This morning we awoke to the news that a deal was about to be announced. Details were lacking, but it suggested a coming memorandum of understanding lasting a minimum of sixty days – not a signed agreement. As a lawyer by education and occupation, I recognize what that would mean, and not mean. In legal parlance, the former is not binding, but simply stated, a “gentleman’s agreement” establishing a moral and practical commitment. The latter is a formally, binding contract with specific obligations, deliverables and penalties for failure. To the layman, the state of negotiations between Iran and the United States, even if through the former vehicle, is quite welcome to those who want an end to the war and its damaging effects on the political and economic climate.

For political and military strategists, the strategy of endless non-binding negotiations coupled with the inevitable delay in utter destruction, is familiar to anyone dealing with Iran over the nearly half century since the Iranian regime overthrew the Shah.  Iran has since then used diplomacy to obtain billions of dollars of aid, commerce and concessions from successive administrations, utilizing such monetary influx to build up its military apparatus, funding its proxies, and developing its nuclear program. The election of Donald Trump changed the landscape, and subjected Iran to the combined military operations of the United States and Israel, first against Hamas, and later upon Iran itself. All agree that the devastation Iran experienced brought it to the negotiating table, and succeeding ceasefire extensions to advance negotiations.

During these months of operations, President Trump laid down certain “red lines” – initially, demanding a........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)