President Donald Trump was flattered by Middle East leaders into agreeing to a framework to end the war with Iran in a simple and very egotistical way, MS NOW's Chris Hayes agreed in a conversation with Iranian political analyst Trita Parsi.
Specifically, Trump was persuaded into believing that he had persuaded Iran to take a deal better than the former Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the multilateral nuclear deal brokered by former President Barack Obama — even though many aspects of the deal are considerably more conciliatory to Iran.
"I think the one thing that does seem the north star for him ... when the Omani foreign minister flew to the U.S. to appear on the Sunday shows in a last-ditch effort to stop this war from happening right when there were negotiations going on," said Hayes. "He understood it, too, because it's not a very complicated psychology. He's basically on TV the weekend before the war starts being like, it's better than Obama, it's better than Obama."
The bottom line, said Hayes, is that "that benchmark [to end the war] can be whatever it means for the old man's ego," even if it's not a meaningful policy accomplishment.
Parsi agreed, saying that Trump "will create his own reality here."
Additionally, he said, it's not all a bad thing, as there are genuinely some parts of what Trump is pursuing that are stronger than JCPOA was.
"For instance, in the Obama deal, the Iranians would only have a stockpile of 300 kilos of low-enriched uranium on their soil. At any point," said Parsi. "You need 1,200 for a bomb. Whenever they reach the 300 level, it would be shipped out. That was a very good deal." By contrast, he said, in the February agreement Trump wants to base the current framework on, "they would have zero stockpile. Whatever they produce, they would immediately turn into fuel [rods]. They would never keep a stockpile at all."
That said, he added, "Was it worth all of this? Absolutely not. In fact, that was already achieved before the war."