President Trump's latest cease-fire deal with Iran is being met with skepticism, with many viewing it as a strategic retreat short of achieving his war aims. The deal, which reopens the Strait of Hormuz, has been criticized for accepting Iran's promises to negotiate over its nuclear program without requiring significant concessions.
While the President's willingness to use military force has set back Iran's nuclear program, critics argue that he is retreating from his main goals due to political pressure at home. The deal extends the cease-fire for another 60 days, but many are concerned that it will be renewed, allowing Iran to rebuild its military and industrial base.
The deal also defers most matters of the nuclear program to 60 more days of talks, with oil and other sanctions relief along the way in exchange for diplomatic progress. Critics argue that this linkage is crucial, but pushing off the most difficult nuclear issues in talks with a regime that doesn't deal in good faith doesn't inspire confidence.
A strong nuclear deal isn't hard to define: Zero uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, no stockpile of enriched uranium, all relevant nuclear facilities, centrifuges and manufacturing sites dismantled, complete disclosure and unrestricted inspections. Iran's attestation that it doesn't seek the bomb is meaningless, and a good deal has to remove capabilities.
The deal also includes no Iranian commitments on its missiles and terror proxies, which will be put off to 'regional discussions' from which no one expects much. This poses risks to Israel and the Gulf Arab states, and Congress should scrutinize any final agreement Mr. Trump makes with Iran—and reject it if it props up a regime that still says 'death to America.'
