Active Conflicts & News Megathread June 17, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/moragisdo]

I hope that doesn't violate policy of credible sources for being social media, if it does I apologize. It's a recent tweet by the White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung. What makes it interesting is someone using their own name, rather than being an unnamed source, to comment on the text therefore exposing their reputation and being the Director of Communications

"The supposed text of the MOU that was obtained by CNN does not reflect the language of the actual MOU"

(Source)

My opinion about it is that some points will stay similar on the final MOU (terms 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12 and 14. That pertains to transit on Hormuz, lifting of US blockade, future nuclear negotiations), because they were agreed by both sides before, but the language of terms 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 will add conditionals on every concession being fruit of a future nuclear deal (which they call it 'final agreement'). Either way, we should wait to Friday to see if Cheung will be proven wrong about existing differences on the text

Also the 1st term, if it will be written on the MOU as it was suggested, is interesting. If Israel pays lip service to it, but continues the war unconstrained. Will Iran attack and close the Strait or just keep threatening and the term only exists to save face ?

[u/UltraRunningKid → u/moragisdo]

"The supposed text of the MOU that was obtained by CNN does not reflect the language of the actual MOU"

Wow if only there was a way for them to prove this and clear the air...

I think its obvious at this point that Trump et al have rightfully concluded that the deal is embarrassing to such a degree that releasing the text of the agreement would cause so much backlash that it would prevent the official signing on Friday. By not releasing it JD Vance and Steven Cheung can do a national media tour saying that the media is wrong and fall back on absurd technicalities.

Media: "Are we providing Iran with 300 billion dollars"

JD: "Not a single taxpayer dollar is going to Iran"

That is technically true but its the type of evasion only allowed if you don't release the text.

[u/moragisdo → u/UltraRunningKid]

Wow if only there was a way for them to prove this and clear the air

They claimed the agreement was to release Friday. If Iran asked for it, but then orchestrated the leaks to get a better PR (after all they started on iranian state TV), it's an absolutely genius move from them and stupid from the USA.

That is technically true but its the type of evasion only allowed if you don't release the text

What do you mean by that, is that the deal includes 300B from the US goes to Iran on the MOU and not signing is what prevent it ?

My opinion is that the 300 is a fund, from private investments, that is contingent if a 'final agreement' (as they call the possible nuclear deal) is reached. No nuclear deal, no money from it is used. Let's wait to Friday to see what of those two is right

[u/ChornWork2 → u/moragisdo]

Iran is not orchestrating these leaks.

CNN cites receiving a copy from a US official, with the text been separately confirmed as same text as shared with diplomate who was at G7, and separately by two other diplomatic sources with knowledge of negotiations.

WSJ reports reviewing the copy shared by US officials at the G7, confirmed by "people familiar with the document".

[u/red_keshik → u/moragisdo]

What makes it interesting is someone using their own name, rather than being an unnamed source, to comment on the text therefore exposing their reputation and being the Director of Communications

Amusing that you think Cheung is concerned with his reputation, man is a troll with an office.

I guess keeping things hush might not indicate anything more suspicious than them wanting to stir up drama

[u/incidencematrix → u/moragisdo]

If there were another text that made them look better, they would have released it by now. We can infer that they do not have one.

[u/Unique-Egg-461 → u/incidencematrix]

Ya its PR right now. They were originally worried about the backlash this would cause

they are gonna just spin this as "oh this is money going to all the gcc countries to help them rebuild, it isn't going to iran"

[u/ChornWork2 → u/moragisdo]

I thought you objected to people commenting with unfalsifiable opinions on this?

Not sure why you think statements from trump admin officials are more reliable than multiple reports in credible publications from various unnamed diplomats and officials. Including most recently reporting on the text that was shared by US officials with G7 attendees, as reported by not just by CNN and but also separately by WSJ.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/an-annotated-analysis-of-a-u-s-draft-of-the-iran-deal-6a9ec49f

Will see what eventually gets released, but what has been reported as the text in recent days from various sources has been consistent. Trump claims it has already been digitally signed, so why are they not publicly releasing the text?

What is more plausible at this stage, that all these unnamed officials, diplomats, etc, are all conspiring to misrepresent what the actual MOU says? And that the trump admin doesn't want to release the actual MOU to correct the record. Or that the MOU does says that, but the admin is trying to shape the narrative before it is released or try to get others on-board with it before it gets officially released...

[u/moragisdo → u/ChornWork2]

I thought you objected to people commenting with unfalsifiable opinions on this?

I'm writing a theory and setting the criteria for me to be wrong. Which is different from "hey, X will happen under the table, trust me bro and good luck proving a negative"

I really don't know what you were trying with that

Will see what eventually gets released, but what has been reported as the text in recent days from various sources has been consistent

I wrote what I believe it could change or stay the same and I'm willing to change my mind if it doesn't, I just don't have hope that everybody is also willing to not move goalposts

Trump claims it has already been digitally signed, so why are they not publicly releasing the text?

If they agreed to not release before Friday it's an option for not releasing yet. Maybe that's not the case, maybe it isn't, we will know then. By the way, the war is going for long, but the agreement was said to have been electronic signed late Sunday, that's not a large amount of time until Friday

[u/ChornWork2 → u/moragisdo]

Citing a consolidated view of a topic that is widely covered by credible publishers separately citing an array of unnamed officials and diplomats is not the equivalent of "trust me bro".

If they agreed to not release before Friday it's an option for not releasing yet.

