The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board on Monday published a sharply worded warning to President Trump against signing a “bad deal” with Iran, arguing that an agreement along the lines now being reported in the press would amount to a “betrayal” of American interests and an economic lifeline for a regime the editors said is on the verge of collapse.

The editorial, headlined “Will Trump Bail Out Iran’s Regime?” appeared in the paper on Monday morning, as negotiators continued working toward a final framework that would lift the U.S. naval blockade of Iran in exchange for nuclear concessions. The Journal’s editors warned that the structure of the emerging agreement as currently described in news reports would hand Tehran most of what it needs while leaving Washington with little remaining leverage.

“The basic problem lies with ending U.S. pressure before dismantling the nuclear program,” the editorial argued. “If the blockade ends and Iran can sell its oil, all that’s left to coerce it into nuclear concessions is the threat of renewed war.”

The board questioned how credible that threat will be in the months ahead. “But Mr. Trump wasn’t willing to do that after Iran reneged on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and attacked U.S. forces and Gulf allies. How credible will the threat be 60 days closer to midterms, when it would trigger a new Iranian blockade of Hormuz?”

The Journal also rejected the value of any Iranian pledge not to pursue a nuclear weapon. “A pledge not to build a nuclear weapon means nothing because the regime has always said that while doing the opposite,” the editors wrote.

The editorial focused at length on the Strait of Hormuz, which remains closed to the prewar volume of shipping after months of U.S. naval pressure and Iranian counter-measures. The board noted that “Iran insists that no deal will restore the Strait to its status quo ante,” and warned that even a partial reopening would come “on Iranian terms and under its control.” The editors cited the April 7 ceasefire, after which they said tanker traffic decreased rather than increased despite Iran’s pledged gradual reopening.

That history, the board argued, is sufficient reason to refuse Iran sanctions relief on the front end of any deal. “U.S. officials say relief will be tied to performance, and they will need to hold to that to get a decent final deal,” the editorial said.

The Journal also raised concerns about the duration of any restrictions on Iranian uranium enrichment. “The U.S. and Iran also have yet to agree on how long Iran would be banned from enriching uranium. The question may be academic because the regime only has to wait out the Trump Administration to gain a freer hand,” the editors wrote, calling the preliminary deal “no doubt part of” Iran’s strategy of dragging out negotiations.

On the politics, the board acknowledged that a deal would likely bring down oil prices in the short term but warned the political windfall would be temporary. “A bad deal would leave him worse off politically, even if gas prices fall. Even a half victory by Iran would hurt America’s standing — and Mr. Trump’s,” the editorial concluded.

The piece closed with its most pointed framing of the stakes. “Iran’s regime went into this war facing domestic political and economic crises. War has made these worse. Saving such a regime now with an economic bailout would be the real betrayal — of the U.S. interest even more than the Iranian people,” the board wrote.

Monday’s editorial extends a months-long pattern of public criticism from the traditionally conservative Journal directed at the Trump administration’s handling of the war. In April, the board faulted Trump for declaring premature victory after the initial ceasefire announcement and predicted Iran would drag out talks. Earlier this month, Journal editor Elliot Kaufman published an op-ed titled “The Iranians Take Trump for a Sucker,” arguing the president had twice given up American leverage in exchange for Iranian promises that went unfulfilled. Trump responded by calling Kaufman an “idiot” and accusing the paper of having “lost its way.” A separate editorial last week argued that Trump’s threats to resume bombing have been “repeated so often that they now face diminishing returns.”

The White House has not yet publicly responded to Monday’s editorial. The war with Iran is approaching its third month of active hostilities under intermittent ceasefires, and polling has shown declining American support for the conflict alongside rising fuel prices tied to the disruption of Persian Gulf shipping.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)