What is bringing glee to the Left and furor among many on the Right? Trump’s tentative “memorandum of understanding” with Iran. In American Greatness, Victor Davis Hanson reminds readers that the Left may welcome peace, but not as much as it enjoys infighting on the Right over the details.

Last week, Democrats were calling Donald Trump a fascist warmonger. This week, they compare his war efforts to those of Neville Chamberlain, portraying him as a patsy and impotent appeaser.

Was it only a week ago that some Republicans were arguing that not one of the prior seven presidents had dared to use force to stop Iran’s nuclear program? Now some of them are deriding Trump as an “Iranian enabler.”

Concerns are legitimate, as VDH notes, about the idea of third-party cash infusions to the regime and claims that violence in Lebanon is somehow Israel’s fault. In truth, history shows that Hezbollah, with Iranian financial support, has consistently instigated violence and then, when Israel—or the U.S. in past conflicts—responds disproportionately, claims victimhood.

“Much of the current hysteria assumes a radical change in Trump’s strategy rather than a continuity that has brought us to the current denouement.” What needs to be considered is the wider strategic context of the memorandum, the critical role of domestic public opinion in shaping how wars are conducted, and the broader strategy of isolating and weakening the regime.

Unknown until foreigners are allowed into the country is the full extent of the damage done: fiscal, economic, and military damage to Iran.

Why did Trump, asks VDH, agree to a memorandum that does not treat Iran as a strategically defeated opponent without options?

Iran has been militarily damaged, but it does not yet consider itself strategically inert. The regime has little concern for the welfare of its own people and assumes Trump will not retaliate against dual-use targets in the manner of most past presidents who ordered bombing campaigns.

Don’t forget, VDH reminds readers, Trump could have gotten a much better deal had “we dealt with the Iranians as we did with the once-defeated Iraqis and Taliban, whose governments were forcibly replaced by ones more agreeable to U.S. demands.”

With a population of 93 million, Iran is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, which together required decades of U.S. ground troops, $2 trillion in spending, 7,000 American deaths, and 53,000 wounded. In the end, those efforts still did not result in lasting Western-style governments aligned with U.S. interests.

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was as large or as formidable as Iran.

To fully dictate terms to Iran as if it were an inert protectorate, the U.S. would either have to bomb it to smithereens or send in thousands of ground troops, both politically unpalatable to the American people.

Trump must deal with the realities that Americans have been sick of dealing with the Middle East for years. By now, they believe that any costly, enforced regime change on the ground—or any years-long no-fly zone—is not worth the life of a single American soldier.

Iran may be militarily weakened, but it is not devastated. The U.S. has the ability to inflict even greater damage on Iran’s economy, and could do so without significant concern about sustaining losses in a “forever war.”

For example, Iran could strike Kuwait with another missile. Trump could then adopt the 1999 Bill Clinton-style approach to Serbia:

When that bombing stalemated in its fifth week, and Slobodan Milosevic remained defiant, Clinton ordered the bridges on the Danube taken out. And when there were still no concessions, NATO planes began dropping graphite bombs to disable 70 percent of the Belgrade grid, which, along with other dual-use targeting, finally forced Serbia to leave Kosovo.

Thus far, Trump has avoided the Clinton/Obama-style bombing campaigns (e.g., Libyan TV and radio stations, industrial sites, ports, and civilian infrastructure). Should Iran fail to honor its commitments—as VDH believes it will—the regime would have limited ability to sustain its utilities, roads, and transportation systems if the U.S. were to disable key infrastructure over a short campaign.

The Advantage Goes to the US

By disproportionally hitting an entire array of dual-use targets, the US can force Iran to adhere to its agreements at any time.

Why a Republican Loss Is Not Preordained this November

Republicans will likely win the redistricting wars, both in red state legislatures and through the Supreme Court outlawing racial gerrymandering. They might then pick up between five and ten new seats.

The Democrat Party has gone full socialist. And it has de facto embraced a number of unpopular 30/70 issues including property confiscations, open borders, transgender chauvinism, restoration of DEI, the New Green Deal, and 10,000 illegal border entries a day.