. Thus, Iran gives up its support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and rejects all attempts by Hezbollah to threaten the legitimate government of Lebanon and all its missile attacks on the legitimate State of Israel.
4. Iran agrees to destroy all nuclear material and nuclear “dust” with over 3% enrichment, and said destruction will take place under the direct supervision of the USA and the IAEA.
5. Iran agrees to a schedule of ongoing inspections by the IAEA to ensure that there are no further enrichments beyond the 3%. These inspections will continue indefinitely, but for a minimum of ten years until the U.S. and its allies (“allies” to be defined in a separate document) determine that Iran is again a member of the family of nations and is existing with peaceful intent.
6. Iranian assets now controlled by the USA will be reimbursed at the discretion of the USA when the USA is satisfied that Iran is not a threat to the peace and security of other nations in the Middle East region, nor to any countries in the world, and when the USA determines that Iran’s people are allowed more discretion as to their lifestyles.

[Re-write of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the existing MOU as follows:]

7.  The Islamic Republic of Iran undertakes to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all other countries, including the USA and Israel, and to refrain from interfering in the other countries’ internal affairs.

8. The Islamic Republic of Iran commits to negotiating and achieving the final Deal, in a maximum of 60 days, extendable at the discretion of the USA.

9. Immediately upon the signing of this MoU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and will pause the removal if the USA determines that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not acting in good faith in the peace process. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran.  

10. Sentences like the following, which appear in Section 8 of the present MOU, must be eliminated from any MOU document: “The two Parties also agree to discuss the issue of enrichment, and other mutually agreed matters relating to the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final Deal.” 

This is far too accepting and cozy-sounding towards a country that we have just bombed into submission, and which has literally been murdering and attacking the USA and Israel for almost half a century. This is a wording as if the Iranian signers voluntarily and in good faith had entered into negotiations with us, which is not the case. This is inserting ‘nice guy’ rhetoric as if we were not in the midst of one of the most warlike situations in decades.

11. All references to our commitment about Iranian assets now “frozen” by the USA should not be included in the MOU. You don’t kill a big chunk of a country’s leaders, practically wipe out its nuclear program, and obliterate its navy, and then sweet-talk that country with a discussion of its frozen assets. The bad cop/good cop scenario used to evoke confessions from suspects is not appropriate in negotiations between countries where one of the countries is a violent and fanatical party.

Because the MOU as presently written is such a flaccid and sycophantic document, it is difficult not to feel let down and more than a little perturbed. However, the threat of a setback for President Trump’s presidency and agenda in November is real because of the high price of gas at the pump. Self-centered Americans might feel justified in rebelling against the rise in prices by electing Democrats to office, which in turn, if they achieve a majority in the House, would result in the third impeachment of our President. Thus, if Republicans keep the House, which is so important for our well-being as a country, the President may be able to move away from the present MOU document to a more assertive policy viz-a-viz Iran.