[This Iran war post launched before complete. It is, however, a bit closer than usual to being finished. Please check in at 7:45 AM EDT or refresh this page then for a final version]
Your humble blogger and the many others that predicted that there would be no negotiated outcome to the Iran war may be about to be proven wrong. But as things stand, there is still ample reason to wonder whether the commitment to signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), set to be signed in Geneva on Friday could come unglued or be postponed.
We’ll go over the immediately preceding developments, which was that Israel again bombed Beirut to sabotage the signing Trump had loudly insisted was happening over the past weekend (Iran had rejected that timetable before the sabotage bombing but did make noises that an agreement might be inked soon). Iran was readying a counterstrike before the night was over.
Trump begged for Iran to stand down and Israel media claimed the US even offered Iran $12 billion of the frozen assets and was shocked when the Iran rejected that.1 I have no proof but the sequence strongly suggests that Iran made a counter offer: that the US take different pre-signing actions, which are to end the blockade and cease hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon in the cessation of hostilities. So the US needs to be able to demonstrate that it can at least get Israel from stopping military action in Lebanon from Monday evening through the signing time in Geneva. That seems to explain the signing on Friday as opposed to early in the week.2
And keep in mind that even if Tehran and Washington do get over this hurdle, it is a long long long way for achieving a settlement. Trump himself and the general agreement incapableness of the US, made worse on Trump’s watch, are positioned to be insurmountable obstacle to getting to a final resolution. An indicator is that Trump has yet to reach a single final trade agreement. Even the Wall Street Journal signaled doubt. From its landing page:
If an MOU is signed and negotiations start and then break down, or take so long as to leave the conflict in an extended half-pregnant state, that could still result in great economic harm even if the pace at which the damage compounds lowers a bit.
The elephant in the room is whether the US will capitulate to continued Iran control of the Strait of Hormuz, with Oman cut in to improve legality and optics. The talks could break down fast over that. Even though, as we will show below, Trump has shifted from making hardline to ambiguous noises on this key issue, the US idea of what Strait of Hormuz being open and what the US have said have been in two different universes. And even if Trump has decided he has to give in, that does not mean he has the tenacity to hold firm when he gets pushback from hardliners.
The short sanity check list from the Wall Street Journal:
Is the deal, well, real? Here’s what to keep a close eye on:
The Strait of Hormuz. Trump suggested that the Strait of Hormuz, a vital commercial thoroughfare that Iran had been tormenting for months, would be opened after the deal is formally signed on Friday….
The blockade. The White House has imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ships, with the goal—essentially—of economic strangulation. Trump announced Sunday that he was lifting this blockade in conjunction with Iran opening the Strait of Hormuz. If the blockade is removed, Iran might be much more likely to continue negotiating with the White House on other things, as it could ease pressure on their economy.
Israel. One of the biggest strains on the talks in the past months has been Israel, which has continued bombing inside Lebanon. Iran has said this was a deal breaker. Trump initially brushed aside concern about Israel’s strikes against Iran, but in recent weeks he has become furious that Israel wouldn’t stand down. Israel’s strikes continued into Sunday morning, drawing a stern response from Trump. Will Israel now back away?
Both of Trump’s “Deal on” tweets were all about the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting that the getting back to something approaching normalcy has become an overriding concern:
Trump may even be fully on board with the the legal finesse, that Iran will not charge tolls but can and almost certainly will charge service fees. From the New York Times in Trump Claims Strait Will Be ‘Permanently Toll-Free’ Under Agreement With Iran:
President Trump said in an interview on Sunday afternoon that the agreement he had reached with Iran would ultimately assure that the Strait of Hormuz was “permanently toll-free,” and asserted that, despite the objections of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, he had saved Israel from nuclear obliteration.
Mr. Trump also insisted that if Iran failed to reach a final nuclear accord with the United States — a process that his aides say they expect will begin on Friday in Switzerland — he would restart military attacks on Tehran or make the United States “the guardian of the Middle East” in return for 20 percent of the region’s revenues…
“He’s a very difficult guy,” Mr. Trump said of the Israeli prime minister, “and to be honest with you, he should be very thankful to us for doing this. Because if Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel wouldn’t be around for two hours.”
