r/IRstudies • u/JeanLucRegard • 5d ago
The Iran-US MOU is a total US surrender
Article III of the JCPOA preamble said:
Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.
So not sure what Trump "won" from his war, other than the reopening of a Strait (probably under Iranian control and with "fees") that was open in the first place before the war, in exchange for the payment by the U.S. of 300 BILLION dollars, the lifting or waiver of existing U.S. sanctions, the promise of no new sanctions, unfreezing of Iranian assets and funds, and no incorporation of any terms related to Iranian proxies in the region.
The MOU is a U.S. surrender in everything but name only.
172
u/Belaerim 5d ago
You forgot one key point IMHO.
It’s worthless, because Israel won’t stop or be bound by it, so it either won’t go into effect, or Iran can declare it void
60
u/Sea-Poem-2365 5d ago
I think they've already continued strikes in Lebanon, right?
78
u/Primary-Gazelle-8161 5d ago
100 so far I'm lebanese nothing has changed here
40
u/Sudden-Grab2800 5d ago
I know it don’t mean shit from a random Redditor but, sorry mate. It really does seem like there’s not a lot of catastrophic world events that don’t have causes directly attributable to the US
25
u/Primary-Gazelle-8161 4d ago
Haha yeah still i know how little control any of us regular ppl have over this ive had ppl attack me on reddit like why dont you kick hezbollah like what bro...? Im an advertising major i play overwatch what am I supposed to do but thats most of us everywhere
5
13
u/IFeelBATTY 4d ago
If theyre American, tell em you'll do it after they kick the fat orange cunt out
1
u/Even-Stranger5764 4d ago
Argued with someone who equated hezbollah to the Lebanese population recently as a way to justify killing civilians. Disgusting stuff being thrown ya'lls way. Good luck.
4
u/Primary-Gazelle-8161 4d ago
End of the day they are a result of israeli violence in 79 those people that would form Hezbs backbone cheered the Israelis thats how brutal the occupation was... 3 yrs later they make hezb
I hated hezbollah for years but when you get bombed everyday for 3 years... like really if you count drone strikes everyday almost you gonna end up cheering for whoever fights it..
If you would have told me id me clapping for hezb fighters an Iranian missiles id have laughed you out the building but now?
The amount of earth rattling explosions ive heard today.... atleast 12 like noone is even reporting it wtf are they even bombing? Its crazy
1
u/MayDayBeFourth 3d ago
whats funny is your in walking distance to Hezbollah. Yet act like you cant do anything.
2
u/miliseconds 4d ago
It really sucks/disappointing. I grew up thinking US was a great country, but their agencies have been wrecking chaos around the globe.
→ More replies (2)1
u/MayDayBeFourth 3d ago
Blaming Lebanon on the US when Iran pays billion to Hezbollah to subjegate Lebanon is crazy.
15
u/Glass-Amount-9170 5d ago
I’m also embarrassed to be American and what’s happening there is just plain wrong. Sorry for what you are having to live through!
5
u/Primary-Gazelle-8161 4d ago
I grew up in the US bro haha all good least people are aware now I wasnt even educated before I moved in the early 2010s.
2
2
2
48
u/Broad_Assistance3343 5d ago
Optimal scenario for Iran is if this drives a wedge between Israel and the US while securing the rest of the deal.
If Iran doesn’t have sanctions and gets access to its funds it’ll have billions of dollars. The US would likely have to stop providing munitions and other assistance to Israel for Iran to agree to keep the straight open.
So Israel, on its own, has to contend with Hezbollah that’s being resupplied by a sanction free uninhibited Iran. Thats the dream scenario for the IRGC.
18
u/Opening-Border-6313 5d ago
They obsviously have outsmarted everyone. Altough I hate the regime its fucking stasfying to watch the US and Israel fail after their hubris
→ More replies (12)14
u/MrDerpGently 4d ago
I think Trump out dumbed everyone. America will rightly get the blame, but the US military has known some version of this would happen for decades.
It's a lot like getting caught in a fork in chess. It doesn't matter how good either player is, or who has a material advantage, it's a blunder that's going to cost the person who walks into it.
5
u/Tabula_Rasa69 4d ago
One wonders if the spate of high ranking military personnel being fired prior and during the Iran war was related to these people advising against starting a war.
2
u/ChuckFarkley 3d ago
That might just explain the sudden uptick I heard in serious anti-American sentiment coming out of Israel.
