(This article was written by Ernie Audino and appeared on Frontlines of Freedom. Diplomacy Without Military Reality Is Fantasy — Our “MOU” With Iran)

Former CIA operative, Sam Faddis, published one of the first, accurate analyses of this crazy MOU we just signed with the patron of global Islamist terrorism. He discussed it with me on the show this week, and it’s another opportunity to hear hard truths based on relevant experience.

First, a little about Sam. He an Army vet, then later CIA operator and head of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Unit at the CIA Counter Terrorism Center. He infilled into the Kurdish north of Iraq in 2002 to prep the AO for our subsequent invasion (Opn Iraqi Freedom) in March, 2003. He’s got years of experience on the ground in the area, specifically along the Iranian border, but he also has years of direct experience with Iran’s nuclear program. He knows what he’s talking about.

But let me start with this – In the Real World of international relations, compliance with any document signed between nations is inherently voluntary. The international lawyers of the species will disagree, of course (because they make their living on this Fantasy), but unless one of those signatures was procured in the face of overwhelming combat power, noncompliance has no compelling sanction. This is why War exists.

As to Iran. We initiated combat. We ceased combat. We negotiated. Then we signed an MOU. Our entering into this MOU was a political decision. It wasn’t a result of a compelling military reality.

So, it’s worth asking why? Why agree to a set of conditions that we don’t control into the future? Let me re-state that…we don’t control the conditions agreed to in this MOU. And yet, the subject matter in the MOU is too important, and the stakes are too high, so why risk it all on a mere signature?

The only plausible answer is because the decision-maker must perceive other risks to be higher. That the President perceives some risk, somewhere, that is greater than the risk of a nuclear ayatollah. That some other risk somewhere exceeds the risk of an ayatollah in control of the Straits of Hormuz. That an ayatollah able to hold hostage 1/3rd of the world’s daily maritime transit of energy is acceptable, because some other risk, somewhere, is scarier. That the risk of the patron of global, Islamist terror, able to continue funding terror operations against Western Humanity is worth taking, because something is more important.

Okay, what is this thing that is more important?

Is it the potential political costs of mid-term elections that go the wrong way? Is that it? Is it because the isolationists advising the WH think Americans won’t accept a longer war? If that’s it, then these politicos better start acting like statesmen and not amateurs. If they want to “advise” on war, then they better start studying war. They can start with Clauzewitz, and specifically with his observation that “it’s the value of the objective that determines the magnitude and duration of any war any nation will wage in its pursuit.” If we understand that the stakes are extremely high, then we will do what’s necessary and endure what we must.

So, for those advising the president…look in the mirror, kids. If you guys advising the president think Americans won’t support a longer war on Iran….then you either think stopping a nuclear ayatollah ain’t that important….or you do, but you failed to help the rest of us understand how important it is.

As to the MOU. First, it’s largely an agreement to reach a final agreement…so consider everything in it locked in Jello. Second, it’s chock full of weasel words, ie vacuous statements that sound important, but mean nothing. They have no binding effect. Third, Iran and its proxies are going to ruin the deal anyway. In fact, they already have. As of today, Saturday, they’ve already announced they’ve closed the Straits again. Wait, but I thought they signed a paper saying they wouldn’t??!! WTF??

Of the MOU’s 14 terms, only 3 take effect immediately, but they are concerning. First, we agreed to IMMEDIATELY LIFT OUR BLOCKADE. Our doing that is irrational, as it is our only remaining leverage on the Regime. Second, we agreed to immediately ease the export restrictions on Iranian crude. Amazing. So, now the regime can start earning money again and replenishing its war chest (Yes, elements of regime leadership already said that is exactly what they’re going to do). Third, we agreed to the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon”! How is this possible, when neither Lebanon, Hezbollah, nor Israel are parties to this MOU??

There’s plenty more to analyze in the document, including a small matter of $300B, too much to get into here. Click on the link to hear Sam Faddis and I dig into them: https://frontlinesoffreedom.com/show-965/

Ernie Audino is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.