Trump Must Resist the Illusion of a Kinetic Solution and Sign the MoU

Date: May 28, 2026Author: Ahmad Hashemi0 Comments— Edit

May 28, 2026

Trump Must Resist the Illusion of a Kinetic Solution and Sign the MoU

Ahmad Hashemi

For the last 40 years, the Israeli lobby and neoconservative hawks in Washington—who advocate for endless hegemonic wars and regime change in the Middle East and elsewhere—have managed to influence foreign policy to the detriment of average American citizens and the U.S. economy. By repeatedly claiming that the mullah regime is two weeks away from the atomic bomb, they have successfully pushed for a second war with Iran in less than a year.

While U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that Iran’s major nuclear sites sustained severe damage and destruction during the Twelve-Day War in June 2025, the US and Israel started this unprovoked and unjustified war of choice on February 28, 2026. This intervention, if anything, has made the repressive regime in Iran more belligerent, weakened the pro-democracy movement, decapitated the country’s vibrant civil society, and rallied the people around the leadership.

Following the inconclusive 40-day war, which left the Iranian regime weakened and wounded but short of regime change or a decisive military defeat, negotiators have successfully drafted a 60-day Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to extend the current ceasefire between the United States and Iran. The agreement—mediated by international partners like Pakistan following a dangerous string of military exchanges, including U.S. strikes on drone hubs and retaliatory Iranian strikes on a U.S. air base in Kuwait—now sits on the desk of President Donald Trump.

Trump’s hesitation to sign, under the premise that “time is on the U.S. side“ and that Iran will bend under the prolonged naval blockade, is a dangerous miscalculation.

Iran has always been a regional superpower and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Thus, the belief that a perpetual kinetic or economic siege can permanently curb Iran’s regional ambitions without triggering a catastrophic war is a foundational error. It is a strategic myopia shared by Washington hardliners who are under the influence of pro-Israeli lobby groups in America.

The U.S. and Israel often pursue divergent national and security priorities because they are distinct sovereign nations facing different geopolitical realities. Israel wants the U.S. to fight its wars on its behalf, as the United States has the most powerful military on earth, possessing unmatched global reach, logistical superiority, and advanced technology.

This is not a healthy relationship, and the United States must free itself of foreign influence, including, by indiscriminately implementing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This is a tall order, as Miriam Adelson and other Israeli nationals are Trump’s single largest campaign donors. However, Trump, who advocates for “America First”—while MAGA pundits sometimes go as far as to claim “America only” as their motto—must be able to push pro-war, pro-Israeli organizations such as AIPAC, UANI, and FDD to register under FARA.

For years, the consensus in Israeli politics, spanning from right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to his center-left rivals like Yair Lapid, has relied on the flawed assumption that a prolonged campaign of covert operations, military pressure, targeted strikes such as bombing bridges, schools, energy facilities, oil refineries, and hospitals could manage the Iranian challenge indefinitely. When Lapid famously insisted that “Israel must destroy all of Iran’s oil fields and energy industry,” he exposed a systemic reality: the political debate was never about the strategic concept of containing the Iranian threat, but merely about the intensity of the violence, as Israel tries to repeat the Gaza playbook in Lebanon and potentially in Iran—which entails carpet bombing, destroying civilian infrastructure, and committing genocide.

This persistent focus on an external kinetic solution became a convenient structural tool, allowing Israeli leaders to unify the political system around a real or perceived existential threat while sidestepping foundational domestic questions—chief among them the occupation of Palestine and parts of Lebanon and Syria.

But as the current regional crossfire demonstrates, the kinetic solution provides only a temporary disruption. It can delay and it can exact a steep price, but it completely fails to alter Iran’s long-term strategic direction. Believing that a status quo of “managed conflict” is sustainable ignores the mathematical certainty of escalation.

The proposed 60-day MoU offers a fragile but necessary exit ramp from this cycle. Under its terms, the strategic Strait of Hormuz would reopen for unrestricted commercial shipping, with Iran required to clear its naval mines within 30 days. In return, the U.S. would lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports and grant temporary sanctions waivers for oil sales. Crucially, the deal binds Tehran—now under the leadership of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei—to an explicit commitment never to pursue nuclear weapons, creating a structured 60-day framework to negotiate the suspension of its uranium enrichment program.

It is important to emphasize that any signed agreement will be highly fragile. The risk of collapse remains high because Washington and Tehran inherently interpret obligations differently. Even if the MoU is executed, the region will not instantly stabilize; limited clashes, cyberattacks, and sabotage will likely persist.

Yet, the alternative to this fragile diplomacy is not a maintained status quo—it is the inevitability of a broader war. The current lull is dictated primarily by the calendar, pushing major escalations past the mid-summer sports window in the US. However, the danger zone peaks from late July through September. In Israel, this window directly precedes elections. Netanyahu, facing domestic political uncertainty, has an acute strategic and electoral interest in launching a strike on Iran’s infrastructure—and dragging the United States along with it—before the political landscape shifts. Without a certified, signed U.S.-Iran agreement to anchor regional de-escalation, the temptation for a unilateral, catastrophic strike will be overwhelming.

Trump’s refusal to sign the MoU based on the assumption that the U.S. naval blockade can break Iran’s will indefinitely is a fantasy. The 60-day window does not demand blind trust; its strict “relief for performance” framework ensures that permanent sanctions relief and the unfreezing of assets are entirely contingent on verified compliance. What the MoU does provide is time—an alternative to the illusion that security can be achieved solely through missiles and warships.

Another war with Iran is unnecessary and unmaintainable. While focus needs to be placed on China as the peer competitor, the intense usage of advanced weaponry in the war with Iran at Israel’s request has significantly drained the United States’ stockpiles. According to some reports, the U.S. will need years to replenish stockpiles of advanced weapons used in the Iran war.

There are things that military operations can achieve and things that they cannot. In the case of Iran, one can confidently claim that the limits of military power have been reached. America must reject the allure of endless military brinkmanship on behalf of Israel and sign the 60-day MoU. Trump must sign the MoU, break the cycle of kinetic dependency, and force a shift toward a long-term politico-strategic vision before the summer calendar runs out.

Trump favors authoritarian regimes, but it would be a distinct advantage if he has a change of heart and instead decides to support the Iranian people and the country’s resilient, pro-American civil society to help the Iranian people help themselves in democratizing their nation.

Summary:

Ahmad Hashemi argues that President Donald Trump must reject the illusion of a military solution and sign a mediated 60-day Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Iran.

Influenced by the pro-Israel lobby and neoconservative hawks, the U.S. and Israel launched an unjustified war against Iran in February 2026. This inconclusive 40-day conflict failed to achieve regime change; instead, it strengthened the repressive regime, weakened Iran’s pro-democracy movement, and depleted U.S. weapon stockpiles.

The proposed MoU offers a crucial exit ramp. Under its terms, Iran would clear naval mines from the Strait of Hormuz and commit to never pursuing nuclear weapons. In exchange, the U.S. would lift its naval blockade and grant temporary sanctions waivers for oil sales.

Hashemi warns that Trump’s hesitation to sign—driven by the false belief that a prolonged blockade will break Iran—is a dangerous miscalculation. Without this agreement, regional escalation is inevitable, particularly as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces domestic political pressure and seeks to drag the U.S. into a broader conflict. Ultimately, the limits of military power have been reached, and Trump must choose fragile diplomacy over endless, catastrophic war.