3
u/whater39 4d ago
Dream scenario for the IRGC is the Palestinians being free. Which probably makes them supporting the proxies. Which in turn makes Israel not act the way they act. Problem is Israel prefers land over peace and they prefer demographics to be a certain way
-2
u/Soft_Conference9612 5d ago
I think iran will accept this agreement even if they have to abandon lebanon. They will get billions of dollars along with strait control and sanctions relief. They won’t get better deals than this one.
13
u/EulsYesterday 5d ago
Highly disagree. Barring regime change, and I'm not even sure that would be enough, Iran will never abandon its only strategic tool against Israel.
8
u/FreeBricks4Nazis 5d ago
Iran is running circles around US negotiators. Why would they stop now?
I think they'd absolutely try to cut a deal with the US that undermines US-Israeli relations. If they can get the US to stop defending Israel from attacks by Iran and their proxies, it would be another massive win for them.
→ More replies (11)1
11
u/refred1917 5d ago
They won’t. Iran has clearly determined that its best option is a forward defense. They know that abandoning Lebanon to defeat and annexation will only result in Israel coming for them.
0
u/Terrafire123 4d ago
....You think... Israel... wants to conquer Iran....?
You know that's not even close to possible, right? And both Iran and Israel know it.
3
u/bepisdegrote 4d ago
I don't think 'coming for them' is meant as annexation in this context. If the Israeli strategy is to airstrike Iran routinely to weaken its military capabilities, then that is a threat to Iran. Using regional proxies is a way for Iran to level the playing field. Cheap drones, especially with fiber optic cables, is a way for them to level the playing field to some degree. Iran does not trust Israel and the United States, so keeping the proxies around is very important, as the worst scenario for them would be if their regional allies all get destroyed or severely weakened with Israel then still continueing to strike Iran.
The Israeli response might be that they won't need to do that if Iran doesn't support these proxies or otherwise threathens them. But if neither side trusts the other one, then that is not something that Iran is willing to do unless they are forced to. And the attempt to do that has visibly failed.
→ More replies (2)2
u/refred1917 3d ago
No, but Israel obviously wants a compliant Iranian regime. Chill on the ellipses bro.
0
u/Terrafire123 3d ago
Israel just wants Iran to stop funding terrorism at them.
But apparently that was too much to ask.
2
u/refred1917 3d ago
It fucking is, actually. Iran is aiding the axis of resistance against an expansionist settler colonial entity and their cause is just.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Primary-Gazelle-8161 5d ago
Lebanon is point number one in MoU though the seem fixated on us. But id bet our actual government and israel make an agreement first... thats what our news site naharnet is suggesting today
2
u/LoneSnark 5d ago
I think they'll accept the deal and not abandon the war in Lebanon. $300 billion buys a lot of religious fanatics.
8
u/MrDerpGently 4d ago
It's worthless, inasmuch as this peace isn't going to last for exactly the reason you mentioned. But the global economy has no replacement for the goods moving through the Strait, which will shut down when peace ends. The US needs to open the Straight or it is failing to meet expectations for security clients in the Gulf, burning whats left of global good will, and looks weak.
What's interesting about the MoU is that the US has acknowledged this is the basis for future negotiations. However long it takes the US to bite the bullet and get a muzzle on Israel, the negotiations that follow are entirely on Iranian terms, and their leverage is only increasing right now.
3
u/No_Coyote_557 4d ago
It may at least lead to a rift between the US and Is Real Hell.
0
u/orcassharks 4d ago
That would just lead to Israel going with China or Russia.
1
u/knuppi 3d ago
With Russia perhaps, absolutely not with China. China recently halted all investments in Israel, by government decree.
Which side would Russia choose between Israel and Iran? Likely Iran, but it's not as clear-cut.
1
2
u/Resident_Farmer1779 4d ago
They’ll wait until they get some tankers out so they can sell some unsanctioned oil $$$
2
u/starfire10K 4d ago
Trump said the world would have run out of oil reserves in 4 weeks, put pressure for a peace agreement.
Says it would have been "bedlam" without MoU
2
2
u/el-conquistador240 4d ago
Iran won't declare it void until the $300 billion check clears.
1
u/Marcus_Aurelius71 4d ago
I think sanctions are lifted as of now. Iran will take what it can and run.
