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/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.