LONDON – I’m not going to lie to you: I’m horrified by the Iran deal that was revealed this week.
During Operation “Epic Fury”, US President Donald J. Trump promised to force Iran into “unconditional surrender”.
But that’s not what he did.
Trump had promised to never let Iran keep its enriched uranium – nor to be able to enrich more in the future.
However, this is not what this agreement provides.
During the war, Trump has qualified Israel – and more specifically Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi » Netanyahu – from his greatest and most trusted ally.
Recently, Trump has launched more “F-bombs” (insults) at Bibi than actual bombs at Iran, America’s most dangerous enemy in the Middle East.
This agreement constitutes a stunning act of appeasement.
He is granting enormous concessions – previously unthinkable – to Iran’s evil rulers that even former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden never contemplated.
WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH IRAN?
Tonight on “THE ROSENBERG REPORT” I will discuss the potential political implications of this agreement for the midterm congressional elections – as well as the national elections in Israel – which will take place this fall.
Polls in the United States already indicate that the GOP (the Republican Party) risks losing control of the House of Representatives.
In Israel, polls already indicate that Netanyahu and his government risk being swept away by a veritable tsunami.
I’m not making any predictions or siding with either side.
But I’m going to take viewers through the political storms brewing in both countries and explain how this Iran deal could affect them both.
Taped at the Capitol before I left for London, the show will air tonight on TBN at 9 p.m. Eastern.
WHY DO TRUMP AND VANCE – THE PRIMARY ARCHITECT OF THE AGREEMENT – THINK THIS AGREEMENT IS SO GREAT?
But why on earth does Trump think this is a great deal?
But why on earth does Vice President JD Vance – the main architect of the deal – think the same thing?
Early evidence suggests that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe opposed the deal behind closed doors.
The future will tell us.
But what were Trump and Vance thinking?
I really can’t understand the logic of this agreement.
This all makes no sense.
The wording of the memorandum of understanding grants huge concessions to Tehran.
But it imposes very few specific requirements on it.
I’m not satisfied – and I’m not the only one.
KEY FIGURES FROM THE CONSERVATIVE CAMP CRITICIZE THE TRUMP/VANCE DEAL
Before the ink was dry, highly influential conservative voices in the US Senate and beyond opened fire on this landmark foreign policy decision made by the Trump-Vance administration.
“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,†Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) wrote on ð • .
“Reagan must be rolling over in his grave. Iran’s nuclear ambitions have not been curbed, and this country has understood that threatening the Strait of Hormuz is effective; he will undoubtedly use it as leverage in the future. HAS”
Cassidy added: “Now, thanks to this agreement, Iran will be able to build completely new infrastructure. HAS”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote on ð•: “History teaches us that giving billions of dollars to theocratic fanatics who want to assassinate us is not a good idea. HAS”
“I think the president is getting very bad advice on this deal. HAS”
“Nearly a thousand Americans have been murdered by the Ayatollah and the mullahs,” Cruz noted. “It is absolutely not in America’s interest to pay to rebuild this capability that we just destroyed. HAS”
Former US Vice President Mike Pence warned in several interviews and on social media: “There is no mention of dismantling the nuclear program or the ballistic missile program” and “no commitment is made to end support for Hamas, Hezbollah or other organizations.” terrorists. HAS”
“But, remarkably,” Pence notes, the memorandum of understanding provides for “immediate sanctions relief upon signing.” That means $3 billion per month in Iran’s coffers.
It also includes “a commitment to unlock $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets based solely on ‘progress’ in negotiations” and demands “that the United States and other countries establish a reconstruction fund for 300 billion dollars for Iran.
The Iran deal “smacks of the kind of appeasement we saw under Obama, the kind of appeasement Joe Biden tried to implement that was ignored by the Iranians, and the kind of appeasement we categorically rejected during Trump’s first term,” Mike warned Pence.
WHAT DO BEN SHAPIRO AND MARK LEVIN SAY?
American political commentator Ben Shapiro also strongly criticized this agreement.
“This memorandum of understanding appears to be a disaster that accomplishes none of the major goals set out by the administration in the first place,” Shapiro said.
“In my opinion, the vice president, as chief negotiator, did not serve the president’s interests well. HAS”
Mark Levin, radio host and Fox Newsalso said he was dismayed by the terms of the agreement.
“Upon signing the memorandum of understanding, the war ends immediately and definitively, and this specifically includes Lebanon – this makes absolutely no sense,†Levin wrote.
“There are 60 days or more left to negotiate an agreement. Therefore, even before an agreement is finalized, we have just declared the cessation of military operations – permanently. And we have committed not even to threaten the use of force. Why would we agree to immediately give up the main means of pressure we have on the regime even before it complies with the requirements of the memorandum of understanding and everything that will be decided within 60 days?
“To top it off, we’re doing the unthinkable,” Levin added. “We are giving in to Iran’s demand to protect Hezbollah. HAS”
“We lift the naval blockade 30 days after the signing of the memorandum of understanding, rather than at the end of the final negotiations on an agreement? » asks Levin. “This deprives us of another major means of pressure on the regime. And we agree to withdraw our forces from this area within 30 days of the final agreement. We are told that we can always send our forces back there. But in all likelihood, we won’t. HAS”
But Levin went even further.
“Incredibly, we are committed to helping develop a comprehensive plan for Iran’s reconstruction and economic development, while securing funding of at least $300 billion. We are assured that this will not involve a single cent of our taxes. It’s a decoy. Who could have imagined that after going to war against this regime because it was days away from acquiring nuclear weapons, we would have a role to play in helping to coordinate or raise every penny for this regime? The vice president says they won’t get a cent if they don’t meet certain conditions. That’s not what the text says. Furthermore, let’s imagine that they meet all the conditions, receive these billions, and then send us to hell. And who among us believes that part of this money will be used to help or improve the lives of the Iranian people, who have no rights and are being massacred by tens of thousands? HAS”
WHAT DO THE CONSERVATIVE EDITORIAL PAGES SAY?
“Trump is losing the hawks who once championed war with Iran– Many of the conservatives who cheered the president fear the peace deal won’t go far enough to deter Iran,†a déclaré a title from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
“The secrecy surrounding Trump’s Iran deal was atrocious–and Vance’s dodges only made it worse,†a déclaré a title of New York Post.
COULD TRUMP REVERSE THE SITUATION?
Prediction: The more conservatives and evangelicals read the details of this agreement, the more criticism will intensify.
Could Trump turn things around?
Maybe.
Over the next 60 days, Trump could insist that the final deal include much stronger and more specific terms, proving that Iran lost – and in fact surrendered – and that the United States and Israel won.
I will pray that this happens.
You should do the same.
But if Iran says no – and why would it say yes? – will Trump really start bombing Iran again in mid-August?