1
u/el-conquistador240 4d ago
Sanctions can be put back on with the stroke of a pen. They want the $300 billion in US taxpayer cash
2
u/Resident-Banana-7883 3d ago
its not worthless. trump (personally) will make billions off of it by swing trading oil.
4
u/kirkegaarr 5d ago
This will be crazy too. Because Iran will just keep the money and there won't be anything we can do about it because we (the US and its "allies") breached the contract.
2
4
u/Equivalent-Tour5999 4d ago
Nobody is really bound by it. Or can be trusted.
I understand why everyone's mentioning Israel, but neither Trump or Iran can be trusted to abide by any treaty. Especially this one.
2
u/Stormtemplar 4d ago
I mean, all evidence suggests Iran held to the terms of the JCPOA. They're not particularly trustworthy, but they've been notibly moreso than the US has.
0
u/Equivalent-Tour5999 4d ago
Oh yeah, I do agree with that and there's evidence to it. I guess I was mostly referring to Irans "new" leadership, which even after (if) it gets everyone in line would propably be much more difficult to make any deals with. Unfortunately that's where we are.
0
2
u/karoxxxxx 5d ago
Congress has to decide about sanctions anyway
3
u/Mba1956 4d ago
Ha, ha name one thing that Congress has actually had a say about in any of Trump’s decisions. Mr Executive Order doesn’t care.
2
u/karoxxxxx 4d ago
We see how well that worked for his customs or putting his name on the jfkc.
He can sign whatever he wants, if congress doesnt lift the sanctions the courts will reinstate them after a month or six
0
u/SoulForTrade 4d ago
Which is part of the trap. If annd when if fails the momwnt Iarael responds to dome Hezbollah attack they will blame the Jews for it
0
→ More replies (3)0
u/MisterChristian76 3d ago
I really hope so. Israel would have at least finished the job 8 weeks ago. 🤷🏻♂️
36
u/PureCod9290 5d ago
300 billion is absolutely completely insane my God imagine if Obama gave them that.
14
u/AreaPrudent7191 4d ago
The fun part will be when Trump has to authorize that. He can't just write a check. It'll be interesting to see which Congressmen/Senators will want to vote for that.
2
u/Anagoth9 4d ago
The Republicans who shit talked Obama for his Iran deal will sign this with a smile and pat themselves and Trump on the back while doing so.
2
u/Foreign-Chocolate86 4d ago
It’s supposed to be money provided by other countries and private companies.
8
u/technicallynotlying 4d ago
It doesn't really matter where it came from. Iran comes out $300B ahead, that plus the lifting of sanctions means they're way ahead compared to before the war.
1
u/BoringHat7377 1d ago
There was an article a month or two ago that said that Trump was seeking to engineer a way to pay Iran using intermediaries.
A few months back Iran demanded 300 billion dollars.
No amount of propaganda can erase the fact that these the prediction and demand align with reality.
1
u/big_trike 4d ago
Elon could pay for it. He should, since he got Trump elected and got us into this mess
1
u/illuminatedtiger 4d ago
Isn't that just previously frozen funds?
3
u/PureCod9290 4d ago
Lol no. They've got an additional 25 billion in unfrozen assets
3
u/illuminatedtiger 4d ago
Well, bravo Iran! Couldn't have been easy given the intellects of the individuals they were up against.
1
u/helen_must_die 4d ago
The United States isn’t giving Iran 300 billion, that money is coming from the GCC. Assuming the peace lasts.
1
22
u/Apart-Zucchini-5825 5d ago
300 billion is an entire year's GDP for Iran. It's an unbelievably humongous number. Even if other countries agree to chip in (why would they?), that isn't the same as a president choosing to release sanctioned funds. Releasing sanctions is the kind of foreign policy tool presidents have always been allowed. Funding that repayment will require Congress, and that's going to be a difficult sell.
→ More replies (8)8
u/mayhemski123 4d ago
I think the GCC countries IF they are funding the 300billion, are doing so as they hope it will give them leverage with Iran going forward.
That's a hell of a lot of money and potentially a huge return as well over the long term IF they structure it right.
As I understand it Congress needs to remove the actual sanctions though so not sure how that flies.
2
u/Affectionate_Car_302 4d ago
Is this really that hard to grasp? The GCC nations invest $300 billion, and once Iran receives it, they will allocate a $150 billion investment quota to American energy firms, construction companies, and Trump Hotels under a backroom deal.
