At the Palace of Versailles this past Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to immediately and permanently end the U.S. and Israeli war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The MOU, which only hours earlier had been read to the media, rapidly raised concerns among a range of allies and adversaries of the president.

At first glance, the deal seemed to offer a lifeline to a regime that had been strangled and struggling. The deal’s implementation would yield an Iran that was emboldened and well-resourced, sowing bitter seeds that would sprout into their next round of malign activities around the world.

There is a glimmer of hope, however, that is visible when I squint through my eternal optimist glasses at the wording of the first paragraph of the deal. If the text contained in the MOU’s initial paragraph is implemented in its maximalist fashion, then and only then does it set the stage for a strategic win for the United States, our allies and partners, and the rest of humanity.

Paragraph one of the deal applies to the United States, Iran, and their allies in the conflict — with Israel as the only other active combatant. Thus, the MOU forces the United States and Israel to be responsible for the terms of the agreement. Yet, that same wording also means that these countries are to be the beneficiaries of the terms of the agreement as well, providing a welcome wedge of optimism.

That first paragraph requires that all parties refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. As a result, active combat operations are to cease, and they have. Yet, it provides further requirements that revolve around the cessation of threats. An Iranian regime that would foreswear and renounce the threat of force is where it could demonstrate something that would be worth celebrating.

A strict interpretation of that language would require Iran to immediately stop chants of “Death to America and death to Israel!” After all, those are threats of force. The same interpretation would also force Iran to rapidly eliminate its support of proxy networks around the region — including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Shia militia groups in Iraq — whose mere existence provides a threat to the United States, Israel, our allies and partners, and our interests. Vice President J.D. Vance has even claimed that such an interpretation of the MOU is the expectation of the United States.

The beneficial implications of this paragraph continue — ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.

This is not a one-sided requirement. In fact, the greatest violation of the sovereignty of Lebanon for the last several decades has not been Israel. Instead, it has been Hezbollah as an arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that has significantly eroded the sovereignty of the government of Lebanon and endlessly held hostage six million Lebanese citizens. Thus, a strict reading of the MOU requires that Iran immediately defund and disband Lebanese Hezbollah to abide by its terms. Doing so would provide a real reason to cheer and a rationale to believe that the new leaders in Tehran have actually changed the nature of the regime.

Once Iran takes these steps, then the elements of MOU paragraphs 2 through 14 become palatable and beneficial, not just to the United States but to Israel as well. The ending of the blockade, the return of seized assets, the $300 billion dollar reconstruction and economic development package, and full sanctions relief are a natural and reasonable outcome to match Iranian goodwill.

Additionally, such Iranian steps would defuse the perceived urgency of the nuclear issue, even though American B-2 bombers effectively destroyed Iran’s nuclear program and turned a half a trillion dollars of Iranian investment into rubble a year ago. Without concerns about an imminent and existential threat, and with the significant steps of transformation described above, the incorporation of Iran as a trusted partner could be natural and seamless.

At that point, the United States would be wise to welcome Iran with open arms into the community of normalized nations.

All of this sounds like fantasy, and likely it is. Yet, when I don my spectacles of positivity and embrace a maximalist view of the first paragraph of the MOU, then I can start to see something that would actually warrant hope, praise, and adulation. Anything short of that, however, provides a severe reason for concern that nothing has changed and Iran’s world-renowned negotiating skills have turned their military defeat into a strategic win for them and them alone.

United States Air Force Brig. General John Teichert (Ret.) is a leading expert on foreign affairs and military strategy. He served as commander of Joint Base Andrews and Edwards Air Force Base, was the U.S. senior defense official to Iraq, and recently retired as the assistant deputy under secretary of the Air Force for international affairs. A prolific author and speaker, he can be followed at johnteichert.com and on LinkedIn.