Enough Already! Please Stop With the Talk About a "Deal," Mr. President.

The "Art of the Deal" is not a military strategy

We all are products of our background. Heredity, environment, lessons and experience from both successes and failures, all shape our outlook and inform our actions in times of stress. President Trump’s background is in deal-making. He is master of the deal. His ability to make the best deal is a major part of his self-image. He has even written a best-seller about how to succeed in making the best deal. But The Art of the Deal is not a military strategy. And however valid Mr. Trump’s lessons in negotiating may be, he is no Clausewitz or Sun Tzu. And his seemingly constant quest for a “deal” undermines any acceptable goal in the ongoing war.

Everyone wants a “deal.”

We all have seen the unending analyses, statements, comments and questions about whether the U.S. will be able to reach a “deal” with the religious fanatics who are calling the shots for Iran. Political “leaders” do it. Politicians of every stripe, TV readers and presenters, writers, virtually everyone has bought into saying that a “deal” is the hoped-for end result of our military operations and strategy.

It all plays into the Iranians’ hands.

Here is President Trump:

• “I don’t want to rush it. I want to take my time. We have plenty of time. And I want to get a great deal.”

• “Iran wants to make a deal... they talk to me with such great respect... who wouldn’t?”

• “The DEAL that we are making with Iran will be FAR BETTER than the JCPOA.”

• “Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left.”

Trump’s choice of language has filtered down to others. Here is Secretary of State Rubio: “We would prefer the path of peace. What the president would prefer is a deal.”

Secretary of War Hegseth: “If Iran is not willing to follow through on its side of the bargain or make a deal, then the War Department is postured, locked, loaded and ready to go.”

References to a hoped-for deal are ubiquitous in the media. They do not use it as a pejorative; they just consider it a normal reference to discussions. This CBS News headline is typical: “U.S.-Iran ceasefire holding for now, Hegseth says, as Trump looks to finalize deal.”

Questions and statements about a “deal” posed by worldwide media are constant: Will we get a deal? We are close to a deal. The Iranians have agreed on a framework for a deal. Will any deal be acceptable? What will the deal include? What will we do if we fail to get a deal? A failure to get a deal will surely bog us down in a “war of choice,” doom the GOP in the mid-terms, and leave Trump as a diminished and defeated President. Gawd, my kingdom for a deal.

“Deal.” “Deal.” “Deal.” None of them seem to understand that the constant reference to getting a deal makes any such deal — much less a U.S. victory — far less likely. Well, some of them do understand that, but they are the ones who want the U.S. to fail.

What’s wrong with a deal? What is a “deal” anyway?

The problem with the Administration’s near constant focus on doing a deal is that it risks projecting weakness to the remaining big shots in the Iranian terror master ranks.

So, am I suggesting that Trump is weak? Not at all. He has demonstrated considerable strength of will and character with his willingness to take on Iran as no other President before him has had the gumption to do. The problem is the Iranians’ perception of his desire for a deal.

When the Iranians hear the constant talk of “doing a deal,” it creates and reinforces a perception of weakness. That perception, of course, also is being fueled by demands from most Democrats and some Republicans that Trump stop the fighting unless and until Congress gives its consent. It also is reinforced by the continuing phony cease fire, even while the Iranians continue to attack our ships and allies.

I realize that the situation and Trump’s position are dynamic. Just today (Monday, May 11) I read reports that he described Iran’s latest response to a U.S. peace proposal as a “piece of garbage“ and “totally unacceptable,“ while saying that he was “getting tired of it.” So things in the air and on the seas could change any day, any hour. But, if they do, with utmost respect Mr. President, there has been more than enough talk of getting a deal. Instead of emphasizing the desire for a deal, everyone in the administration should stop talking about it and instead talk about “winning” or “victory.” And, if I may be so bold, you must provide a clear and unequivocal statement that defines precisely what that means and what it entails.

What if the “deal” is unconditional surrender?

Administration allies may justify the “deal” terminology by saying that it is just shorthand for saying that the Iranians must agree to everything that the U.S. is demanding. That is not a “deal,” it is unconditional surrender.

Trump previously floated the ideal that unconditional surrender was his goal, but has not mentioned it much since then. And, as the Long War Journal documents, unconditional surrender was not one of the “three distinct military objectives” that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan “Razin” Caine identified in a press conference on April 8.¹

On March 8, CBS News published an interview of Secretary Hegseth by Major Garrett that included this exchange.

Major Garrett: President said recently there will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender. What does that look like, unconditional surrender? How will you know it’s real?

Pete Hegseth: It means we’re fightin’ to win. It means we set the terms. We’ll know when they’re not capable of fighting. There’ll be a point where they’ll have no choice but to do that. Whether they know it or not, they will be combat-ineffective. They will surrender.

That is a strong position that conveys neither indecision nor weakness. But unconditional surrender is not a deal. We did not do a “deal” with Germany in May 1945; we accepted its surrender. So, we get a mixed message when the Secretary talks about a deal and then pivots to unconditional surrender. “We’re fightin’ to win” is a good message, Mr. Secretary, both for the troops and for the Country. Stick with it.

We want a win, not a deal.

Could some sort of concessions (or a deal, if you prefer) be acceptable? Of course. At Appomattox in 1865, General Grant acceded to General Lee’s requests that his soldiers be allowed to keep their private horses for farming and to return home rather than being imprisoned. In August 1945, General MacArthur allowed Emperor Hirohito to retain the title of “Emperor,” although he would be a symbolic figurehead rather than a sovereign ruler.

Similar concessions for Iran would be acceptable, perhaps even desirable as long as they would not threaten our or our allies’ fundamental security interests. But any such resulting “deal” should channel President Reagan’s strategic plan for dealing with the Soviet Union: “We win, they lose.”

1. Those objective were to “destroy Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities, its navy, and its defense industrial base to ensure that it cannot reconstitute the ability to project power outside [its] borders.”