Weighing the war
US won, must enforce accountability for Iran
SHAUN McCUTCHEON
The outcome of the military action between the United States and Iran is clear when measured by military capability, economic leverage, strategic position and long-term deterrence: America dramatically weakened one of the world's most dangerous and unpredictable regimes and secured a decisive victory. Iran is diminished, exposed and with fewer options.
For decades, the Iranian people have lived under a government that fears freedom above all else. It fears free speech, dissent and the powerful human desire to assemble publicly and demand dignity, truth and self-government.
Brave Iranian citizens took to the streets calling for liberty, only to be met with bullets, prison cells, torture and death. Thousands of protesters have been beaten, arrested and killed for exercising rights Americans consider foundational. When a government fears the voices of its own people, it reveals its weakness. A government that murders its citizens for speaking the truth is not a government acting from confidence. It is a regime fighting for survival.
America's previous nuclear deal with Iran was hardly a deal at all. Iran received cash, relief from sanctions and economic breathing room. In return, the world got delays, loopholes and false promises. Centrifuges were spinning while the ink on the deal was drying. Missile and drone stockpiles grew as money flowed to terrorist proxies across the Middle East. As violations occurred, the strongest response the United States and its allies often could muster was unenforced sanctions that amounted to little more than a strongly worded letter.
The situation is different today because American leadership is different.
Iran is not negotiating from strength. Its naval capabilities are devastated. Its conventional military power is severely degraded. Its ability to build or launch missiles is sharply constrained. Its regional deterrence is exposed as weaker than advertised. Most important, Iran cannot sell one drop of oil to the global market without the United States allowing it, directly or indirectly, through enforcement decisions.
Iran's old playbook depended on leverage, time and American leadership unwilling to impose meaningful consequences. The regime's ability to manipulate negotiations is dramatically reduced because the leverage it once relied on is largely gone.
That is why claims that Iran somehow "won" are detached from reality. Iran lost military capacity, strategic leverage, economic flexibility and the illusion of invulnerability.
Many of Iran's senior leaders and military planners are gone. What remains is hardly a confident regional power. It is a junior varsity team suddenly forced onto the field after the starters were taken out. Many of those still in power are effectively operating in survival mode and hiding.
Meanwhile, the U.S. proved that American power still matters when used decisively. Deterrence is built when adversaries believe the U.S. is willing to act and capable of imposing real consequences, and that message was clearly delivered.
Iran will not become a nuclear power. The only question is how the regime chooses to arrive at that outcome. Whether through negotiation, sustained economic strangulation or military action, if necessary, the objective remains non-negotiable that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.
Critics will point to higher gas prices or market volatility. They will argue this was a conflict nobody wanted or a war of choice. No rational person wants war. But something is far more dangerous than higher gas prices. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the global order, embolden terrorist networks, trigger a regional arms race and threaten international shipping lanes.
The Iranian people deserve freedom. The world needs security. And the regime in Tehran now faces the reality of enforced accountability. As the fighting slows and diplomacy continues, victory is shared by America, the region, the world and the Iranian people. The Iranian regime must comply or accept severe consequences.
McCutcheon is a free-speech advocate and electrical engineer. He wrote this for Insidesources.com.
Regime turning military defeat into victory
HUSSAIN ABDUL-HUSSAIN
Israel's 12-day war with Iran last year and President Donald Trump's attacks in recent months shattered the myth of Iran's military might, inflicting heavy losses on the Islamic Republic and forcing it to the negotiating table.
But Tehran is already attempting to reclaim through diplomacy what it lost on the battlefield. It wants a quick deal, and that is dangerously premature.
U.S. requirements for a long-term peace are reasonable. In exchange for permanently halting uranium enrichment, sharply curtailing its ballistic missile program and severing support for its proxies across the region, Iran would gain access to billions in frozen oil revenues. America also would lift sanctions on banking, shipping and insurance. This would allow Islamic Iran to resume legal oil exports and use the revenue to repair and recharge its domestically brutal and regionally troublemaking regime.
Before any final deal could be reached, America and Iran had to let go of each other's hair. They signed an interim memorandum of understanding June 17. Under the 60-day renewable agreement, Iran committed to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's energy passes, in return for Washington lifting its naval blockade on Iranian ports, allowing Tehran to resume its oil exports. The language was left deliberately ambiguous to help both governments manage domestic opposition.
Iran wasted no time exploiting that ambiguity. The agreement required an end to military operations "on all fronts." Iran interpreted this to include a ceasefire with Hezbollah. The U.S. and Israel obliged. But Tehran immediately claimed the text also required Israeli withdrawal from the security zone it established in southern Lebanon, a demand that does not appear in the agreement.
In the early days of the tentative deal, Iranian Parliament Speaker Muhammad Qalibaf told his Lebanese counterpart that withdrawal would be negotiated only during the final talks. Later, Iranian officials changed their minds after it seemed Hezbollah saw a strategic disadvantage.
If the fighting stopped while Israel retained control of Lebanese territory, Jerusalem would hold decisive leverage to demand that Hezbollah surrender its weapons to the Lebanese state in return for Israeli withdrawal. This would destroy the group's central narrative. For years, Hezbollah claimed its arms had liberated Lebanese land. Now those same arms would become the reason for a continued Israeli presence.
Rather than accept such a reversal, Hezbollah resumed attacks on Israel, prompting Israeli military responses. Tehran then accused Washington of violating the memorandum of understanding by not reining in Israel. Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz again and instructed its delegation to refuse to attend the scheduled negotiations with Vice President JD Vance in Switzerland.
The regime continues to test limits, manufacture crises and seek to reverse its wartime losses at the bargaining table. Its conduct since the memorandum of understanding was signed shows no fundamental change in behavior.
Trump so far has avoided repeating the mistakes past administrations made, but he cannot let his guard down against the treacherous regime.
History demonstrates that Tehran uses negotiations primarily to buy time, relieve pressure and rebuild its capabilities. Ambiguous interim agreements have repeatedly allowed Tehran to pocket concessions while delaying or evading core demands.
This moment offers a rare opportunity created by military pressure. That pressure should be maintained until Iran either fully accepts the three core conditions or the regime faces the prospect of collapse. Anything less risks turning a significant American military success into an Iranian diplomatic victory.
Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for the defense of democracies. He wrote this for Insidesources.com.
