Can the US-Iran peace deal hold? | John Mearsheimer & Trita Parsi
Tuesday, June 23, 2026 4:35 PM
Friends + Interlocutors,
This is a tad too optimistic. The premise is that we—Israel and the U.S.—lost the war, so there is no alternative but a peaceful settlement, and Trump has no choice but to negotiate it. This does seem to be what is happening at the moment. It is surprising.
Of course, Iran did not exactly “win” the war. But just by surviving the onslaught, it won. Iran was hit by a sneak attack when it was at the negotiating table with Washington. Such an attack was an act of perfidy, an outrage. Did anybody in Washington object at the time? Nobody of any importance.
The sanctimonious Democrats impeached Trump twice in his first term on utterly bogus charges. I’ve heard of the Imperial Presidency, but this is too much. Trump cooks up a war with his erstwhile sidekick, Bibi Netanyahu, the leader of a country which has been committing genocide for years, and there is no pushback. If ever there were grounds for impeachment, this was it.
But now, the pushback, the condemnation from both the establishment Dems and the establishment Repubs, is over Trump's attempt to negotiate an end to the pointless war which he had no business and no authority to start in the first place.
Establishment bigwig Tom Friedman has a nervous breakdown in a NY Times editorial a few days ago: "This was not a war I advocated, but once it started I was sure hoping Iran would lose. As such, I am shocked by the outcome so far.” Is that clear? Let Trump give it a try. What have we got to lose?
The me-too, Israel-first crowd did not condemn and was not shocked by a predatory illegal war launched by Trump, but it is deeply upset and offended by the no-win outcome which leaves the besieged Iran standing.
Mearsheimer and Trita Parsi marvel at Trump’s abrupt, U-turn. It would seem that the only logical explanation is that Trump has no choice. He’d love to get away with murder, but it hasn’t worked this time. Military and economic realities have intervened. So Trump has made a business decision to cut his losses. I agree, but I doubt this war is over.
Israel and its American fifth columnists, fellow-travelers (like Friedman), and assorted camp followers have not given up. Yesterday, I checked in with Fox News to see how the spin was going. I forget the man’s name, either a Senator or Congressman, was being interviewed. He justified Trump’s war with the old chestnut that Iran was another Middle East terrorist threat America had to deal with. We confront them over there, he said, or they come here. In this case, it might be an Iranian nuke missile.
I don’t remember the man’s party. He could have been a Democrat. The point is that such nonsense is taken seriously. It is the underlying premise, often unstated, which justifies the unholy partnership with our “ally” Israel. Washington's recurring wars in the Middle East on Israel’s behalf are the result. The justification was false when GW Bush used it during the Iraq fiasco, and it remains false today with respect to Iran.
Mearsheimer and Parsi are hopeful and assume that reality and common sense will prevail. That is anybody’s guess. Please recall that the last time an American President publicly confronted Israel was back in 1991, when HW Bush balked at providing U.S. loan guarantees for new settlements on the West Bank.
HW wanted to delay the loans for 120 days and for Israel to agree to not build any more settlements on the West Bank and Gaza. Recall back then that official Washington policy was that the West Bank and Gaza were Israeli occupied territory which belonged to the Palestinians. Nowadays, the West Bank is hardly considered in Washington's calculations and the Palestinians in Gaza have been thrown to the dogs.
The upshot for HW Bush? The U.S. President lost. The Israel Lobby went into action on Capitol Hill. To quote The Times of Israel…
During that quagmire, Bush famously complained that “there are 1,000 lobbyists up on the Hill today lobbying Congress for loan guarantees for Israel and I’m one lonely little guy down here asking Congress to delay its consideration of loan guarantees for 120 days.”
The notion of the president — leader of the world’s only super power — as “one lonely little guy” going up against the pro-Israel lobby has become a staple of the narrative that Israel backers wield excessive power in the American political system.
Supposedly, Bush won a concession when Israel agreed to take part in the Madrid conference to settle once and for all the Palestine conflict. But that of course came to nothing, and HW went on to be a one-term President, ushering in the Bill and Hillary Clinton Presidency. The lesson for the occupant of the White House was clear. Again, The Times of Israel…
It was not until the very end of his presidency that Obama allowed the passage of a UN Security Council resolution that criticized settlements, having protected Israel with his veto throughout the first 7.9 years of his time in the White House.
The fact that he waited until his last days in office, despite an increasingly acrimonious relationship with the Netanyahu administration, was a sign that Bush’s hard-learned lesson has continued to reverberate in Washington.
True, Trump is not running for a 3rd term. (Or is he?) Trump is already in hot water with almost everybody. He is floundering. Can we expect he will go to the mat with Israel and its minions in America and defy his biggest donors? This I’ve got to see.
Patrick
=====