Deals, Agreements, and Treaties

Much of the world is breathing a tentative sigh of relief as it appears that something is going to be signed later this week that might possibly tone down, if not settle, the three-way war among the United States, Israel, and Iran. Just what that "something" might be, though, is not quite clear, and what it contains depends on who is describing it, and what terms they are using. 

Here are definitions of several of the terms being applied to the "something" by the various parties, culled from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online and the Cambridge Dictionary:

Deal - "an arrangement* for mutual advantage." This is the term used by Der Furor.

Agreement - "an arrangement as to a course of action" This is the term used by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Framework Agreement - "sets out conditions agreed in advance to ensure flexibility and efficiency." This is what the something is called in news reporting.

Memorandum of Understanding - "a document that records the details of an agreement between two companies or organizations, which has not yet been legally approved." This is the term used in a statement released by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

Treaty - an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation; a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state.

Of course, nobody is actually using the word treaty at this point, as a treaty generally grows out of lengthy negotiation between experienced diplomats, and under the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) requires formal ratification by two-thirds of the Senate. Forget about any treaties for the foreseeable future ... I include the term only to make the point about the requirement for Senate ratification, which could be difficult to obtain, if some of the reported details of the deal/agreement/framework agreement/memorandum of understanding are accurate.

A treaty also requires a degree of mutual trust among the signatories that it has been negotiated in good faith and will be upheld by all the signatories. If I were the Iranians, I'd question whether anything signed by Der Furor is likely to be honored, given his track record of tearing up treaties he doesn't like or changes his mind about** and his penchant for kinetic negotiation. Likewise, if I were a competent American President, I'd question whether any treaty signed by a government made up of hardcore religious fanatics could be honored beyond the next fatwa. And if I were either one, I'd wonder if an Israeli government that didn't even have a role in its negotiation would refrain from actions that would blow it up.

I hope that whatever has been agreed to by whoever has been negotiating pans out, and that it doesn't represent too much of a humiliation for the United States. Given the fact that its terms remain secret and that a high degree of linguistic sleight-of-hand and evidence-free bombast being used in public discussion, I'm not optimistic.

Have a good day. Expect better from your government, but don't hold your breath.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* An "arrangement" is defined as "an informal agreement or settlement especially on personal, social, or political matters."

** NAFTA, the Paris Climate Accords, and the JCPOA (the original Iran nuclear treaty negotiated under President Obama) come to mind.