I'll give it a go. I doubt the responses will be all that respectful, but hey ho. The main elements of a better deal would deal with: Restrictions on an Iranian domestic nuclear capability Establishment of a regional enrichment programme. Iran's missile programme Iran's interactions with proxy groups Sanctions Relief. For (1), Cap enrichment permanently at 3.67%, export or blend down all uranium enriched above 5% within 90 days. Set up challenge inspections at undeclared sites within a fixed period, say, 14 days rather than going through what is likely months of negotiation. Obviously freeze installation of advanced centrifuges and dismantle excess cascades into monitored storage. Convert the underground facility at Fordow into an internationally supervised isotope production and research centre. To have a chance for Iran to do any of that (and the negotiations indicated that Iran wouldn't rule any of this out), the United States would need to explicitly recognise Iran's right to a peaceful civilian nuclear programme. AND accept low-level enrichment inside Iran, avoiding Tehran's principal red line of "zero enrichment", To make (1) possible, the innovative step would have been step (2); to propose a regional enrichment consortium with other Gulf states. Iran could retain a symbolic enrichment capability, perhaps producing only a small proportion of its fuel requirements, while most fuel production would occur under multinational control and continuous monitoring. This idea had already appeared in earlier discussions and seems more acceptable to the Iranians than complete dismantlement. Moving to point (3), the missile programme. The President has already indicated he's quite OK with Iran having a ballistic missile force (note, not SAM capabilties) equal to that of its neighbours, which by inference, would include Israel. Practically, that means a missile force equal to the combined capabilities its neighbours and the regional powers. Excluding Iran, extending as far West as Turkey, including the "Stans, including Pakistan, the number of regional ballistic and cruise missiles is about 4000. Prewar, Iran had about 3000 ballistic missiles, so on the face of it, Iran can restore its pre-war capacity, and the Americans are likely to be fairly relaxed with even a 25% increase But its not all gravy for Iran. As part of that granting of capabilities, Iran would need to concede no missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload, range limited to 2000kms, and no transfers of precision weapons to non-state actors. One of the weakest areas of the MOU is about the support to proxy groups. There should have been more work here. Naturally, a better agreement would (4) include no transfers of precision weapons to Hezbollah and the Houties. You could also ask for a complete halt to arms deliveries, but I think Iran would resist that one, so instead, push for limited arms transfers, with a mechanism for verification. At the same time, the US will need to expend considerable resources making sure the Baghdad and Beirut governments as the monopolies of force. The carrot is sanctions relief (5). The current MOU offers far too many concessions to Iran on sanctions relief. Its giving away, far too early, oil waivers, asset releases and even a large reconstruction package. Instead, release a limited amount of frozen assets for humanitarian purchases, AND issue a six-month oil export waiver capped at a specified volume. Monitoring oil exports is very easy, you don't even need to board ships to know how much is aboard, because you can analyse how the ship sits with respect to its waterline. When, and only when, the IAEA releases its certification with respect to the Additional Protocol (fairly standard, Additional protocol for verification of nuclear safeguards), then suspend the secondary sanctions. Then over a 2 year period, subject to verification, walk back remaining sanctions. Include a 30 day snapback if there are infractions, something which is not in the current MOU. The US would provide security assurances about not seeking regime change, not attacking, putting in mechanisms to avoid incidents at sea. The US to support Iranian reintegration into global financial institutions As part of this agreement, you establish Permanent freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and no transit fees or discriminatory restrictions. Now Iran might not accept this, but you need to move their motives to agreeing to an agreement, not because of the alternative is getting killed, but because its worth their while. So what might be worth their while is money, or rather, another revenue stream. I'd bush off the idea of an International Straits Authority, and think of the Montreux Convention where Turkey regulates what goes through the Straits of the Bosphorus. The actual enforcement is by the Turkish Department of Transport. Turkey has a right to levy transit fees, as laid out in the Convention, with a formula applied to ensure the costs update with inflation (its a fee based on ship tonnage). Its called a Transit fee and is supposed to cover sanitary controls, lighthouses, and life-saving operation. The convention also gives Turkey a complete monopoly on pilotage and towing services, which must always be offered to transiting vessels, though they are not obligated to take them. This would be my joker card, but it will also help with the actual intention all along for Iran to start acting like a normal country. Give control of collection of the fees to an international authority, who disburses, minus admin fees, to both Iran and Oman, allowing for acknowledgement by the rest of the world of the generosity of the Omani and Iranian people for allowing such a volume of shipping to pass through their waters for the betterment of the wider world; symbolic I know. I would see if the money collected could be put towards port development projects in Iran, particularly major container facilities. Currently mega container ships with cargo for East Africa unload in the UAE, which basically has a monopoly, the cargo split down and reloaded onto smaller ships, for continued transit to East Africa which lacks large port facilities. There is a huge humanitarian angle there; currently East Africa is seeing healthcare supply shortages, because its all stuck in Dubai. But also trade, and potentially trade to the advantage of one of the US's strategic goals. Iran makes a lot of money from oil. But unlike the Arab states, which are little more than desert and resorts for the mega wealthy, Iran has a diverse economy. It has a rich agricultural sector (self sufficient in food). It has a decent car industry. One of the reasons the British first involved themselves in Iran wasn't oil, but tobacco. Its highly likely if you ate pistachios, some of them would have come from Iran. Improved port facilities would drive more trade between Iran and India, and all the Indian Ocean States, a useful trading counterweight to China, who is intent on developing Karachi to be the port rail head of exports to Africa, where they hope to dominate. Competition is always good, and the Iranian people are a mercantile people. Game theory means you want Iran to want this, that they want to be making money, and, if along the way, they become a regional power, but one that is not based on the boorish Arab-Israeli fracas, I don't mind. Palmerston summed it up: We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow. Iran and US one day allies? Maybe not, but one day, respectful relations. If Vietnam can get over Agent Orange and Carpet Bombing by Nixon, I'm sure the US an get over the Iran Embassy Hostage Crisis (which is really where all the enmity comes from). As for "tolls" or "freedom of passage". Freedom of Passage doesn't mean passage for free. There can be costs, but in any case, treaties aren't forever. They get renegotiated, torn up. Take GATT, which is basically dead. The era, for the moment, of free trade is over, and the US won't be the last country to use tariffs as part of fiscal (revenue raising ) policy. Freedom of Passage comes from an early 80s treaty, UNCLOS. The US might have signed it, but never ratified it, citing that they were unhappy about the concessions the US made about their own territorial waters. Its a different maritime world in 2026 from 1982. Climate change is a reality, and the Northwest Passage will soon be navigable. That's why the US was prepared to hack off its Allies over Greenland; it was never about mining. If the US wants that, then they can just buy the mining licences. There is no way the US will be happy with Chinese ships transiting through US waters to make money from Europe. I expect lots more imaginative mechanisms to make transit fees a normal thing. Freedom of Passage is not as cast in stone as some might think.
