By Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematics, Tulane) and Walter E. Block.
B-2 enroute to Iran. Screenshot via X
Given the recent Memorandum Of Understanding between the US and Iran, it is easy, way too far easy, to make the case for pessimism from the perspective of those who support Zionism. This is the view that Jews are entitled to have a homeland of their own in the Middle East, right where they are now located, and it should safe and secure.
What is this case for gloom? When the US and Israel started their war against Iran in late March of 2026, there were several goals. The key was unconditional surrender of the present murderous Iranian regime. All else pretty much followed from that element. For example, regime change. There was even talk of the return of the Shah. Then, the present administration would presumably have had to face a Nuremburg Trial for their war crimes, purposeful attacks on Israeli civilians, support for the terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. It would be a done deal that Iranian nuclear facilities, abilities, enriched uranium, etc., would be a thing of the past.
In the event the MOU attains none of these desiderata. Worse, the Hormuz situation is still uncertain. Horrendous, there will be a payment of some $300 billion not from Iran to Israel or the US, but in the very opposite direction. This puts into the shade Barack Obama’s deal with the Iranians, which was heavily criticized, and properly so, by none other than Donald Trump. Far worse than even that, the US is demanding that Israel not defend itself against Hezbollah. Even worser (if we can be excused for butchering the English language), Benjamin Netanyahu has said: “Israel’s military would stay in a security zone of southern Lebanon as long as Israel’s security needs require it.” Yes, to be sure, that is one consideration, and important one. But no, no, no, the border of Israel should henceforth extend, permanently, at least as far north as the Litani Rivier in Lebanon. Those marauders must be taught a lesson: invade Israel, send drones and bombs, target non-combatants in that country, and you lose territory.
It is for these reasons that panic is widespread in Israel, and “betrayal” is on everyone’s lips. David Horovitz has gone so far as to claim that Trump’s deal is a “catastrophic capitulation” to Iran’s aggressors and leaves Israel vulnerable and constrained. This melancholy outlook is further buttressed by a not totally unreasonable Iranian Declaration of “Superpower status” after the MOU, on the basis of defeating “Two Nuclear Powers.” Mr. Trump, the best friend of Israel of any US president, has used the “F” word on his Israeli counterpart, Mr. Netanyahu.
So much for the overwhelming case for pessimism. Is that even a glimmer of a possibility of any argument for optimism? Yes, there is.
Mr. Trump entered the current fight (not the war, which started some 47 years ago), with the assurance from the US military that they could keep the Strait of Hormuz open, and further, that the US had more than enough ammunition in their stockpiles to completely finish the job.
Trump said recently that if he had not made this deal, Hormuz would be closed for years, and this would have crashed the US stock market, and do enormous damage to the world economy.
In the event, however, here are rumors that the US is running short of ammunition, specifically Tomahawk and Patriot missiles. Furthermore, the US has no good anti-drone drones. Trump would never say if the latter were true, of course. It would be his duty to keep quiet about this particular problem, if it truly exists.
If these two possibilities are true, then the positive idea behind the Deal would be this: (1) Give the Gulf States a year or so, and they will build pipelines that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, so that in the future, closure of the Strait will have little or no effect on the US or the world economy. (2) Give Trump a year or so, and he will have re-built the US munitions supply, and developed a defense against Iranian drones.
Within a year or so, Trump figures the Iranians will violate their side of the Deal, which would allow him to restart the fight, and this time, in the last year of his Presidency, he would continue the fight until he gets Regime Change and all of the rest of Unconditional Surrender.
Ok, we admit it, this is not much of a case for Zionist optimism. But we are determined to make lemonade. We are inspired by two claims: “beggars cannot be choosers,” and “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” Israel is now in dire straights thanks to this horrendous MOU, but we should all keep a stiff upper lip. (We can’t help it; we’ve got metaphoritis.)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.