Mr. Trump’s assertion that the United States would, if necessary, become a paid police force for the Middle East would be a striking, if very Trumpian, departure. The president would, in effect, be turning American protection of the region — and the U.S. nuclear umbrella — into a mercenary force, there in return for profit. The arrangement would essentially reject the post-World War II American tradition, in which the United States used its power to assure global peace and prosperity…
But pressed on Sunday on whether he had won the agreement of Gulf states to such an arrangement — including American allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — he did not offer a direct answer, suggesting instead that he had just begun to discuss the issue. It would only happen, he suggested, if Iran remained an adversary.
Mr. Trump described Iran’s current leadership, including the new supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, as pragmatists. It was a vastly different tone from the one he took on the opening day of the war…
While the text of the agreement has not yet been published, Mr. Trump seemed to be describing Iranian concessions that the country has not yet made, or that have been kicked to the follow-up negotiations. The memorandum of understanding, for example, suspends tolls in the strait for only 60 days, and then promises a regional dialogue about the future. Iran had never charged tolls before the war, so the president is essentially celebrating a return to the prewar status quo….
He also insisted that Iran would be forever limited to enriching at low levels that “could never be used by the military.”
“They can never go beyond a certain amount,” he said. But when asked whether that limit was the same as in the Obama-era agreement — which limited enrichment to 3.67 percent, a level that is usable in power reactors but not weaponry — he said only that the new accord would assure that “they can only enrich for nonmilitary purposes. Forever.”…
Mr. Trump insisted, as his aides have, that Iran would receive no relief from sanctions or release of its frozen financial assets until it delivered on its commitments.
He maintained that he was in no rush to get the near-bomb-grade fuel out of its underground sites,…
He said the United States would, over time, join with Iran in “down-blending” the enriched nuclear material, which would bring it to reactor-grade. But he offered no deadline and sounded vague about the timing….
Mr. Trump also suggested that the United States would have what he called “strong policing powers” to make sure that Iran was not conducting nuclear work in violation of any of its commitments. He said that the previous deal allowed inspection demands to stretch out for months, but that the accord he is striking would provide for near-instant access. Iran has not spoken publicly about any such agreement.
If Trump does indeed stick to the terms implied here, that does amount to making major retreats from previously, noisily-stated positions, such as Iran must hand over all its “nuclear dust,” not engage in nuclear enrichment even for peaceful purposes, and go back to status quo ante regarding the Strait of Hormuz, as no Iran control at all.
However, even these big moves are short of what Iran has insisted on. Iran has correctly seen the US as totally untrustworthy and has insisted that the US take meaningful action before Iran moves as now-necessary demonstrations of good faith. Recall that Mehr News had posted a 14 point set of terms, which Trump had angrily denounced as not what was agreed.3
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has strongly signaled that the substance of their 14 points remains intact even if the verbiage moved about. It may also be that Iran settled on getting half of its sought-after $24 billion in frozen assets upfront for a pre-signing halt of the US blockade. From Tasnim News:
In a statement released on Monday night, the SNSC [Supreme National Security Council] secretariat said that the Islamic Republic, under the guidance of its martyred Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, the directives of the current Leader Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei, the unwavering support of the Iranian people, and the tireless efforts of the country’s armed forces, has completed a period of difficult and intensive negotiations.
“Based on the approval of the Supreme National Security Council, the text of the memorandum of understanding regarding the end-of-war negotiations (Islamabad talks) between Iran and the United States was finalized on the evening of June 15,” the statement read.
“Under the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, are ended immediately and permanently. Furthermore, the naval blockade against Iran is terminated immediately and completely.”
Note that the formal approval on the Iran side creates rigidity; they have created a big barrier to modifications if Trump throws a hissy.
Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs has announced that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Iran and the United States has been finalized and will be officially signed on Friday in Switzerland, while emphasizing that the agreement is built on “active distrust” of the enemy.
“We have incorporated all our important positions into the draft MoU,” Kazem Gharibabadi said on Sunday.
