Defeat (June 18, 2026)

Welcome to Home & Away. The big news again is the Iran War, as we now have the memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreed to and signed by the United States and Iran. Here are the main provisions:

-- The two governments have committed to an immediate and permanent ceasefire, including Lebanon.

-- The two agree not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs.

-- The two will seek to negotiate a final deal within 60 days, but this can be extended if need be, as is virtually certain to be the case.

-- The Strait of Hormuz will reopen as the United States has pledged to end its blockade and Iran has agreed to allow the resumption of shipping.

-- The Iranian government has (again) agreed not to procure or develop nuclear weapons. More significantly, it has agreed to maintain the nuclear status quo while all nuclear-related issues are being negotiated. Nothing in the MOU prejudices, one way or the other, the future status of the stock of enriched uranium in Iran, new enrichment-related activities, or inspections.

-- Financial assets will flow to Iran as all economic sanctions are eased and frozen assets are released. A $300 billion reconstruction fund will be established for Iran.

-- Nothing is mentioned about Iranian conventional military forces (including missiles and drones) or support for proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

Obviously, much remains to be negotiated (particularly in the nuclear realm) and implemented when it comes to the Strait and just about everything else. We will see whether the end of the war is temporary or permanent, as declared.

What is clear, though, is that the emerging deal constitutes a massive victory for Iran, or, more precisely, for its government. The regime will receive a financial windfall that will strengthen its hold on the country and help it rearm itself and its proxies. In just two months, it can impose tolls and quite possibly other controls affecting the use of the Strait of Hormuz.

The same cannot be said about Iran’s people, who are among the war’s principal losers. The regime is not just more radical; it now has the prestige of having successfully stood up to the Great Satan. As already noted, it will be bailed out financially. Plus, the United States has pledged not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, which is a 180-degree reversal of its initial stance of seeking regime change. There is no reason to expect repression to ease, although at some point Iran’s leaders will have to confront their questionable priorities and policies that have driven the country to economic ruin.

Israel is another big loser in the war, as its relationship with the United States, already strained by Gaza, has deteriorated sharply. (Prime Minister Netanyahu’s relationship with Trump has deteriorated as well.) Israel’s main concerns (Iran’s missiles and aid to proxies) are unaffected by the MOU. It remains to be seen whether Israel’s nuclear-related concerns are met (safe to say they will not be met in full, as at most there will be a JCPOA-like ceiling placed on Iran’s nuclear program, not its elimination). Iran’s pledge not to procure or develop nuclear weapons is simply a statement of intentions that has no effect on capabilities. Worse yet for Israel, it finds itself under increased pressure to pull back in Lebanon and may experience the same vis-à-vis Gaza – and it is far from clear that the Trump administration won’t add to the pressure.

The Arab countries of the region also come out worse off, as they will have to contend with an emboldened, strengthened, and more radical Iran, one with newfound power derived from its demonstrated willingness and ability to interfere with the Strait of Hormuz and attack its neighbors. The war also showed they will have to deal with Iran largely on their own, as neither the United States nor Israel can protect them. I expect several will decide the better part of valor is to reach an accommodation with Iran.

The result reinforces the view (which I have held since before the war was launched) that this war was a strategic error of the first magnitude. There was no imminent threat that justified the decision to initiate the war, and there were better options (above all, diplomacy and increased sanctions) available to pursue U.S. aims. The result was a misguided war of choice, predicated on flawed assumptions about Iran held by officials with little expertise or experience, a war that predictably turned out badly for the United States and its partners in the region and beyond.

The United States has paid a great deal to return the Strait of Hormuz to its previous status – and what will result will fall short of that. Nuclear arrangements remain up in the air, but it is certain Iran will remain active in that domain (especially given the leverage this war has given the regime). Inspections will be as critical as they are likely to be challenging. The war introduced new strains into U.S. ties with regional partners and allies, in the process isolating the United States more than Iran. Respect for the United States, both for its judgment and competence, is much diminished.

Bret Stephens is right to term the war a debacle. But he and others are wrong in suggesting that if only the president had used more military force (including ground troops) for longer the result would have been different. Actually, it would have been different, but not for the better. Odds are we would have found ourselves caught in a quagmire of our own making, losing many more troops and churning through far more equipment in the process.

The commitment might well have taken years to play out, and even then, there would have been no guarantee of success given the tens of millions of Iranians who still support this regime and the many more who might have rallied to the regime against the foreign occupier. It would have created a strategic distraction and a political and economic nightmare. The best and perhaps only good thing to say about the deal just reached with Iran is that the United States cut its losses.

