Page 14 The Sun Bay Paper August 2, 2026 Politics and impatience: significant challenges in Iran We’re suffering through inconsistent expectations and unpredictable results as the U.S. and Iran stumble through this “ceasefire.” A reporter asked the President for his definition of a ceasefire. Trump replied, in that part of the world it’s when fighting is a little lighter than usual. This will take some time to conclude, but does Trump have time to spare? Let’s take a brief look at the terrorist regime we are dealing with. An Israeli official recently described Iran’s 1979 Constitution as laying out the “ideological, historic and strategic foundation” of the global conduct we’ve been witnessing for 47 years. It lays out the guidelines for establishing “a universal Shiite society……victory over U.S. despotism.” Individual regime members consider themselves subject to Allah’s divine judgment based on the regime’s accomplishments. Patience and a “steady hand” is required of U.S. negotiators. The core objectives should be clear to everyone. Eliminating the nuclear weaponry threat has been substantially achieved, but America lacks control of Iran’s enriched uranium. Degrading the ballistic missile and drone forces, and nullifying Iran’s terrorist proxy threats have been significantly accomplished. Other challenges are extensions of those major objectives. For example, Iran’s influence and intimidation in the Straits of Hormuz must be terminated permanently. Some pundits incorrectly claim that Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was an effective plan for controlling Iran. Trump withdrew in 2018 for many reasons, including that the agreement merely delayed Iran’s nuclear weapon development. It wasn’t eliminated. The monitoring process was impossible to enforce, and “certain facilities” were not subject to “anytime” inspections. After lifting sanctions, Iran began collecting revenues that were used to fund terrorist proxies. Bipartisan Senate opposition, including powerful Senator Schumer, blocked Senate approval of JCPOA, thus it never became an official treaty. We’ve since discovered that Iran’s cooperation was bad and there was evidence of uranium enrichment approaching weapons grade as early as 2024. Regime negotiators recently confirmed this. Since 2020, President Trump has brought Israel, UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, and Kazakhstan into the Abraham Accords. Add to that Egypt and Jordon, having signed earlier agreements, and a path to Mideast peace appears. Iran’s greatest fear was for the Accord to continue gaining signatories. That was the motivation for Iran’s planning and funding the October 7 attack on Israel. It didn’t work. The Arab and greater Muslim world remained deafeningly silent as Iran was gradually neutralized by the U.S. and Israel in 2025 and 2026. Politicians and citizens are understandably impatient. Using the War Powers Act, Congress is trying to limit Trump’s future flexibility for employing military force without Congressional approval. That is their right but consider this. In 2016 alone America’s “Nobel Peace Prize President Obama” dropped 26,000 bombs on Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Libya was bombed for 7 months. All without approval. Decades of widespread terrorism make Iran’s intentions unmistakable. Thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded by this regime and its proxies, and their cruelty is unbelievable. Children have been used as “human minesweepers,” and here in 2026, 30 to 40 thousand anti-government Iranian demonstrators were ruthlessly killed. Presidents can independently initiate military action if there is an imminent threat. Consider Iran’s decades of terrorism, its threats against America, and Iran’s highly enriched uranium. Add to that rapidly improving ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and this is clearly an imminent threat. Nevertheless, opponents claim no imminent threat existed. Must a nuclear warhead be mounted on a missile, ready to launch, before declaring it a threat? Or, must the missile be “on the way”? America’s aggressions were justified. The Iranian Regime’s governance philosophy and style confound plans and expectations of friend and foe alike. Understanding its goals and motivations is key to identifying an appropriate path for ending the conflict. This means that America’s goals must be achieved and it’s imperative we be able to effectively monitor and enforce compliance. We’ve tolerated Iran’s and its proxies’ terrorism for far too long. The military “heavy lifting” is behind us, and success seems within reach. Patience is required to deal with the culture and ideology of the Iranian regime, and our President has demonstrated his willingness to negotiate. Sadly, Trump and just about everyone else understand Iran isn’t negotiating in good faith. But, he’s given negotiations a chance. Politics and impatience are perhaps the most significant obstacles to success. Because of that, the President has been dealt a difficult hand to deal with. Likewise, the Iranian regime is taking advantage of the political cards they’ve been dealt, much to Trump’s frustration. Is it time for Trump to simply move on and finish the job? Steve Bakke Visit my website at myslantonthings.com
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA2ODE3