WANA (May 31) – Current reports indicate that the exchange of messages between Iran and the United States regarding the text of a potential memorandum of understanding (MoU) is ongoing, with both sides intermittently proposing amendments. As of this moment, no agreement has been finalized, and the possibility of any potential understanding being derailed naturally remains on the table.

 

Regarding the unfolding situation and the essential dynamics of a military or diplomatic conflict with the United States, several critical analysis points can be outlined:

 

The JCPOA Experience: A Serious Warning

Since negotiations began following the ceasefire, public concerns regarding talks with the U.S. have persisted. This anxiety is both natural and necessary; it must be acknowledged and welcomed. This skepticism stems from two primary factors:

 

The Nature of the U.S.: A recognition of Washington’s character, which adheres to no moral or political frameworks.

 

Negative Historical Precedents: Bitter experiences from past interactions with the United States. This includes the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), from which the current war can be viewed as a subsequent consequence, as well as two prior instances where Iran faced U.S. military aggression in the midst of negotiations.

 

Keeping this historical experience in mind is a vital prerequisite that must overshadow all current diplomatic efforts.

 

Consequently, the baseline strategy in dealing with the United States should lean toward non-agreement and avoiding talks. If any understanding is to be forged, it must incorporate exceptionally robust frameworks and ironclad clauses.

 

The JCPOA serves as a massive museum of lessons. One of the primary factors behind the “sheer loss” of the JCPOA was a romanticized view of foreign policy, which naively assumed that issues with the United States could be resolved merely through dialogue—a premise that proved entirely false.

 

The Right Strategy: No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal

The most flawed aspect of the JCPOA experience was the misguided strategic maxim claiming that “any deal is better than no deal.” This proposition, born out of a flawed mindset, dealt a serious blow to the country.

 

The correct strategy dictates a firm conviction that reaching no agreement or understanding is far superior to accepting a deal that strips away your components of power, leaving the opposing side’s hands free to maintain or escalate pressure.

 

Time is Now the Primary Actor

There is a famous quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: “Space we can recover, time never.”

 

This captured one of the worst vulnerabilities of the JCPOA. In the words of former U.S. sanctions official Richard Nephew, when the clock was ticking against the United States, Washington decided to manufacture a framework called “breakout time.” Unfortunately, the Iranian negotiating team implicitly accepted this premise, effectively turning the hourglass back in favor of the U.S.

 

In the current geopolitical landscape, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz exerts significant economic pressure on the United States and its allies, serving as a powerful leverage point for Iran. On the flip side, U.S. intelligence estimates that their previous tactics and readiness levels, and their ammunition stockpiles, have proven insufficient to secure a victory over Iran.

 

While Iran can certainly utilize this time to reinforce its defensive capabilities, the Americans are attempting to manage time to their own advantage. Their goal is to structure a potential MoU in a way that adjusts the temporal leverage, ensuring that the pressure on Iran outweighs the pressure on the United States.

 

Therefore, understanding that a potential MoU is not going to fundamentally resolve the core conflict, the pivotal question centers on whether time can be effectively managed.

 

If the United States seeks to engineer a scenario where it relieves itself of the pressure from the Strait of Hormuz closure while maintaining pressure on Iran—allowing Washington to return to hostilities at a time of its choosing with greater peace of mind—then no deal is definitively better than any agreement.

 

The devil is in the details, and the strategic management of time remains the cornerstone of this confrontation.