In the Knick of Time

As anyone with a pulse knows by now, the New York Knicks are NBA champions, having won their best-of-seven series with the San Antonio Spurs in just five games. It was thrilling. The games were close, and in every one of their four victories the Knicks battled back from a meaningful and at times huge deficit. It didn’t help that the Knicks tended to start slowly and fall behind from the outset; as Jalen Brunson pointed out, it was as if they showed up at 9:00 p.m. for games starting at 8:30.

But they won, in no small part because of Mr. Brunson, the Finals MVP. He is one of the great storylines of this victory. A disciplined, modest, team-oriented individual in an age defined by narcissism and hubris. Someone who practices sportsmanship. A man who left more than $100 million in salary on the table so the Knicks could sign talented players who would give them a shot at winning. A 6’2” guard who carried the team on his back (scoring close to half its points in the final game) in a sport dominated by giants.

But he didn’t do it alone. There was a talented supporting cast and a deep, capable bench. None (including Brunson) was a first-team All-NBA selection. Maybe that helps explain their success. They knew they needed each other to prevail. And prevail they did, winning 16 of the 19 games they played in the postseason.

Part of the credit goes to Leon Rose, the executive who assembled this team not through draft choices but through trades. He often made difficult choices: to get you have to give. And here I want to offer a tip of the hat to the much-maligned owner of the Knicks, James Dolan. It took Dolan years before he learned he needed to let go and have professionals run the team to have a chance at winning, but he finally figured it out. That said, it is hard to resist schadenfreude as the only game the Knicks lost against the Spurs was the one the president attended as the pro-Trump Dolan’s guest.

I also want to praise the coach, Mike Brown. He could write a management book. The Knicks only turned into the team that won it all late in the season. Brown proved to be a master of adjustments. He was open to taking advice from players, trying different lineups, going deep into his bench, and changing tactics. He had none of the stubbornness of his predecessor. Listening and leading can and do go hand in hand.

The Spurs are an uber-talented young team. But if the Knicks are a case study in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the Spurs are just the opposite. The whole is less than the parts. The team was not well-coached, not in great shape (players tended to get gassed at the end of every game), and not disciplined.

They have some growing up to do. The failure of most of the players to stay on the floor after the last game, to shake hands and congratulate the Knicks, was telling. Their best player, 22-year-old Victor Wembanyama, is seriously tall (7’4” or more) but he still has a lot of growing up to do. He played dirty and should have been called for additional flagrant fouls and suspended. (The officials, who demonstrated a pronounced tendency to favor the Spurs over the Knicks, made it seem to this viewer and many others that the league wanted the highly watched series to go to six or seven games.) The Spurs have the potential to be a great team, but need to look in the mirror and do some soul-searching as to why they lost after leading in every game.

Do the Knicks have the makings of a dynasty? It won’t be easy. They lack the number of stars that dominant teams tend to have. Plus, a lot went right this year. And as is often the case in sports as in life, it can be more difficult to stay on top than to get there. All that said, it’s too soon – way too soon – to begin thinking about next season. It took 53 years to reach this point, and like a fine wine, the moment is to be savored. The team and their fans deserved their parade today and more—although I cannot resist reporting that one of the young people working here had to google “ticker-tape” to find out what it is.

The Sporting Life, Part II

Beyond basketball, this weekend is the U.S. Open, being played some 90 miles east of where I stand (literally, as I type on my standing desk) at Shinnecock. It is a tough course. I’ve played it a few times, and it can be humbling. I expect the pros will be tested, especially as the wind picks up and the greens are super-fast.

There are all sorts of plots. Will Cam Young, the pride of Sleepy Hollow, win his first major title? Will Scottie Scheffler complete the career Grand Slam? Will Rory McIlroy continue his dominant year? Will it be none of the above and some unknown pull off an upset? Stay tuned and enjoy.

There is lots of competition, though, when it comes to staying tuned. Besides baseball (where I’m happy to report the Yankees have regained first place even without their star player, Aaron Judge, in the lineup) there is, of course, the World Cup. The U.S. men’s team dominated their opener. They play again this Friday against Australia, the country my son-in-law hails from, so I will have to be restrained here. And it is impossible to ignore the hat trick by Lionel Messi in Argentina’s opening game.

What is critical, though, this weekend is that all the dads be spoiled by their wives, partners, children, etc., and be permitted to watch or play golf or watch or play any sport of their choice. Or do whatever. Wishing you all a Happy Father’s Day.

As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.

---

Richard Haass in the news

Monday, June 15: Morning Joe on the Knicks.

Wednesday, June 17: MS NOW on Iran Deal.

Wednesday, June 17: Squawk on the Street on U.S.-Iran War.