“This memorandum does not mean trusting the enemy; it has been written with active distrust. We will monitor the implementation of US commitments.”
The deputy minister declared that starting Monday night, the US naval blockade against Iran will be terminated, along with “the immediate and permanent end of the war and military operations on various fronts, including Lebanon.”
As we’ll soon discuss, this means Iran is requiring the US to leash and collar Israel, which Israel is predictably resisting:
Ben-Gvir says 'Trump's agreement' doesn't bind Israel as Netanyahu stays mum https://t.co/8rwRzmP7Qq
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) June 15, 2026
Even if Iran does not charge fees while talks are on but controls traffic, it can clearly impose them if things go pear-shaped. That could in turn result in some states trying to evade the charges, which could result in Iran firing on vessels which would have the effect of choking transit (insurers would raise rates; some ship owners would not risk passage). We flagged this issue early on, that ship operators were not confident any conflict-resolution would hold, and many said they would hold back for a couple of months to be sure conditions had stabilized before sending vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.
A new story on Lloyd’s List reaffirmed the cautious stance of insurers and carriers. From A fragile thaw in Hormuz but timing and sequence now matter:
- Shipowners rushing to reposition vessels and markets are rallying, yet insurers for now are holding firm on high war‑risk premiums, insisting on ‘solid evidence’ of lasting safety before lowering rates
- Industry bodies warn that mine clearance and a return to the formal Traffic Separation Scheme are essential, as Iran’s blockade has permanently altered regional risk and demonstrated its leverage over the strait
- While a pause in hostilities will free stranded mariners and boost tanker and bulk markets, the sector sees this as a fragile reprieve rather than a return to normality, with elevated risk now embedded in long‑term decision‑making
But the flip side is that Trump on a visceral level may have come to recognize that in backing Israel and assuring a global economic depression, that Israel was the part of the equation he could budge. Politico reported that oil executive had warned Trump in person of the coming oil supply cliff. Producer and consumer inflation were already coming in hot.4
Regardless, as we said from the outset, this conflict would prove to be a test to destruction. And that is happening, albeit incrementally. We had pointed out that one possible, albeit seemingly unlikely, way for the conflict to fizzle out was that the Gulf States would pull away from the US and come to understandings with Iran. That is tantamount to the end of US dominance in the Middle East.
That loss of US standing is progressing apace. The Iranian attacks after the second-to-last Israel of bombing of Israel lead to Iran retaliation, with Iran striking not just sites in Israel but also ones in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan. The inclusion of Jordan and the omission of Iran’s favorite punching bag the UAE (and the Saudis) is significant. First, the UAE seems to have realized that it cannot fight Iran and win, and is coming to a modus vivendi. From Middle East Eye in UAE paid Iran billions of dollars to halt strikes: Report (hat tip Kevin W):
The UAE paid Iran billions of dollars in return for a halt to attacks on the country in an about-face for the Gulf state that staked out the most hawkish position on Iran, lobbying the US to continue waging war on the Islamic Republic, Reuters reported on Friday.
The UAE has already delivered $3bn to Iran as part of the agreement, which two regional sources said reached as high as $10bn. Two other sources told Reuters that the UAE would eventually pay Iran $20bn.
The report reflects a stunning turn of events for Abu Dhabi and an indicator that Iran has emerged stronger from the war.
The UAE joined the US and Israel in conducting dozens of strikes on Iran during the war. It also tried to prevent Pakistan from mediating an end to the conflict.
Saudi Arabia had to supply a fresh loan to Islamabad after the UAE called in its debt obligations as punishment for hosting talks….
Last week, the UAE hosted members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for a meeting with Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the UAE’s national security adviser and deputy ruler of Abu Dhabi…
The UAE also dispatched diplomats to engage in face-to-face talks with senior Iranian officials this week to de-escalate tensions, Bloomberg reported.
A Gulf diplomat told MEE their government believed the meeting was held in Tehran as part of an effort to ensure the UAE wasn’t attacked….