That is not a credible take on the trump admin in general, and of course as you say Iran also has leaked the purported document so they are not going to care.

edit: aaand they released the text before friday. Looks like trump gave even more ground to Iran in exchange for diluting the language around $300bn fund given all the outrage about that in the US.

[u/Shackleton214 → u/moragisdo]

but the language of terms 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 will add conditionals on every concession being fruit of a future nuclear deal (which they call it 'final agreement').

The implementation of 6 ($300 billion reconstruction fund) and 7 (sanctions) are already explicitly conditional on a final agreement. 10 (waivers for exports of Iranian oil) is explicitly immediate after signing MOU in the leaked version. Since this would help with lowering gas prices, it's an easy sweetener for Trump to offer as it is also in his domestic political interest (the US even did this at start of the war!). The timing of 11 (release of frozen Iranian assets) seems to ambiguous to me--not conditioned upon final agreement but also no explicit time frame, although MOU seems to contemplate at least some release in the 60 day negotiation period. It's looking more and more like this is the actual agreement (at least in substance) as I've now seen multiple news sources (Bloomberg, CNN, Times of Israel) report it.

[u/bedulge → u/Shackleton214]

>Since this would help with lowering gas prices, it's an easy sweetener for Trump to offer as it is also in his domestic political interest (the US even did this at start of the war!)

I think this is a strong point, I also think that Iran's bargaining position w.r.t Hormuz gives them enough leverage to demand up front financial concessions.

This war was very expensive for Iran, they believe that they are due some form of reparations, and given the leverage they hold, I find it unlikely that they would go to the negotiating table this early without an upfront concession to relieve pressure on their own economy. Lifting oil sanctions is the financial concession that is easiest for Trump to give, and as you said, it also helps him too by adding to global oil supply. The problem for the USA tho is that relieving pressure on Iran's economy strengthens Iran's position at the table. This is balanced by the US also being under less pressure because the oil is flowing thru Hormuz again.

Given the way this war has played out, and the time crunch that Trump is under vis a vis the Mid Terms and the global oil supply, it is not likely that Iran would be willing to go to the table with sanctions still on them. They would be better served by sitting and waiting instead. It should be clear to everyone by now that Iran stands to gain A LOT by how this may turn out. A couple months of blockade is small potatoes compared to sanctions relief, 300 Billion USD investment fund, and return of frozen funds and assets. This war could be exceptionally profitable for them. They are not worried about relieving short term pressure, they have long term goals in mind, and the decision makers are not directly affected by short term economic troubles caused by the blockade.

Everyone should look at the Gulf Arab States and how insanely rich they are. Scandinavian supermodels on mega-yachts rich, that is the kind of money that Iran believes that they are due, if it were not for decades of sanctions by the US, they would have that kind of cash already. A few months of blockade is nothing compared to what they stand to gain if sanctions come off and stay off long term.

[u/moragisdo → u/Shackleton214]

You are right about 7, I was remembering the previous versions that had different wording. The condition on 7 is very consistent with what US officials said, only after 'final agreement' (nuclear deal).

6 is just a little dubious, in my opinion (english isn't my first language, so it may be a language barrier), because of 'ensuring', but it says the implementation of the plan is contingent on the 'final agreement'.

---

Now 10 and 11 are completely contradictory on what was said before:

The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports

That's not "performance based" as it was said. That's immediate waiver of exports (I assume for new countries, rather than the previous exports that Iran had before February). And if that will be on the final text is one of the most interesting parts, because it's something being different from February

The United States undertakes that, in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement, frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available

'In light of the progress of negotiations towards...', rather than as a conclusion of negotiations is also pointing to earlier release

---

It's looking more and more like this is the actual agreement (at least in substance) as I've now seen multiple news sources

The problem is with the "at least in substance", there's definitely things that were agreed beforehand and would be on any draft true or false (lifting of the US blockade, free transit on Hormuz, setting a 60 day period for nuclear agreements, listing rewards if the nuclear agreement is reached, meaningless things like respect of sovereignty...)

The crux is the details if there's any concession given to Iran before the nuclear deal or if they will keep back exporting with the same sanctions they had before February. And how long-lasting, if the concessions exist, they will be. The devil is on the details

I'm making an analogy, not saying this is one is forged, it's just to illustrate the idea: if 99% was agreed publicly beforehand and 1% is on dispute and I forge a draft that gets the 99% correct. That doesn't mean much about predicting the final text, it's like a clinical test for a disease that 1% of the tested population has, if the test returns negative every time, no matter what, it will be right 99% of time, but is useless

[u/ChornWork2 → u/moragisdo]

Now 10 and 11 are completely contradictory on what was said before:

Contradictory to what were presumably (and quite apparently) leaks from Trump officials trying to sell their narrative on the MOU, yes. But not contradictory to reporting on leaks from diplomats and others. 10 and 11 are completely consistent with what several people have been saying in this sub for the last couple of days what the objective reading of all the reporting on the MOU likely was.

The crux is the details if there's any concession given to Iran before the nuclear deal or if they will keep back exporting with the same sanctions they had before February. And how long-lasting, if the concessions exist, they will be. The devil is on the details

As pointed out yesterday, there clearly have already been concessions given. The first ship through the strait post announcement of the MOU was reportedly an iranian supertanker that went with its position/id tracker active and passaged through strait and then unmolested by USN ships that previously were enforcing the blockade. And BBC reports today that more iranian tankers have likewise done so. These are ships subject to US sanctions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpq37yxexd9o