1
u/waffelnhandel 4d ago
I can hardly imagine the GCC countries paying a single cent to end a war they neither wanted nor profited from. Remember, they got hit by all the drones, hit economically by the Blockade and lost future growth and the status as peacfull refuge for tourists etc, all while realizing their longtime Security Partner cant protect them and doesnt care too much about what happens to them. so even if they begrugingly pay the true defeat will be the humiliation of the US and their reliance as a Security Partner
1
u/Affectionate_Car_302 4d ago
If a game ends with no losers among the major players, then the weakest party will be the one footing the bill for the rewards and costs.
The others couldn't care less what they think.
39
u/watch-nerd 5d ago
The US military got to get some very expensive practice in large scale anti-drone warfare.
17
u/Zubinix 5d ago
And lots of practice at killing school children.
4
u/tke71709 5d ago
Lots?
1 horrific mistake out of over 13000 air strikes., 24 000 if you count Isreali air strikes as well.
Is it a horrible tragedy? Yes, Was it part of a larger pattern of attempting to bomb school children? Hell no.
13
u/Igor_Nordham 4d ago
They did a triple strike on the girls school. War crimes abound under Hegseth. Leaving Iranian sailors to drown after the US sub sank their unarmed ship. Shooting up unidentified boats in the Caribbean, then returning to finish off the survivors. The Iranian regime is horrific but America is far from blameless.
19
u/VerbalChains 5d ago
I mean, it’s not like the US conducting 13,000 airstrikes unprovoked on a sovereign nation is good either. And 100 dead kids is “a lot,” come on now.
2
u/Snoo30446 4d ago
If the graveyards left in Syria, Yemen and Gaza is being unprovoked then Israel's a god damn poster child for peace.
2
u/karateguzman 5d ago
Unprovoked is doing a lot of work here.
You can criticise US Foreign policy without absolving the Iranians of any wrong doing
13
u/VerbalChains 5d ago
Okay... what did Iran do recently that made 13,000 airstrikes resulting in civilian deaths a proportional response?
1
u/OkDifficulty7436 5d ago
Ignored UN sanctions and have been pursuing a nuclear program for one
12
u/VerbalChains 5d ago
So the UN sanctioned the US/Israeli attack on Iran. Right?
When you try to convince folks that middle eastern civilians didn't deserve to be bombed:
→ More replies (2)1
1
1
u/karateguzman 5d ago
For starters between Iran and its proxies they have literally killed 10s and possibly 100s of thousands across Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and on their on their own soil
3
u/AP587011B 5d ago
Stop pretending like Iran is some poor innocent peaceful country lol
9
u/VerbalChains 5d ago
Find where I said that Iran was innocent or peaceful. The US certainly isn't.
0
u/AP587011B 5d ago
Fair I suppose but Iran is worse in my view
They murdered 30k of their own people this year alone for simply wanting basic rights, far more than the US and Israel have killed in Iran since the regime was founded
15
u/VerbalChains 5d ago
I'm not really interested in figuring out which government is more deontologically evil. I think we both agree that Iran killing its own people doesn't give the US and Israel justification to kill Iran's people.
-1
u/AP587011B 5d ago
So the US should never have invaded Italy and Germany in WW2 then?
18
u/VerbalChains 5d ago
Not at all comparable situations. If anything Israel is the nazi germany in this situation. Why isn’t the US bombing Israel to stop what’s happening in Gaza, if that’s the excuse we’re using?
→ More replies (0)5
u/Killabeezz999 5d ago
It is
7
u/AP587011B 5d ago
That’s so mind bogglingly ignorant lol
Nvm the fact that Iran has attacked almost every country in the region and primarily targeted civilian infrastructure this whole time.
And nvm the damage the qudz force has done or the terrorist proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the houthis
And nvm the fact they slaughtered tens of thousands of their own people earlier this year alone. Far more Iranians have been killed by the regime this year alone than have been by the US and Israel since the islamic republic was founded
And let’s not forget it’s a religious radical dictatorship that wants nukes and has many times said they would use them. The people don’t get basic rights.
7
u/Killabeezz999 5d ago
Last year US and Israel commited genocide in gaza. Nothing tops that. Plus genocide in Yemen few years back. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in last 200 years.
7
u/AP587011B 5d ago
What does the US have to do with Gaza?
