Avoiding TACO: Any Deal Enabling the IRGC Is a Bad Deal
by John D. O’Connor
The following is an article originally published on American Greatness. Read it HERE.
__________________
We all know that President Trump presents himself as a dealmaker who will accept only a “good deal” with Iran; in contrast, he argues, to the agreements reached by Obama and Biden. But what, exactly, constitutes a good deal?
If an Iran peace agreement is perceived as overly favorable to the IRGC and fails to genuinely foreclose its support for terrorism, it will go down in history as Trump’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Let’s first look at a realistic result that could be achieved without a deal. During the current semi-ceasefire, the United States has identified Iran’s remaining missile sites, many of its drone manufacturing facilities, and the whereabouts of the IRGC’s senior leadership. Most of these sites and personnel can be easily taken out with one more sustained barrage, while America continues to strangle Iran economically with our blockade. This action could pave the way for a new, non-theocratic Iran and leave the IRGC essentially powerless.
If Iran were reduced to a relatively quiescent state, its support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis would be sharply curtailed, not only weakening those groups but also leaving them vulnerable to outright destruction by Israel. With Russia effectively neutralized by its war in Ukraine, the broader Middle East could become relatively peaceful, especially if the Abraham Accords expand, further aligning the region with the United States and helping to sustain peace for decades.
A peaceful Middle East will, in turn, open opportunities for partnerships between Western business and sovereign wealth funds, helping diversify these oil-dependent economies and giving hope to younger Arabs. This broader Middle East peace would isolate China, which would remain America’s only strong rival, one that could no longer rely on America’s perceived inability to wage war in two places. Taiwan should also stay safe, whereas with a peace deal, it would not.
Taiwan’s security is critical because one of the most consequential industrial revolutions in history, AI, is now taking shape in the United States, yet it depends heavily on Taiwan’s semiconductor ecosystem. This includes not only chip manufacturing but also, even more importantly, advanced chip design and packaging. These highly specialized industries—closely tied to and essential for TSMC, the world’s leading producer of advanced AI chips—are uniquely concentrated in Taiwan.
In short, the world would enjoy the promise of permanent peace and continued improvement in the lives of billions.
If Trump sacrifices a historic opportunity for the sake of fleeting political gains by leaving the IRGC in power and restoring billions in oil revenues and unfrozen assets, he will guarantee a perpetually troubled Middle East. The resulting instability will undermine America’s position against both Russia and China. And no one should dismiss the prospect of IRGC terrorism eventually reaching the United States.
But won’t the proposed deal prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Perhaps. Yet nuclear weapons were not necessary for Hamas to rape, murder, and kidnap Israeli civilians on October 7. They were not needed to suppress women, political dissidents, and homosexuals inside Iran. Nor were they required to intimidate Iran’s Middle Eastern neighbors and bankroll the terrorist groups that have destabilized the region for decades.
If the United States ultimately strikes such a deal with Iran—one that offers only limited benefits while allowing the IRGC to remain in power and reap billions of dollars from renewed oil sales and unfrozen assets—the strong Right will be bitterly disappointed. The Left, meanwhile, will claim vindication, arguing that the war accomplished little or nothing, just as it had predicted.
Indeed, the Left will not only condemn the destruction and alleged ill will generated by the conflict; it will also portray the agreement as yet another example of Trump backing down after escalation—another TACO, in the language of his critics.
So, how do we assess the costs and benefits of the Iran deal that seems to be on the table? If Trump resumes the impressive bombing campaign, this, together with the current blockade, will clearly succeed well before Labor Day, with a likely fall from power of the IRGC. Iran will, to be sure, be a chaotic mess, but with the prospect of building a free society and market economy in the future.
Gas prices will fall substantially, and, with the continued AI world, the stock market will soar, and wages will be on the increase over inflation.
Trump’s political image would be permanently fixed: a leader who is perhaps boastful and temperamental but one now viewed as perhaps the most influential progenitor of world peace in the history of mankind.
If, in fact, Trump is then viewed as a great peacemaker, he would not need his face engraved on Mount Rushmore. He would deserve his own mountain. Even the partisan elites voting on the Nobel Peace Prize will be forced to consider him, at the risk of tarnishing their bona fides.
If a deal is reached on or near the currently available terms, fuel prices would likely decline. Even so, that alone would not guarantee that Republicans retain control of the House, particularly if many Americans continue to view the cost of living as unaffordable. In such an environment, Trump’s critics could portray him as a leader who entered the conflict under Israel’s influence, gave insufficient consideration to its potential costs, and ultimately was forced by Iran to accept concessions.
Such characterizations might not fully reflect the underlying facts, but political opponents and aligned media outlets would likely promote them energetically. At the same time, the IRGC would be expected to continue efforts to multiply and extend the range of ballistic missiles, expand its drone production capabilities, strengthen its network of regional proxy forces, and secure substantial additional revenue to support these initiatives.
In short, Israel will still be subject to terrorist strikes, Gaza will continue to be a breeding ground for Hamas, Lebanon will remain in turmoil, and Syria will remain in chaos. New York and Washington, D.C., will soon be vulnerable to Iranian ICBMs, and therefore any succeeding Democratic administration will succumb to blackmail.
If the IRGC succeeds in reestablishing its grip on the Iranian people, all will be lost—not only for Iranians, but also for broader regional stability. A strengthened IRGC would likely deepen its ties with Russia, providing Moscow with another avenue through which to rebuild and project power.
At this point, Trump’s strange deference to Putin will become both a national security liability and a political one. Witness his cancellation of missile sales to Germany for fear of provoking the absurdly weak Russia.
In short, the choice is stark. On one hand, any agreement with Iran may bring modest economic benefits, such as somewhat lower fuel prices. But would those gains outweigh the risks? Are we really to believe that Iran would never again violate its commitments, restrict access through the Strait of Hormuz, or use newly acquired billions of dollars to expand its missile, drone, and proxy capabilities?
The alternative is no deal with the IRGC. Proponents of that course argue that it would strengthen U.S. credibility, preserve pressure on the regime, and potentially secure a more favorable place for Trump in the historical record.
The perception of the outcome could hardly be more different. If a deal is struck on terms close to those now being discussed, Trump may be remembered by his detractors as a president who squandered a historic opportunity. If, however, he is perceived as having finished the job, his supporters will argue that even many of his media and progressive opponents will be compelled to acknowledge the scale of his accomplishment. In their view, he would take his place among the most consequential presidents in American history, standing alongside Winston Churchill as a defender of the civilized world.
We all must communicate this message to the White House: shut down negotiations, and rid us of the IRGC.
______________________________________
John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the books Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism and The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened. O’Connor and Mark Felt collaborated on the 2006 book, A G-Man’s Life.
.