The US capitulates, Israel is abandoned

Last Sunday, representatives of the United States and Iran signed “The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding”.

With mid-term elections coming soon, and under massive domestic pressure to finish the conflict and re-open the Strait of Hormuz in order to keep energy prices down, President Trump appears to have capitulated to the radical regime in Tehran that simply refuses to be defeated. 

After months of escalation, Washington and Tehran have arrived at what is being described as a peace deal that will bring permanent peace to the region. In reality, it is an interim arrangement that represents a humiliating defeat for the United States. Although signed, the agreement is already looking wobbly. The idea is that Iran and the US would reach a final agreement within 60 days. The planned kick-off of negotiations in Switzerland this week have been cancelled.

Responding to criticism of the agreement, VP Vance has announced that the US could back out of the agreement if it chooses to do so. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters the US would renew military action against Iran and reimpose its blockade if Tehran does not fulfill its commitments under its newly signed agreement with Washington. “The president has pointed out that we will be prepared to recommence if underneath the timeline of these talks, Iran does not do what it says it’s going to do,” Hegseth said in Brussels after meeting NATO defense ministers. “If Iran doesn’t comply, then we’re more than able to reimpose an ironclad blockade.”

What does the MOU say?

The US (purporting to act also on behalf of all its allies, presumably including Israel) declares “the 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. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.”

This is highly remarkable: the US commits itself (and Israel) to not ever attack Iran again – even if Iran fails to live up to its promises.

The MOU promises massive financial benefits to Iran – even before it demonstrates whether it is capable or willing to carry out its side of the bargain. In paragraph 6, “the United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days.”

The US agrees to end all sanctions against Iran (paragraph 7), and pending their termination “the US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.” The US also agrees to unfreeze Iranian assets that have been frozen or restricted in the US. In other words, Iran can immediately start selling its oil on the open market. Iran will almost immediately be flooded with unfrozen assets and petrodollars that will inevitably be used not for the benefit of the people, but to rebuild Iran’s arms and even possibly its nuclear program deep underground hidden from the eyes of the world (and IAEA inspectors).

Iran agrees not to build a nuclear bomb, and “the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven with the minimum methodology to be down-blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal.”

Remarkably, there is nothing in the agreement that commits Iran to remove its remaining Iran’s missile capabilities. Nor does the MOU prevent Iran from financing its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. Both of these issues were explicitly stated by the US and Israel as being the core aims of the conflict.

The MOU does not end the conflict

Basically, the MOU commits the parties not to engage in warfare but leaves all the core issues that existed before the war unresolved. In other words, the military campaign of the past months altered the context, but it did not eliminate the main problem that the US and Israel were trying to address – Tehran’s potential to build a nuclear bomb. If anything, Tehran appears determined to make future inspections and enforcement efforts more difficult. The nuclear file is not solved by the MOU. It has merely been deferred.

For all the rhetoric surrounding the military campaign that commenced in June 2025 and was resumed in February 2026, the outcome is difficult to ignore: the US and Israel failed to achieve their war aims, all the while the Ayatollahs have simply been replaced by the IRGC which is more hardened and radical. The US is now offering the regime the chance to rebuild its military arsenals.

And while Israel is abandoned to fight Iran’s proxies on its own, the MOU obliges Israel to terminate its military conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel refuses to do so.

At the end of the day, it is highly questionable whether the MOU is worth the paper it is written on. It is unlikely that the US and Iran will reach a final agreement within the next 60 days that satisfies both sides’ long-term goals. In all likelihood, Israel will continue to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Iranians will argue that the MOU is no longer binding on it.

In fact, it is possible that the US knows this and has signed the agreement in full knowledge that it is worthless, and that it will have to start bombing Iran again once the negotiations fail.

Only time will tell.

A debacle

According to military analyst Andrew Fox, the MOU is a “debacle”. It is the inevitable outcome of a military campaign that was badly flawed from the outset. The underlying assumption behind the campaign appears to have been that military pressure would trigger political collapse. The theory was straightforward:

• Decapitate Iran’s leadership.
• Destroy its missile infrastructure.
• Trigger internal unrest.
• Accelerate regime change.

