Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said the U.S. should discard the proposed memorandum of understanding with Iran [1, 2].

This shift in strategy would signal a move away from diplomatic agreements toward a policy of strict verification and military readiness. Such a pivot could escalate tensions between Washington and Tehran if the U.S. abandons the framework for a more confrontational approach.

Kellogg, who previously served as national security adviser to former President Donald Trump, said his views during an interview on Fox News’ "Hannity" program [3]. He also appeared in separate media segments with Varney & Co. and The Post [3, 2].

Kellogg said that Iran is not an equal partner in negotiations [1, 2]. He cited the country's past behavior as a reason to distrust the current diplomatic trajectory, suggesting that a final agreement could be deceptive [1, 2]. Instead of a memorandum of understanding, Kellogg said the U.S. should prioritize verification, and remain prepared for military options [1, 2].

There is a notable contrast in how Kellogg addressed the public regarding these tensions. In a Yahoo Finance video interview, he said to viewers to "chill out a little bit" [1]. However, in a separate appearance with The Post, he took a more urgent tone regarding the necessity of preparation [2].

"Trump should brace Americans for round two with Iran," Kellogg said [2].

By advocating for the abandonment of the MoU, Kellogg suggests that the U.S. should stop treating the negotiation as a partnership. He believes the current approach lacks the necessary safeguards to prevent Iran from continuing its activities, while benefiting from a diplomatic deal [1, 2].

"Trump should brace Americans for round two with Iran"

The tension between Kellogg's advice to 'chill out' and his warning to 'brace' for conflict reflects a broader debate within U.S. foreign policy circles regarding the efficacy of diplomatic frameworks versus 'maximum pressure' campaigns. If the U.S. follows this advice to discard the MoU, it would likely move the relationship from a state of fragile negotiation to one of overt deterrence, increasing the risk of direct military confrontation while attempting to eliminate the possibility of a deceptive treaty.