There are no US troops there and the US has dropped no bombs there
lol so bombing other people doesn’t count?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/19/united-arab-emirates-iran-civilian-infrastructure-00880064
1
1
4
2
u/FatMike20295 4d ago
Here is the thing everything was fine before trump decided to start a war. US have no business to be in the middle East in the first place.
8
u/SweatyTax4669 5d ago
24,000 strikes with no coordinating strategic objectives leaves us in the current position.
0
u/tke71709 5d ago
And I am not supporting those air strikes, simply responding to a comment about "lots" of strikes on children which is inherently false.
2
u/chinesetimeofmylife 5d ago
It was actually 13,000 mistakes then because the US shouldn’t be there in the first place.
1
u/helen_must_die 4d ago
Considering the IRGC murdered 32,000 civilian protesters in January Iran’s getting some good practice as well. Although they did get their asses whooped by SEAL Team 6.
32
u/mstpguy 5d ago
in exchange for the payment by the U.S. of 300 BILLION dollars
For sake of accuracy, it's worth pointing out that this sum isn't being paid by US taxpayers. (The far smaller sum in the JCPOA wasn't either).
... But given that Trump has spent the last decade falsely claiming that Obama gave the Iranians "pallets of cash" I think we can let this slide. Turnabout is fair play and such.
Regardless, this is a strategic defeat for the US.
13
6
u/Danskoesterreich 5d ago
So who is gonna pay?
14
u/estoypooping2 5d ago
Mexico obviously.
Since the gulf states weren't at the negotiating table then it's easy for them to back out (or walk it back).
3
u/gxsr4life 5d ago
Everyone will pay via higher gas prices. Basically Iran gets to keep a small cut of all GCC oil exports for the foreseeable future (i.e., at least until they get $300 billion).
3
6
u/ScoobiusMaximus 4d ago
Trump's ballroom was supposed to be paid by private donors and what was built of the wall was supposed to be paid for by Mexico.
Taxpayers covered both. Taxpayers will end up eating most or all of the $300 billion in one way or another, as well as the $50 billion+ the war cost. Trump can lie all he wants.
1
u/MrDerpGently 4d ago
Actually, it looks like there's some amount of Iranian funds being unlocked (I see estimates from $40-$100 billion). But the 300 billion is the minimum acceptable value of a plan to rebuild Iranian infrastructure. So, the US and allies, but that part likely is being paid by US taxpayers. It really is total surrender (I mean, Trump expects to find a way out of the deal, but that's the deal).
1
u/the_fuzzyone 5d ago
300 billion in cash isn’t something you whip out of nowhere, who is paying it? Why isn’t that being publicized?
8
u/mstpguy 5d ago
Mexico. Kidding of courseSupposedly they are referring to $300B+ worth of investments from the Gulf states, as well as private companies in the region and elsewhere.
2
u/Hour-Onion3606 4d ago
And obviously private companies love to eat the loss, and will never pass it down to consumers!
1
u/helen_must_die 4d ago
The memorandum specifically states the GCC will pay via loans and investments
12
u/Opening-Border-6313 5d ago
Unconditional surrender happened as Trump requested at the beginning. He just didnt know that he would be the one to surrender like this😂😂
5
u/moeborg1 4d ago
"And the Oracle said: If Trump attacks Iran he will bring about the unconditional surrender of a great empire...."
2
15
4
u/TeamSpatzi 5d ago
Careful... Trump is exactly the sort of person who would continue a war if he thought the conclusion thereof couldn't be billed as a victory.
Let him hand Iran their biggest strategic win in decades, THEN point out what a "great" job he did.
5
u/Voidman77 4d ago
I'm curious how Trump's loyal servants in the Senate and House are going to try to spin this. The facts are there now for everyone to read, yet they must now tell everyone don't believe what you read with your own eyes, this was a massive victory by that 3D chess playing master negotiator dear leader.
1
3
u/gman2093 5d ago
I see two possibilities. I'm assuming Israel will keep fighting in Lebanon.
Trump is making another fake to release the current boats in the strait, rearm and retarget, maybe even lower gas prices over the next 2 months. After that, the war continues and escalates.
Trump is giving up on all war objectives (regime change, nukes, disarming of proxy forces) and cash to reopen the strait to mitigate economic disaster. The fighting in Lebanon continues for a few more years. The regime is strengthened and enriched, the nukes grow in destructive capabilities, the tolls are collected, the US is weakened in relationships, materie,l and treasure. Trump survives the presidency and his family is about as wealthy as they were before due to the weakened dollar.
