I recommend everyone to read latest by Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
“Donald Trump’s Pallets of Cash,” published June 13, 2026, in Tablet Magazine.
tabletmag.com tabletmag.com
Link:
tabletmag.com/sections/news/…
In a piercing elegy for martial resolve turned to diplomatic concession, Lee Smith dissects how Donald Trump—once the unyielding scourge of Barack Obama’s JCPOA—now finds his administration echoing the very architecture of surrender he one decried. This, Smith argues, signals not victory but tribute paid to a regime that survived America’s campaign, its proxies still menacing U.S. allies amid an extended ceasefire.
At the heart of this pivot lies the memorandum of understanding (MOU) negotiated by Vice President JD Vance—a document framed as a performance-based departure from Obama’s deal, yet revealing itself as its sophisticated heir. Smith portrays Vance as the architect of a “restrainer” faction’s triumph: briefing journalists Clam Heimlich on background as a “senior administration official,” touting Iranian commitments to dismantle nuclear sites, ship out enriched uranium, and abandon proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—while insisting payments flow only upon verifiable compliance.
Vance’s stance emerges as particularly questionable, layered with pragmatic caution yet laced with echoes of Obama-era illusions. He champions a theory of empowering Iranian “moderates” through concessions, a narrative Smith notes mirrors Obama’s 2015 rhetoric almost verbatim—despite historical evidence that funds flowed to the IRGC and its terror networks. Vance’s insistence on no upfront payments rings hollow against the two-phase MOU structure: Iran conditions nuclear talks on first-stage gains (e.g., Strait of Hormuz reopenings and sanctions relief), effectively securing tribute before substantive disarmament. Tehran, sensing American fatigue, demands cash upfront not from desperation but to humiliate a weakened adversary.
Vance, celebrated in restraintist circles for averting a “neocon war for Israel,” shields himself from ownership—briefing anonymously, amassing media validators to persuade Trump that MAGA will swallow this as a “historic win.” Smith poignantly frames this as more than tactical deference: it is a deputy openly opposed to the war now steering its denouement, tilting power toward Iran while Trump hesitates, fearing his base’s verdict of “loserdom.” In Vance’s calculus, stringing out talks for months (or until term’s end) preserves options; in Smith’s, it risks squandering hard-won battlefield gains, inviting the same nuclear shadow Obama bequeathed.
The piece resonates as a meditation on leadership’s burdens: wars lost not always in the field, but in the reluctance to press advantage. Trump’s Iran policy, like his early COVID response, risks handing subordinates the reins at the moment clarity matters most—reminding that the buck, as ever, stops with the commander-in-chief. Smith’s prose cuts with elegant disillusionment: American power, forged in decisive strikes, now courts the familiar temptations of managed decline.