If It’s True

"Strategic" experts, political commentators and journalists have spent countless hours analyzing and interpreting the U.S.-Iran agreement, while almost none of them know any of its details. Some have felt embarrassed, so they keep repeating the phrase, "if what was announced is true." The whole thing has seemed like the parable of "The Blind Men and the Elephant," where blind men describe an elephant they have never seen. Each one of them touches a different part of the elephant's body and begins to describe it, yet they speak as if they knew the whole truth.

The terms of the U.S.-Iran agreement are shrouded in ambiguity. With the exception of the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, a simultaneous lifting of the U.S. blockade and an immediate cessation of military operations, there are no details or information.

Between Donald Trump's exaggerations and his call to the ships of the world to "start your engines, let the oil flow," and Iran's reticence, the truth remains missing, at least for now. Almost no one knows what will happen. Trump has spoken of an immediate opening of the strait, then backtracked, saying it is conditional on signing a memorandum of understanding in Geneva this Friday.

An Iranian news agency said that the memorandum stipulates the reopening of the strait within 30 days. The question then arises, how can the strait be reopened without removing the mines planted by Iran? Lebanon is another contentious issue: It is unclear how the memorandum has dealt with it. Trump didn’t mention it, focusing on the strait and the nuclear program. The Pakistani mediator has confirmed that the ceasefire covers all fronts, including Lebanon. What is the truth? And did Israel capitulate, or does the agreement not concern it? The nuclear program is the mother of all issues and disputes. Trump has asserted that Iran would not possess a nuclear weapon, but the Pakistanis said that talks on the program will continue over the next 60 days. The ambiguity does not stop there. What is the amount of frozen Iranian assets that the U.S. will release? There is intense contradiction.

Most likely, this vagueness is deliberate. Its aim is to market the agreement domestically and satisfy public opinion. Thanks to the ambiguity, each party can market the narrative that suits itself. Trump will continue his claims that there shall not be an Iranian nuclear program and that it was the military operations which forced Iran to submit and open the strait. Tehran, for its part, can say that the memorandum confirms its steadfastness on the battlefield and in negotiations and its victory without making concessions. Both sides can temporarily avoid the outrage of the hardliners: the Zionist-leaning American Republican hawks who want the annihilation of Iran and the hardline wing in Iran, especially the Revolutionary Guard. There is an implicit U.S.-Iran agreement to buy time and postpone the major points of disagreement. The ambiguity provides room for maneuver, tactical retreat and the request for amendments to some clauses.

Ambiguity is a lifeline for diplomacy. The Arabs were burned by its flames in 1967. The wording of U.N. Resolution 242, which states in its English version "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," rather than "the territories" as it appeared in the French version, allowed the resolution to pass. But the tragic repercussions continue to this day. Ambiguity may be a solution for a while. But it has no future. Congress will insist on debating the agreement, and the upcoming talks will reveal the details. Then, there will be no room for the phrase "if it is true." Unfortunately, it will soon be evident that most of what the experts and politicians are yapping about these days is a load of trash and noise.