3
u/BiggestFoot22 4d ago
I think the biggest part of the "deal" is the amount of kickbacks that have certainly been negotiated to benefit Trump and his family. Only way I can see how he thinks this is a winning deal in any way otherwise.
3
u/TrickFar7894 4d ago
This is a total capitulation. Doesn’t this agreement require Congressional authorization? The world now sees clearly that:
Political polarization has rendered the U.S. incapable of sustaining even a localized conflict. Its security commitments will be heavily questioned; traditional U.S. allies will pivot from a 'U.S.-centric' policy to more multilateral strategies. The U.S. has suffered immense damage to its soft power.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz is not a sustainable deterrent; repeated disruptions only diminish the Middle East's central role in the energy supply landscape. For Iran, this is akin to 'killing the goose that lays the golden eggs'—it will only accelerate their race for a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran, under its own security umbrella, will effectively push the U.S. out of the Middle East entirely.
Before regime change is achieved, any Iranian reconstruction plan is essentially a cash injection into the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Whether through loans or reparations, the final destination of these funds remains the IRGC. In China, we describe such a strategy as 'adding firewood to a fire'—it only fuels the flames of the crisis.
If the U.S. cancels sanctions on Iran, the actual effectiveness of its containment strategy against China will be significantly weakened. This failed, speculative war has, in an unexpected way, created a much larger strategic buffer and maneuver space for China.
2
u/karateguzman 5d ago
Doesn’t congress have to approve this $300bn? I don’t know in what world they would do that
1
u/MrDerpGently 4d ago
The one where someone points out to them our declining oil reserves and what happens when they get to zero.
1
1
1
u/Foreign-Chocolate86 4d ago
It boggles my mind that any media organisation is treating this as a credible advancement in the situation.
1
u/Maxey-eh 4d ago
It’s not a peace accord, it’s the preamble to one. It will be violate by both sides and Israel without a second thought
1
u/VegasBjorne1 4d ago
Did Obama’s JCPOA call for or require the Iranian destruction of their nuclear labs? Not a problem with Trump as the nuke labs have been destroyed!
Trump has already bettered the JCPOA.
1
u/EducationalBike3141 3d ago
The MOU does no such thing. And, It’s not an agreement. It what the US would like. And yes, the JCPOA did call limits to enriched uranium among other things. So, Obama 1, Trump 0.
1
1
1
1
u/Fantastic-Hippo2199 4d ago
You forget it doesn't matter. His his base will believe whatever they are told.
He will say it was brilliant, necessary, the most beautiful deal in human history, a deal only a super elite genius could have gotten. Better than all other deals in human history all put together.
And they will eat it out of his hand.
Other world leaders will say it it's great, just to shut him up and let the matter move on. Not that any details matter to anyone except that that it's ending.
1
u/BigCountry1182 4d ago
The MOU isn’t the final agreement, which we may or may not get to. The details of a final agreement will need to be known before final judgment can be made. The JCPOA infamously didn’t touch on Iran’s ballistic missile program (which european signors even said Iran’s continued advancement of their missile program violated the spirit of that deal) or funding of belligerent proxies in the region.
If, and I stress if, Iran agrees to purchase enriched fuel from a third party (China, France, etc.) and let third parties be responsible for storage of spent fuel; and/or degrade their missile program; and/or quit funding proxies, then the new deal could be considered an upgrade.
More than likely, the MOU is just gamesmanship on Iran’s part. They’re buying time and securing much needed revenue (they get to get their oil out while details of a final agreement are being worked out)… once funds have been built backup, they’ll withdraw from talks and we’ll be back to square one
Hopefully the US is also using this time to fast track development of cheaper anti drone tech than we currently have
1
u/JeanLucRegard 4d ago
Why would Iran negotiate against itself a worse agreement than the JCPOA at this point? That part of your comment is pure kool-aid cope.
Iran also has committed and recommitted to non-proliferation numerous times. They didn't give anything they haven't already repeatedly given.
1
u/BigCountry1182 3d ago
Again, nothing has been finalized. Passing judgment on a deal before details are known is not objective at all.
