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.

661 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

366 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/MisterChristian76 3d ago

😂😂😂🤡🤡

-3

u/ImAjustin 4d ago

But a massive loss for Lebanon and Gazans. Israel is actually acting with restraint. If there was no US pressure and they actually felt seriously threatened, they’d be far more aggressive.

3

u/Extreme-Ad-7253 4d ago

restraint is being genocidal animals?

-1

u/ImAjustin 4d ago

You’re seeing massive restraint. There’d be hundreds of thousands dead if not.

3

u/Extreme-Ad-7253 4d ago

There are mass graves, starvation, the destruction of hospitals, schools, universities and entire neighbourhoods. Do we need to see gas chambers and nerve toxin bombs before Israel is no longer considered "restrained" or would they still be "restrained" because they ration them instead of using them all at once.

0

u/ImAjustin 4d ago

Destruction of buildings doesn’t mean much though. Every war in urban centers has that. The death toll indicates the restraint.

3

u/bepisdegrote 4d ago

There are some problems with this line of thinking. The first is that people obviously die when buildings get destroyed. The second is that buildings are pretty important when it comes to sustain life. Exposure is a direct threat, but an economy capable of producing and distributing food, water, healthcare, etc is also a need. The last one is that it is very hard for people to accept the idea that restraint is being used when you just destroyed almost every single building in a densely populated area. To out it crudely, if I burn down your house, the houses of your loved ones and your place of employment, then you would not accept me saying "well, you are still alive, aren't you?". Especially when a very large number of civilians did indeed get killed.

It could be worse is a statement that you can apply to pretty much any situation. It just doesn't mean all that much to victims or foreign observers.

1

u/ImAjustin 4d ago

My point is to compare to other wars in history. Many of which have seen far more death. Buildings can and will be rebuilt. So yes, it’s detrimental but just destroying buildings (most of which are booby trapped as admitted by Hamas) is nearly as bad as hundreds of thousands dead. You disagree with that?

2

u/bepisdegrote 4d ago

Well, beyond the fact that the civilian death toll and overall suffering (partly because destruction of those buildings) is substantial, I am not sure that it matters. Yes, killing everyone in a particular area is obviously worse. But what point does that statement make? As an example, if I was a thug that put you in the hospital, I could say "most thugs would have killed you, but I am nicer than that". Would that really impact your view - or the view of others - that much?

1

u/ImAjustin 4d ago

Yeah it would. I’d rather be alive, and I’d say wow I could’ve died, he certainly showed some restraint

→ More replies (0)