According to the New York Times and others, President Trump has submitted a 15-point plan to the surviving authorities in Iran for a resolution of the conflict. However, the Times is ludicrously vague on the terms: “The New York Times did not see a copy of the plan, but the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details, shared some of its broad outlines, saying that it addresses Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.” How sensitive can you get?
What are the prospects? I turn to Amit Segal’s report in this morning’s It’s Noon In Israel newsletter. The regime seems to think it has Trump over an oil barrel:
Iran has set an extremely high bar for ceasefire negotiations. The IRGC’s demands include the closure of all U.S. bases in the Gulf, reparations for strikes on Iran, a Hormuz transit fee arrangement, an end to strikes on Hezbollah, the lifting of all sanctions, and the preservation of its missile program. A U.S. official called the demands “ridiculous and unrealistic.” The two sides are not in direct contact—messages are passing through Arab intermediaries.
Drawing on reporting by the Wall Street Journal, Segal provides additional details:
They are demanding the closure of all American bases in the Gulf and reparations for attacks on Iran. That falls just short of Osama bin Laden’s demand that the U.S. vacate the entire Middle East—though, to be fair, that terrorist organization did more damage to America than Iran has in the past 26 days of war.
Other demands include:
• A new order for the Strait of Hormuz that would allow Iran to collect transit fees, as Egypt does with the Suez Canal—ignoring the small detail that one is an engineering project requiring maintenance, while the other is simply geography.
• Guarantees that the war will not restart, along with an end to Israeli strikes on Hezbollah—something Israel is unlikely to accept under any circumstances.
• The lifting of all sanctions on Iran.
• And permission to retain its missile program without any limitations, right after proving, contrary to their own claims, that they have missiles that can hit Western Europe.
Segal interprets Iran’s terms as follows:
This list of conditions implies three things:
1. The Revolutionary Guards have consolidated power within the fractured regime and are just as hardline as their predecessors.
2. They believe they are winning.
3. There will be no agreement.
Segal quotes “a very senior Israeli official” who told him yesterday, “It’s highly doubtful that the Iranians’ minimum will meet Trump’s maximum.”
As I say, whoever is speaking on behalf of the Iranian regime seems to think the regime has Trump over a barrel. The Journal quotes Iran’s military spokesman suggesting that the United States was negotiating with itself to extract us from a “strategic defeat.” Trump’s public optimism on an imminent resolution of the conflict has to make us wonder what’s happening here.