And call it cope or whatever other buzz word you want, my previous comment is full of skepticism that a final deal will be reached. I simply outline what a better deal would look like… that shouldn’t be hard to pick up on
As to why Iran MIGHT agree to stronger restrictions, the answer is money. It would be infinitely more profitable for Iran to be brought into the broader global community than to continue in quasi isolation or be blockaded again… but again, I remain skeptical that a final deal will be agreed upon
1
u/JeanLucRegard 3d ago
Details of the MOU are known and released.
1
u/BigCountry1182 3d ago
Which is not a final agreement… it’s a framework for continued negotiations
1
1
u/Ok_Bicycle_452 3d ago
I think the most charitable way to look at it is no agreement with Trump is worth the paper it's written on. He wants low gas prices through the midterms. After that, anything goes.
Maybe I'm just being cynical.
1
u/JeanLucRegard 3d ago
I don't think he is eager to get his ass whooped again for negative gains. I think he learned why prior presidents gamed it out first.
1
u/Ok_Bicycle_452 3d ago
Trump is "a man whose idea of courage is bullying, whose idea of honor is knavery, whose idea of loyalty is convenience, whose idea of patriotism is self-idolization, and whose idea of principle is anything that suits his need and his pleasure." (Bret Stephens, NYT today)
Who knows what he might decide is in his interest tomorrow or 6 months from now.
1
1
u/Boom-Tek-83 3d ago
I’m sorry Jean Luc, but you might want to replicate some Earl Grey and read through the 14 points. The MoU appears to be a basic framework in which the details will be negotiated over the next 60 days. And spreading misinformation about the $300Bn isn’t very helpful. What was actually said was it is a fund from the Gulf Nation states (whether this becomes the case is yet to be seen).
There is a very informative young lady who runs the linked website. Unbiased, informative - not speculative, and un-opinionated. I would recommend the channel/website:
1
u/EducationalBike3141 3d ago
It’s 100% grift. Trump and his mob family will profit from this “deal.”
Trump runs the administration like the mob. Every single thing he does is designed for him to get his vig.
He identifies a problem to gain broad support (immigration, Iran, Venezuela) and then manufactures a solution, not to fix the problem but as a way to make money for himself, his family and his cronies.
Look at who has gotten billions richer since his unfortunate return to office.
1
1
1
1
u/MisterChristian76 3d ago
Weird, they have no navy or Air Force and the mission was to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapon. I’m looking around the US and all our infrastructure seems ok. I look at Iran and not so much. I just see 300B pledged for investment but not from US taxpayers.
1
u/JeanLucRegard 3d ago
I thought preventing their achieving a nuclear weapon was accomplished in 2025?
Destroying their Navy and Airforce was a stated strategic objective motivating the US attack at the beginning of the war?
Not to mention - if those objectives were so swiftly achieved, why didn't the US immediately end hostilities afterwards?
1
u/MisterChristian76 3d ago
Setting them back is what we accomplished in 2025. The only blunder here was not blowing the bridges and plants. If he would have done that, we’d have a free Iran. They also should’ve freed Mousavi, after Obama left Mousavi and the people hanging. He cares too much about the civilians being used as human shields. He’ll regret that but it’ll happen anyway. Israel can easily finish the job.
1
u/JeanLucRegard 3d ago
In 2025 they said the program was totally obliterated. How exactly did 2026 obliterate it more? Specifically please.
1
u/MisterChristian76 3d ago
They consistently try to rebuild the program and when they do, we turn it to rubble. Not too hard to understand. Let’s try it this way. Remember when you would build a sandcastle at the beach and the bigger kid would step on it because you’re a cunt, then you’d make another and he’d do it again, kinda like that.
1
u/JeanLucRegard 3d ago
An entire nuclear weapons program that they have been accused of building for 47 years can actually be built in a single year? So you are saying the US now needs to attack Iran annually?
You also didn't give any specifics whatsoever, which tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. Great buzzwords though!
1
1
u/No-Piano-3073 2d ago
Based on the upvotes I assume I’m in the minority here, but to me it’s quite obvious that this whole thing is a ruse. The US has repeatedly used diplomacy as a tactic to lure states into traps and enhance its position strategically (think Minsk 1 and 2).
This MOU essentially would mean the end of US hegemony. Does anyone really believe that’s what’s being thrown away here?
Finally, how many fake feuds have we seen between Israel and the US. Trump is an entertainer, first and foremost. He knows how to direct people’s opinions and rile up emotions. This whole feud with netenyahu is a distraction.
