NOTE: Nothing that I write below should in any way be read as an endorsement of Iran, its theocracy, its leadership, or its culpability. I, like I imagine most of you who read this, would like to see a cessation of hostilities before the U.S. chooses to destroy the civilian infrastructure in Iran. But it is also incumbent for us to look at the ongoing negotiations from a realistic standpoint. Negotiations taking place with a fatal flaw to start will never succeed.
I have written in the past about how difficult it is to make a deal with Mr. Trump based on his history of violating the deals that he makes. This week demonstrates, once again, this difficulty. For the Iranian negotiators attempting to work out some sort of agreement during this ceasefire, the issue of how to trust the U.S. President to stand by his side of a deal is a challenge to overcome.
Why?
1. According to the Lieber Institute at West Point, a CEASEFIRE is an “an agreement that effectuates the suspension of ongoing hostilities between opposing belligerents…the “suspension of hostilities” is most accurately defined as “a suspension of active military operations of a hostile character.”
The U.S. agreed to enter a ceasefire with Iran for a period of 2 weeks.
2. Prior to the ceasefire, Iran had successfully blocked the Strait of Hormuz to all traffic, except for a few tankers of its own oil. This was the status quo at the time that the ceasefire was announced.
3. According to the Naval War College, a BLOCKADE is "a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation."
“It is a method of naval WARFARE to which the general principles and rules of the law of naval warfare-the maritime jus in bello also apply.”
During the 2-week CEASEFIRE, the U.S. unilaterally initiated an ACT OF WAR by establishing a Naval BLOCKADE around Iranian ports. This was not done in response to any new actions of Iran.
How can anyone expect any future agreement on peace to be binding when the negotiators on the other side of the table see that the U.S. violated their own ceasefire? And violated within 1 week of announcing it.
If the U.S. government decides that they are the only ones who can determine what are the actual meanings of internationally agreed upon definitions, definitions that have been adopted by our own military, can any words in any agreement be truly understood to mean what they have meant in the past?
Some might come back at this discussion with “Can you trust the Iranians?” That is a fair point also; but I am not an Iranian, I am a patriotic American, and I am troubled by how the world now sees my country and its leadership.
I do not have an answer to this perplexing problem. If I were on the other side of the table I don’t know how I could be assured that any future agreement would hold.