The Memorandum of Understanding Is a Temporary Framework, Not a Capitulation
President Trump made the correct choice in working to end the Iran War. He prevented what could have been a legacy-defining mistake capable of sinking his administration and the MAGA movement. Trump took the better option, though not without its own pitfalls, and avoided what could have been another protracted U.S. war in the Middle East, of the kind that haunted the Bush administration.
Vice President Vance has become the face of the Iran War negotiations. Though some think he’s being made the face of an unpopular war of choice, this is an incorrect reading. In reality, highlighting Vance is a smart political move by the Trump administration, considering the political faction the vice president represents.
Vance has a more circumspect posture when it comes to overseas conflicts, which has been noted in every major piece of reporting on the lead-up to the Iran War. The vice president’s Buchananite instincts align with public skepticism of the U.S.’s track record in recent wars.
Though Vance doesn’t possess Trump’s charisma—who does?—his simultaneous book tour, Iran War diplomacy, and 2028 pre-presidential rollout are being well received. He’s reminding voters that he thrives in today’s media environment, especially in hostile places such as The View. Though it’s easy to get overshadowed by President Trump, Vance is displaying his immense communication skills in his own right, which will help him in 2028 and beyond.
Against the claims of some online podcasters, Vance is not acting alone or apart from the administration. His being the public face of the Iran deal is a decision that obviously has President Trump’s full blessing.
The problem lies with some in the political influencer class who are having a difficult time navigating our present moment. They seem to have forgotten the basics of politics—coalition building, the two-party system—and instead have promoted unrealizable goals, backed unpopular candidates for office, and mistaken the president’s popularity with their own.
Just as there is opposition to Vance in certain online spaces, there is also opposition within the old guard conservative sphere. Without a shred of proof, The Dispatch’s Kevin Williamson recently dismissed Vance’s conversion on Trump out of hand. This sort of argument will only help Vance with most voters on the Right. Williamson is a perfect representative of the ineffectual state of the conservative movement before Trump. The sneering contempt dripping from every word shows he’s learned precisely nothing over the past 10 years.
The Never Vance contingent will likely be as successful in stopping the vice president as they were in stopping the current president. They’re content to recycle the same arguments and make the same political miscalculations, time and time again.
But the Republican Party is no longer the party of Mike Pence—it is the party of Donald Trump. And JD Vance. The infamous Never Trump issue of National Review stands as an ominous warning—enterprising political commentators should not want to repeat it.
Trump and Vance have changed the political landscape in marked ways, including their ongoing dealmaking with Iran’s senior leadership. It must be remembered that the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a 14-point framework signed by the U.S. and Iran, is a temporary measure, unlike the one-sided deal President Obama signed in 2015. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was a highly technical diplomatic initiative, while the MOU is a conflict termination and process agreement that is not necessarily representative of what a final deal may look like.
As Victor Davis Hanson argued, the MOU caps off a clear U.S. military victory in Iran. Our forces decimated the country’s navy and its political-theological leadership, but they did not try to secure a strategic victory, which would have necessitated thousands of ground troops in order to conduct a maximum regime change campaign in a sprawling country of over 93 million people.
While the MOU certainly gives the Iranian regime wins—restoring oil flows, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, temporarily easing U.S. sanctions, and receiving $300 billion in reconstruction funding from a consortium of regional partners—the U.S. has also obtained positive results.
As the Vice President told UnHerd in an interview, the U.S. and Iranian militaries now have a direct line of communication. “They really want a fundamentally transformed relationship with the United States and the world…I don’t know where we’re going to be able to land in the middle,” Vance said. Key Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates are trying to work with Iran on opening new avenues of trade. At the same time, as Hanson notes, they’re also working on pipelines that could bypass the Strait of Hormuz altogether. And on a subject that’s critical to the administration—Iran’s nuclear program—Vance said that the Iranian regime is pledging to adhere to “a much more rigorous inspection regime,” as well as working to eliminate its stockpiled enriched material.
Since Iran has proven itself to be unreliable in negotiations, especially on matters involving its nuclear program, President Trump has continually reminded them that he could restart bombing campaigns at any moment.
As Secretary Rubio stated on Wednesday, “Any time you enter into a negotiation, it’s a process of give-and-take. This is a temporary measure; it’s for 60 days—and as a result, we expect them to live up to the commitments they make in Switzerland. If they don’t live up to those commitments, the President has a lot of options at his disposal.”
Ending the war makes sense considering the lack of obvious strategic moves the U.S. could make in its campaign. The potential for a drawn-out engagement that could have dragged us further into the conflict would have torpedoed the Republicans’ chances in the midterms.
The public stands squarely against the war: a CBS News poll found that nearly 80% of Americans—including a sizable majority of Republicans—want it to end. In fact, a recent Quantus poll found that only 13% of Americans disapprove of the MOU. Wars can’t be fought on popularity alone, but opposition of this scale is a significant factor in any honest assessment of whether to continue.
The Republican Party is polling behind the Democrats in U.S. House races (they’ll likely retain a slim Senate majority). Though redistricting will help Republicans, Democrats still maintain their lead in the generic ballot, which they’ve held throughout 2026. Election day remains four months away, but major shifts would have to happen—prices declining significantly across the board, for one—for Republicans to keep the House.
The Democrats, furthermore, will be energized to turn out since Trump is in the White House—an energy that’s moving the party even more leftward. In the New York City primaries, three Democratic Socialists of America candidates triumphed, showing the growing influence of Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Even Representative Dan Goldman—lead counsel in the first Trump impeachment and a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—was not radical enough for Democratic primary voters. As the Claremont Institute’s Jeremy Carl argued in his post-race commentary, “Mass immigration and cultural drift have truly made NYC a post-American city. That’s the future of America if we don’t close the border and have mass deportations.”
Contrary to the obfuscation from podcasters and online commentators, the Republican Party, even with its many faults, remains the only major vehicle for a counter-revolution in America. And that will likely need to accelerate as the Democrats continue to move closer to making Third-Worldism the cornerstone of their party.
