Iran – The Fat Lady Goes Back To Her Dressing Room
On June 21, this column asked the following regarding the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iran: “why would a president who has long been a strident ally of Israel and who has repeatedly taken calculated military risks enter into a preliminary agreement that seems so one-sided in Iran’s favor?”
After noting the possibility that Trump just wanted out, my earlier column went on to observe: “While potentially far-fetched, there is also another explanation that is entirely consistent with the Trumpian character: i.e. that he was willing to give Iran what it wanted in order to get the Strait opened, with the intention of then dragging out negotiations until after the midterms before returning to a much harder line with respect to any final, legally binding, agreement; or, if needed, a return to more forceful action.”
Referencing the old line “the opera ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings”, the post ended: “but stay tuned, it wouldn’t be the first time Trump’s critics wrote him off before the fat lady finished her warm-ups.” Given the recent re-escalation of attacks on Iran, we can safely say the fat lady is now back in her dressing room still awaiting her final aria.
All of which begs the question: if the MOU was so heavily weighted in Iran’s favor (which it was), then why did they violate it?
A number of commentators, including those at The New York Times’ The Daily podcast, averred that Iran’s recent strikes result from a lack of diplomatic finesse in drafting the MOU. But are we really to believe that more artfully crafted language in a preliminary agreement would have stopped a regime that has violated nearly every binding agreement it has made over the past fifty years? The NYT’s argument is a bit like an operatic diva feigning shock over finding that her long philandering husband has, once again for the umpteenth time, been unfaithful.
Suffice to say, we are not back at war because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps suddenly bewildered the world by breaking its word. So then, why did a financially fragile Iran choose to forgo billions of dollars in renewed oil sales and unfrozen assets by attacking ships in the Strait?
The answer lies in the potential impact of the MOU on the upcoming U.S. mid-term elections.
Given the events of the past week, we now know that Trump’s motivation with the MOU was not that he simply wanted out at any cost – if this had been the case, he would not have re-escalated the conflict. Eliminating this possibility tells us that, for Trump, the MOU was about opening the Strait to bring down oil prices prior to the upcoming elections. Knowing this, the benefit of the MOU to Trump (and, correspondingly, the cost to Iran) can effectively be measured by how far oil prices fell in response to the MOU.
In other words: for Iran, the problem was not in the wording of the MOU, but in its effect on global markets. Almost all observers were shocked at how quickly oil fell from over $90 / bbl to under $70 (roughly the pre-war level) after the MOU was signed. This post-MOU collapse carried the potential to simultaneously ease U.S. voter antipathy regarding the war and to jumpstart an already buoyant economy.
All of which is to say: if anything, Trump was getting even more of a boost than he had bargained for. Which, from Tehran’s perspective, means the MOU’s cost (as measured by it’s political impact in the U.S.) was likely much higher than they anticipated. This explains why they started firing on cargo ships so quickly, which then caused oil to spike back above $80, thereby diminishing the benefits to Trump.
By pushing the price of oil back up, Iran was effectively trying to reengage its most important allies which, in this case, are not China and Russia.
For nearly fifty years, the Iranian regime has been ruthlessly consistent in the use of lies and deception as it fanned religious fanaticism, pursued nuclear arms, funded terrorist attacks, and played the Strait of Hormuz as a bargaining chip - all with the objective of solidifying its control at home and expanding its influence in the region. For most of this time, there was bi-partisan clarity in the United States about both the related geopolitical dangers of allowing a hostile regime to amass too much control over the region, and the importance of our alliance with Israel in helping the Middle East seek a more peaceful and prosperous way forward.
Unfortunately, even as much of the Middle East has now recognized the destructiveness of Iran’s ways and seeks to build a bridge with Israel and the United States toward a better future, the once bipartisan opera glasses through which we perceive the region have become dangerously blurred. The left lens is obscured by anti-Westerners who have aligned themselves with Iran’s anti-American terrorism; while the right lens is marred by isolationists who fail to acknowledge Iran’s geopolitical significance - indeed, just imagine the risk posed by a nuclear Iran that closes the Strait of Hormuz to assist a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
This past week, we saw this bipartisan myopia at work when over 100 House Democrats voted against renewed support for Israel while the isolationist Republican Vice President J.D. Vance went on a national podcast to blame Israel for his own mistakes with respect to the failed MOU.
Regrettably, Iran’s best allies in the current war are located right here in America, which is why it was willing to forgo billions in needed funds to prevent the ceasefire from benefitting Trump in the mid-terms. But, one way or another, we are eventually going to have to deal with the hostile aggressions of a regime located in one of the most geopolitically important regions of the world. Ideally, our own allies around the world would also wake up to this reality; but for now it is largely up to President Trump to determine whether our corpulent diva finally emerges from her dressing room to bemoan the tragedy of an Iranian triumph …or to sing the glory of a better future for the Middle East, the United States, and the free world.
As I’ve said before, stay tuned!
Today we face important challenges, but none that are greater than those we have overcome time and again throughout our storied history. Here’s to hoping your day is as bright as America’s future.
- Todd, July 19, 2026
If you found this helpful, please recommend it to at least one other person.
Subscriptions are currently FREE – if you’re not already a subscriber, sign up below.
These posts are now available in a podcast format as well, just search my name and On Wealth and Progress on major platforms.
If you’d like to learn more, visit my website: toddsheetswriter.com
To purchase a copy of my book, 2008: What Really Happened, please go to Amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, Bookshop.org, or encounterbooks.com.