The first two objectives were always militarily plausible. The second two were always political assumptions masquerading as strategy. History is littered with examples of governments that were unpopular, corrupt, isolated, and economically weak—but still survived because their coercive institutions remained intact. Iran's leadership has spent four decades preparing for exactly this type of challenge. Destroying infrastructure is not the same thing as creating an alternative government. The distinction proved decisive.

Hormuz Was Always the Center of Gravity

The most important lesson from the conflict may be that the Strait of Hormuz remains the world's most powerful economic choke point. Iran never needed to defeat American naval forces. It only needed to create uncertainty. A few disrupted shipments, rising insurance costs, nervous energy markets, and suddenly the economic consequences become larger than the military campaign itself.

The longer the conflict continued, the more the White House faced an uncomfortable reality: a regional war could become a domestic inflation problem. Oil prices do not remain abstract for long. They eventually show up on fuel station signs. That political clock was ticking faster than the military one.

The Missile Lesson

Perhaps the most consequential surprise was Iran's missile performance. For years, Western discussions focused on air superiority, precision strike capability, and technological advantage. What this conflict demonstrated is something much simpler: Missiles remain brutally effective. Large missile inventories can threaten airfields, radars, logistics networks, refueling aircraft, and command infrastructure at costs far below the systems required to defend against them.

The broader implication extends well beyond the Middle East. Military planners in Europe and Asia will be studying these exchanges carefully. So will China and Taiwan. As Major Fox explains, the lesson is not that Iran won. The lesson is that missile-heavy warfare consumes defensive inventories at extraordinary speed.

The Regional Winners

Several countries emerge from this episode stronger than they entered it. Saudi Arabia stayed out of the conflict and looks increasingly vindicated. Turkey demonstrated its ability to influence outcomes and reinforce regional red lines. Pakistan elevated its diplomatic relevance. China gained without firing a shot, positioning itself as a patient beneficiary of American depletion. The common theme is notable: the actors that avoided escalation generally improved their position. The actors that drove escalation generally did not.

Israel's Strategic Problem

Israel achieved significant tactical successes in the military campaign. Yet the campaign did not produce regime change, nor did it fundamentally alter Iran's regional position. It did not prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, nor did it create a new wave of normalization agreements. And it reinforced a reality that has become increasingly difficult to ignore: Israel can initiate major regional operations independently, but sustaining and finishing them remains heavily dependent on American support. That dependence is now more visible than before the war.

What does the Bible say?

After years of warfare, one reality is emerging: Israel’s military might in itself, even with the support of the United States (the most powerful military in the world), is unable to destroy those who are intent on annihilating the Jewish people. The net result of the last two to three years of warfare is that Israel's enemies remain firmly in place. Evil cannot be eradicated by force.

Worse, Israel’s friends are abandoning her. The Jewish people are being increasingly isolated and abandoned by even their strongest allies. Not even President Trump, who many claimed to have been the most pro-Israel president ever, can be relied upon to defend Israel's interests or even to ensure its existence.

The Bible foresees a scenario where the nations will go up against Jerusalem. Some will seek to attack Israel, even when it appears to be secure and living in peace. It will be at this moment of Israel's greatest need that the Lord himself will intervene to protect his people and to judge the nations.

This week, let us pray for the people of Israel, and for their leaders. Pray also for the enemies of the Jewish people. Pray that they will look to God and trust that He will fulfill His promises.

Let us continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and the speedy coming of the Messiah of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – who alone can protect His people, and usher in a kingdom of peace and righteousness.

---

‘Shall not develop nuclear weapons’: The 14-point memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran

Jacob Magid at Times of Israel: Sides declare ‘immediate, permanent end to war on all fronts, including Lebanon’; fate of Iran’s enriched uranium will be ‘adequately addressed in final deal’ to be inked within 60 days.

> Read more..

Anatomy of a debacle

Maj. Andrew Fox: How Netanyahu sold Trump a war, Erdogan broke the plan, and Washington rushed into a ceasefire before the oil clock ran out.

> Read more..

US-Iran talks canceled as Vance postpones Switzerland trip

JNS: The Friday talks will not take place after Tehran suspended participation over developments in Lebanon.

> Read more..

Trump’s surrender

Melanie Phillips at JNS: Something darker is at work here than just a concern over rising fuel prices.

> Read more..