I never went to law school – to my mother’s regret – but I could steer an oil tanker through the legal and moral loopholes of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. There are so many issues we could be here until the 12th Imam (Islamic messiah) comes, discussing them all. 

I had an opportunity to discuss these with my friend Bobby Gunther Walsh on Allentown’s popular 790WAEB radio show. I started out in jest, thanking President Trump for giving us something to talk about, as if there was nothing else going on. But the truth is that there’s nothing funny about it. 

Gunther asked me my impression, and I immediately jumped into the details. He interrupted. “I’m not interested in the minutiae,” he said. To Gunther, there’s one bottom line: the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot be trusted to sign and uphold any deal. We agreed. Nevertheless to the extent that the minutiae matters, that it opens up wide shipping lanes for the Islamic Republic to exploit, and that it is just a bad deal for the US, it’s important to discuss why the deal is so bad other than the undeniable truth that one of the partners to the deal cannot be trusted to uphold its terms. Ever. 

So what are the minutiae that matter?  First of all, it is a long, drawn-out MOU, not a peace deal. Anyone who uses the word peace is fooling themselves, and you. 

There has been no surrender by the Islamic Republic, no end of the war. Not the war that started in 2026, or 2025, but the war that started with the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. If there is no surrender, there is no victory. Just enabling what has been into the future. 

The MOU does not establish the restoration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, nor provide for the return of the US embassy that was taken by the Islamic Republic agents in 1979. It does not end the indoctrination of young children and clerics that the United States is the Great Satan, nor end of chants and threats, Death to America. 

Basically, the MOU provides for another half century of hostilities with an adversary and enemy that wants to destroy the United States. That is not a win. 

There are multiple references in the MOU to the “final agreement” that will be negotiated within 60 days, or maybe longer. From my perspective, it looks more like the final solution, throwing Israel (and others) under the bus.  

The MOU is flawed from the very first sentence, stating the “United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”  In fact, Lebanon is referenced three times. None of them are good. This references Israel without even acknowledging its existence or right to self-defense, tying Israel’s hand with an agreement it did not negotiate and has not signed. And it gives Iran the veto over action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. How will Israel continue to be able to operate in Lebanon against the Iranian proxy Hezbollah, and how and why was the Islamic Republic given the authority to have such influence over Lebanon at all? I can only imagine that Lebanese who want to live without the brutality of Hezbollah dominating their country are feeling as thrown under the bus as Israelis are. They have been thrown under the bus, too. 

Regarding nuclear weapons and nuclear material, the issue about which President Trump seemed most adamant that they “will never get,” the contradictions of the MOU are so robust that one’s brain is left spinning about as fast as the Iranian nuclear centrifuges. 

Two sentences, back-to-back, highlight that contradiction clearly. “The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material…” For decades, the ayatollahs have lied in plain sight, stating that they have no desire to acquire nuclear weapons. So, the reiteration of this lie is just another lie. Who is foolish enough not to see that, much less to allow it as the language of such an agreement? My mother would have been proud of her non-lawyer son. 

But then the very next sentence talks about their own enriched nuclear material for which there is no purpose other than nuclear weapons. Did President Trump never see the iconic Joe Isuzu commercials with Joe the spokesman lying overtly in ways that are so ridiculous that they are funny? The Iranians must have. “We reiterate that we don’t want nuclear weapons but we have spent decades building a nuclear weapons program, and we need to agree on what’s going to happen to the highly enriched uranium that we have, for nuclear weapons, that we reiterate that we don’t aspire to, but about which we have lied from the get-go.”

The treachery continues in the next clause, “Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program.” Now that they have lied in black and white, the United States has signed on to endorse the lie; they double down and insist on maintaining the status quo regarding the nuclear program that they lied about having to begin with. You just can’t make this stuff up. 

The MOU states the parties will “refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs,” but makes no assertion to the vast army of agents the Islamic Republic has planted throughout the United States precisely to interfere with its internal affairs. Will they pack up and go home? Will they leave their jobs in government, the public sector, media, etc., and be recalled to Tehran? The MOU certainly does not expect that, so we can expect continued malicious interference in American internal affairs as sanctioned by the MOU. 

The MOU commits the United States “to ending all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.” My question is if Israel is referenced in the first clause, albeit anonymously, why should the Islamic Republic not equally be responsible for the same terms and cessation of the diplomatic war against Israel? This is so absurdly one sided, if it were an oil tanker, it would capsize.  

The cyanide-laced icing on the cake is sanctions relief, release of $12-24 billion in unmonitored funds to the ayatollahs and IRGC, and another $300 billion to be invested in rebuilding Iran. Does one think that the masters who funded Hamas and Hezbollah and facilitated their building and hiding vast networks of underground bunkers and arms will not use these funds to do the exact same thing, on steroids? Note the language, not suggesting or establishing a goal, but a “comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion.” Ensuring. Guaranteeing. 

Missing from the MOU are any references to the Islamic Republic’s arsenal of ballistic missiles, which presently threaten Israel, the Gulf Arab states, and even Europe. Sadly, Trump commented on this at the G7, stating that if other countries have ballistic missiles, why should Iran be prevented from doing so? The MOU has not a single word about funding the Islamic Republic proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, just to name a few). Rather than cutting off the head of the octopus to make its tentacles wither and die, this feeds the octopus and makes it and the tentacles stronger, more dangerous, and, according to the MOU, untouchable. 

There’s not a word about the 90 million Iranians who will remain hostage to this messianic, genocidal, Islamic regime. There’s not a word that gives a sense of any action behind Trump’s January declaration “Help is on the way.” Rather than helping the Iranian people, this helped set up the massacre of tens of thousands of Iranians in a matter of days, with hundreds of thousands injured. The Iranian people have been thrown under the bus too. 

I almost didn’t write this. What’s the need for another voice against the deal with Iran, against any deal with Iran, when there are so many? What’s the need to discuss that at its inception, per Gunther’s correct observation, that no deal with the Islamic Republic can be trusted, much less these and other details, minutiae, that make every clause of the MOU invalid? The answer is that there cannot be too much said about how bad this is and how dangerous it is. 

One more thing. In advance of my conversation with Gunther, I looked into whether there was ever any example in history of a Moslem state, empire, or Islamist movement voluntarily accepting terms that permanently limited their power, territory, military activity, or political influence. The short, the instructive and dangerously relevant answer is no. 

I was reminded of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, an MOU if you will, signed by the Islamic prophet himself.  It was a temporary agreement in 628 CE between Mohammed and the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. While many of Mohammed’s own followers were unhappy with the terms, which seemed unfavorable to the Moslems, the treaty became a strategic weapon.

The treaty allowed the Moslem community to grow in strength, consolidate its position in Medina, and engage in diplomacy and missionary activity without the constant threat of war from the Quraysh, then the most powerful tribe in the region. It also indirectly led to the conversion of several prominent Meccans to Islam during the ceasefire period, legitimizing Mohammed as a political and religious leader who Mecca was obligated to treat with respect rather than suppress.

Shockingly, the treaty was broken before its ten-year term ended. This gave Mohammed the pretext to march on Mecca in 630 CE, leading to its conquest, since the city’s defenses and will to resist had been weakened, and many Quraysh leaders had already converted or reconciled with Mohammed in the intervening years. In Islam, the treaty is cited as a tactical, temporary peace – and military and theological precedent – that ultimately enabled a much larger strategic and Islamic victory. Sound familiar? 

I guess President Trump got tired of winning. With this MOU and its buffet of faulty terms, we all lose. That cannot be overstated or stated enough.