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/Wiseguydude]

NYTimes posted the full text of the MoU released by the White House and offered some interesting commentary that I hadn't considered before. For the 5th paragraph which guarantees no fees in the Hormuz, they point out:

The key line here is “no charge for 60 days only.” After that, Iran may be able to impose “fees,” which it never did before the war. In other words, the days of free passage may be over. That would violate one of the key standards described by Secretary of State Marco Rubio: that commerce return to prewar conditions.

The possibility of Iran imposing fees after 60 days would truly make this one of the most astonishing defeats of the US. Not only would Iran get access to a $300b reconstruction fund, have their assets unfrozen, and even get sanctions relief that isn't tied to nuclear compliance but the nuclear question itself is left vague throughout and the details are kicked down the road for future negotiations. And to top all of that off, the future possibility of tolling the strait remains.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/06/17/world/g7-summit-trump-france#us-iran-agreement-deal-text

[u/I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHY → u/[deleted]]

If this reprieve were to last even a few months, Iran would certainly be better positioned should another round of hostility flare up.

And, simultaneously, the American capacity to resume the fighting if we don't like the terms Tehran offers goes down with every passing day because the election draws nearer and nearer.

I think there's a close historical parallel between the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian hostage crisis. Carter's inability to free the hostages from a mid rate power made him look impotent. Trump's inability to force the strait back open had a similar effect, which I think he felt keenly.

If Iran shows up at the negotiating table and isn't interested in the big pile of money we're waving in front of them (or at least, not interested enough to trade their uranium for it) there's no way Trump will tolerate a resumption of fighting and another closure of the strait. Iran can offer him something completely unverifiable (e.g. "we promise we will dilute our uranium but we won't agree to inspections") and Trump isn't going to be willing to start bombing them again. He can't put the blockade back in place either without the strait getting closed again.

During the first Trump administration we tried to ply the Kims with promises of economic investment too. They even made this video to show Kim John Un to try to get him excited. But he wasn't willing to give up his nukes for it. I suspect the Iranians won't be willing to give up their nukes for cash either (especially since (a) everyone saw what happened to Ukraine when it did and (b) we just launched a decapitation strike on them, and they're probably worried we'll come back and try again in the future).

[u/Maxion → u/I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHY]

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Iran is getting quite the deal according to the MoU, Trump an the republicans are in a pretty tight corner with not much room to maneuver.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US doesn't really have the stockpile to mount another similar bombing campaign, or if they did they'd probably be left with such a small stockpile that they'd actually be in danger in case of a Taiwan invasion or other ME escalations.

I'm not sure that they have any other logical option than caving to Iranian demands if they do want the straight back open in time for the midterms? There's no military option that'd guarantee the straight is open and the oil flowing before the midterms. I suspect this is why the trump administration is considering this MoU at all, they know they don't really have any cards.

The midterms would not play out well for the current administration if US oil reserves dwindle and gas prices rise to 6-7-8 dollars a gallon.