Trump's Illusory Agreements and Understandings

The author contends that agreements and understandings reached with Americans and Israelis should not be taken seriously, drawing a parallel with Iran's experience. According to the piece, Iran realized that the U.S. signs agreements with the intention of breaking them and harming the other party shortly after. Former President Donald Trump is portrayed as someone who readily signs documents for global media attention, smiling for cameras as a supposed peacemaker, despite his involvement in numerous conflicts.

The article alleges a pattern of duplicity, citing an instance where Trump supposedly signed an agreement with Iran involving a ceasefire in Lebanon and U.S. troop withdrawal. However, it claims he then influenced Lebanese authorities to reject this deal and sign another with Israel. This alleged second agreement would have granted Israel the right to occupy desired areas of southern Lebanon and required Lebanon to cooperate with Israeli forces in suppressing the Lebanese resistance and permanently displacing residents.

Furthermore, the author claims Trump signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran only to subsequently strike the island of Sirik as a test of Iran's response. The piece suggests Trump believes agreements bind the other party but allow him the freedom to violate them periodically. This is not presented as speculation but as a reflection of American statements indicating that strikes on Sirik would not halt the agreement or future negotiations. This tactic is compared to Israel's approach during a truce with Hezbollah, where Israel continued to kill Lebanese citizens daily while Hezbollah adhered to the ceasefire.

Trump's strategy, as described, is to normalize intermittent actions like missile launches or ship attacks during negotiations, making adversaries comfortable with minor strikes. The expectation is that Iran, having suffered the ravages of war, would rationally avoid violating the agreement, especially since the U.S. strikes would be limited and targeted. However, the article asserts that Iran has sensed the danger and understood this plan. It posits that Iran, having paid all prices upfront for the 2015 deal with Obama without receiving promised benefits, will not repeat this mistake and will demand tangible returns before proceeding. This stance is deemed unacceptable by Israeli and American standards, making war inevitable, according to the author. The piece concludes with a lament about the role of American security companies, referred to as governments, and the Lebanese army, which might be compelled to fight against Lebanese citizens defending their land.