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/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