Deal With Iran: Imperfect but What Americans Want

When it comes to the war with Iran and the ensuing peace deal, there are four distinct reactions in the United States. The largest and most significant group consists of those who opposed the war but now support peace, representing the majority of Americans who have consistently expressed dissatisfaction with another Middle East conflict and welcome any agreement that eases the burden of gasoline and food prices.

The smallest group comprises those who support both war and peace, mainly the White House communications team and President Donald Trump himself. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers in Congress fall into the category of opposing both war and peace, united only in their opposition to any action by the president. The second group includes Republican lawmakers who once championed the war but now express disappointment upon reviewing the terms of the memorandum, arguing it is no better than former President Barack Obama's 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

This agreement could become problematic for the Trump administration if he decides that Congress has a role in approving any long-term deal after several months of negotiations. It is hard to assert that what the president achieved is significantly better than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of Obama.

However, this war has yielded several important lessons. First, overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with a government friendly to Israel and the United States is impossible without ground forces. Americans do not support any infantry attack, even on Kharg Island.

Second, when necessary, the U.S. and Israel have the will and capability to eliminate Iranian leadership, despite laws prohibiting the assassination of foreign leaders. Third, Iran possesses numerous assets that can disrupt the global economy and neighboring Middle Eastern countries, making an attack costly.

Fourth, Israel cannot be trusted for a short and easy war in the Middle East; things are always more complicated than they appear. Fifth, NATO allies do not support the U.S. in wars of choice. Sixth, Iran is a difficult negotiating partner, so no deal is ever truly final; the president retains the authority to bomb Iran if it violates commitments.

Seventh, President Trump knows when to fold a bad hand and is willing to abandon Israel as an ally to achieve his goals. Eighth, there can be no revolution in Tehran when the U.S. and Israel are bombing together; war only strengthens the Iranian regime. The best way to drive change is to tighten economic measures.

Ninth, if you plan to decapitate a regime, leave someone to negotiate with. An unexpected challenge has been finding a willing and capable partner to represent the Iranian people. Finally, the only group truly concerned about American interests is the American people themselves. They steadfastly opposed the war from the beginning and now want it to end—they want lower gas prices, easier daily life, an end to bloodshed, and a stop to wasting resources.

Democratic lawmakers have shown intellectual inconsistency throughout this event. They acknowledge the Iranian regime is at war not only with the U.S. and Israel but also with its own people, and admit the JCPOA had serious flaws, yet they oppose Trump's actions because they do not trust him. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are consistent but out of step with their constituents. They supported the war but do not admit that Americans, including the president's supporters, oppose the goal of regime change. These war hawks would rather continue the war than support an imperfect peace.

It will be up to the president and his team to justify this imperfect peace. Though not flawless, it could lead to economic growth and more affordable prices as voters head to the polls in November.