06/26/2026

It is called TRUST BUT VERIFY!

The deal has to be enforceable by not only the U.S. but a body of leaders outside the U.S. because of the the two-party system and the fact that the Democrats do not like Israel. That is a given. Iran lost the war and must live under an umbrella of checks and balances in the future. It must be a strict defensive pact by the outside world and monitored because of the past history of Iran’s not being honest. Israel must be guaranteed that it can live and work in peace and if there is any attack by Iran or any proxy group on Israel or any other country, the penalty will be punishable by death of the head leader and monetary penalties to any country that is attacked.

Israel must be involved in the pact since they are one of the victims in the region and fought the war.

Israel must be given free reign to defend their country.

• Posted byby Slim Cohen
• June 22, 2026 

A growing divide within the conservative movement burst into public view this weekend as Fox News host Mark Levin launched a blistering attack on President Trump’s Iran strategy, accusing members of the administration of pressuring Israel while placing far too much faith in the intentions of Tehran.

Levin’s criticism came during an emotional monologue that stretched more than 17 minutes, as he responded to the administration’s newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran. The agreement establishes a 60-day diplomatic framework intended to create conditions for negotiating a broader peace arrangement and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The dispute intensified after Vice President JD Vance criticized Israeli officials who publicly opposed the memorandum. That criticism did not sit well with Levin, one of the most outspoken defenders of Israel in conservative media.

“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel,” Levin declared. “Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with.

Levin argued that Israel should never be expected to compromise its ability to defend itself, particularly when dealing with a regime that has spent decades funding terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East.

He warned that attempts to pressure Israel into accepting security arrangements it does not trust would ultimately fail, pointing to the Jewish state’s long history of surviving threats from powerful adversaries.

The conservative commentator also expanded his criticism beyond the Iran agreement itself. On social media, Levin questioned reports involving a luxury Boeing 747 provided by Qatar for use in support of the Air Force One mission. While acknowledging the arrangement may be legal, he openly questioned whether wealthy foreign governments should be able to provide such gifts to the United States.

Levin’s sharpest criticism focused on what he sees as a lack of enforcement mechanisms within the memorandum. He specifically cited Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization operating in Lebanon.

According to Levin, any agreement that relies on Iran restraining Hezbollah without clear consequences for violations is built on a shaky foundation. He argued that Israel has repeatedly been forced to respond to attacks from Hezbollah, only to face criticism for defending itself.

“This is beyond nuts,” Levin wrote in one social media post.

President Trump responded to concerns about Hezbollah on Sunday by issuing a direct warning to Iran through Truth Social.

“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble,” President Trump wrote. “If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!”

That response highlights the central disagreement within the conservative coalition.

Supporters of the administration argue that President Trump is doing exactly what he has always done: combining military strength with diplomacy. They view the memorandum not as an act of trust toward Iran but as a strategic test. In their view, the United States has already demonstrated its willingness to use force and is now leveraging that pressure to pursue a diplomatic outcome.

Critics such as Levin remain unconvinced.

For Iran hawks, the concern is not merely whether Tehran will violate the agreement. It is whether the process itself could limit Israel’s freedom to act while giving Iran and its proxy networks valuable time to regroup and reorganize.

The disagreement reflects a broader debate now taking shape on the right. Both sides agree that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. The argument centers on the best path to prevent it.

As negotiations move forward, that debate is likely to intensify. While President Trump continues to argue that peace through strength remains the goal, some of his most loyal supporters are demanding assurances that America’s closest ally in the region will not be asked to carry the risks of an agreement they fear may not last.

kommonsentsjane