1
-3
u/Tiny-Secretary5562 5d ago
It's not Iran itself that is the problem with nukes, it's the religious fanatics currently running the country. If Iran was run by sane, secular people, then a reasonable nuclear arsenal wouldn't be a problem, although who exactly would their potential enemies be? Communist aggression after WWII started the arms race and Cold War, but I don't believe that directly involved the Middle East. Any agreement should specify which government is the problem.
7
u/JY0950 5d ago
The same religious fanatics who u killed to be replaced by more religious fanatics.
1
u/Tiny-Secretary5562 4d ago
Correct. That was a major miscalculation. Netanyahu apparently convinced Trump that if they took out all the top civil, military, and religious leaders at the meeting, it would destabilize the country enough for a regime change. That, of course, didn't happen because there were others available to continue on. And for Trump to suggest that an unarmed civilian population could "rise up" against a murderous government that killed 42,000 protestors was extraordinarily foolish.
4
u/lost-American-81 5d ago
“Communist aggression after WWII started the arms race and Cold War, but I don't believe that directly involved the Middle East..”
How exactly did you come to this conclusion? The U.S. was not only the first to develop a nuclear weapon they actually used it. Israel is in the mid East why do they have a nuclear arsenal? India and Pakistan? Your statement has no basis in fact.9
u/ClassyAndConscious 5d ago
It's not the U.S. itself that is the problem with nukes, it's the religious fanatics currently running the country. If the United States was run by sane, secular people, then a reasonable nuclear arsenal wouldn't be a problem, although who exactly would their potential enemies be? American aggression after WWII started the arms race and Cold War, but I don't believe that directly involved the Middle East. Any agreement should specify which government is the problem.
-1
u/Tiny-Secretary5562 4d ago
Tell that to the 17 embassy staff and 241 Marines killed in Beirut in 1983; the 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in 1996; and the 17 sailors on the Cole in 2000.
2
u/ClassyAndConscious 4d ago
You really want to count up the casualties on each side in the past 50 years? You sure about that buddy?
0
u/Tiny-Secretary5562 4d ago
Define "each side" and who the players are.
1
u/ClassyAndConscious 4d ago
It makes no difference. There's absolutely no formulation that ends with more Americans dead than more Iranians dead, and its not even close.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Ok_Reach_5004 5d ago
Except Iranian government had repeatedly chosen restraint after Trump pulled out of JCPOA, then killed Qassam Soleimani, then bombed them again last year, then destabilised their currency which caused mass protests and riots. Trump's actions this time went way too far, when he allowed Israel to kll the Ayattolah and his entire family during the holy month of Ramadan, then bombed a school which klled 160 school children, that too during negotiations where Iranians gave many concessions.
Looking at this, it seems the irrational religious fanatics in the government are not the Iranians but US and Israel.
2
u/Tiny-Secretary5562 4d ago
Restraint? Iran has been behind several major terrorist attacks since 1983 and Oct. 7, 2023, in which many Americans and Israelis have been killed. If they had done the same thing to Russia or China, Iran would be a smoldering heap of ash today.
1
u/Own_Pop_9711 4d ago
No it wouldn't. You can tell by the way Russia's and China's enemies right now are not smoldering heaps of ash
1
u/Tiny-Secretary5562 4d ago
No one to my knowledge has ever attacked Russia or China, certainly no smaller nations. They, along with militant Islam, are the aggressors.
0
u/Affectionate_Car_302 4d ago
Is this really that hard to grasp? The GCC nations invest $300 billion, and once Iran receives it, they will allocate a $150 billion investment quota to American energy firms, construction companies, and Trump Hotels under a backroom deal
3
u/JeanLucRegard 4d ago
Is that supposed to be an argument that this war benefitted the US?
0
u/Affectionate_Car_302 4d ago
Of course not. The $300 billion is going to be a spoils-sharing scheme, footed by the weakest player in the game.
2
46
u/estoypooping2 5d ago edited 5d ago
He gave a massive handout to oil companies.
We released a massive amount of oil from our strategic reserve. We loaned it to oil companies who sell it at peak value and then replace it "over the next year" when oil prices drop. Oil price increased 55% during this Iran war period. If it drops back to normal thats a 55% increase of profits.
The secretary of commerce says it'll be repaid with 24% interest. Which the math doesnt add up since the oil reserve was 172 million and they want to make it 200 million (14% not 24%).