Reuters did not say whether the billions of dollars provided to Iran came from accounts linked to Tehran, which Abu Dhabi had weighed freezing, or from Emirati sovereign funds…
The Reuters report comes after the Washington Post reported that Qatar agreed to close its Ras Laffan refinery in exchange for Iran not launching further strikes on it. Qatar denied coordinating the shutdown with Iran.
Second, the attack on Jordan is significant because the US has had to shift operation from bases closer to Iran to Jordan, putting it in Tehran’s crosshairs.
And this retreat from US bases is likely to be permanent. The US has gotten its allies to foot most if not all of the cost of these installation. Do you think the Gulf States are willing to put up a lot of dough to rebuild these sites when they are faced with other reconstruction cost, when they have also found that these garrisons put a target on their backs?
And the US loss of capability grows. The body of tweet by AMark4XX describes fresh losses:
➡️ Iranian forces are actively destroying American radar installations across the Persian Gulf.
➡️ Recent strikes hit key US-linked systems in Kuwait and Bahrain, including advanced ASR-1000L and R-327 Commander radars.
➡️ These actions aim to blind potential attackers and prevent surveillance during heightened tensions.
And of course, the other test to destruction underway is of the Netanyahu regime and his Greater Israel project. Given Israel Lobby control of Congress, it seems hard to believe that the US will not stand pat as Israel continues to attack in Southern Lebanon, which is virtually guaranteed under a fabricated claim of self defense. The Israeli public seemed to lose a good bit of confidence in Netanyahu when Team Trump leaked that Trump had torn into Netanyahu over his threat to bomb Beirut: “Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”
Netanyahu’s incentives would be to defy Trump so as to shore up his weakening position in Israel and stay out of prison. It seems difficult to believe that Trump would drop the hammer on Israel by, say, cutting off intel support or having US men and materiel entirely sidelined when Iran retaliates.5 So it still seems very likely that Israel will again act as a spoiler.
Mind you, the Overton window is shifting in the US. A friend who has Fox News on as background noise said that the Sunday morning political show discussed the imminent “deal” with newscasters speculating that Israel might attempt to wreck it. This was apparently the first time he had ever heard a word critical of Israel on Fox, that this change in posture was significant.
I am not an expert, but a contact who has worked in Israel and in Saudi Arabia and watches regional developments argues that if Netanyahu goes down, so too does Israeli influence in the US. He does not think the Ben Gvirs can form a government. Natalie Bennett isn’t skilled or connected enough to manipulate Trump and US officials any where near as effectively. But that may merely translate into a slow erosion of Israel’s leverage, given its vast influence over Congress.
Not independently confirmed, but enjoy the schadenfreude:
Confirmed reports that Donald Trump had a psychiatric meltdown in the White House this morning after he realized his imaginary Peace Deal wasn’t going to be signed for his birthday.
— Spencer Hakimian (@SpencerHakimian) June 14, 2026
Done for today! See you tomorrow!
____
1
🇮🇷🇺🇸🇮🇱 NEW: Iran just turned down $12 BILLION dollars in exchange for not attacking Israel — after Netanyahu’s strike on Beirut
Iran’s loyalty to Lebanon is not for sale, unlike Netanyahu and Trump’s mothers and daughters
— Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 (@jacksonhinkle) June 14, 2026
BREAKING: Iran directly rejects Trump's offer for money and economic benefits in exchange for not responding to Israel's strike on Beirut, saying an attack on Israel is imminent, per Channel 12.
Trump separately claimed that "no money will exchange hands" in any Iran deal,…
— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) June 14, 2026
2 Mind you, that does not mean the US and Israel do not have a nefarious plan afoot. We quote a fresh New York Times interview with Trump on the MOU later in this post. Reporter David Sanger was struck by how freakily cheery Trump was.
Recall that when Trump and the Pakistan mediators not only sayid an agreement was completed by the weekend but had even set up electronic signing procedures so it could be executed quickly, in counterpart. Former diplomat Aurelien said it is not customary for pacts of this sort to be signed by national leaders. This would keep Mr. Market happy for the entire trading week. It also allows Zionists, US hawks and Christian evangelicals time to work over the fabulously fickle Hair Furore.
3 These are the 14 points, per Mehr News:
1) Permanent and immediate cessation of war on all fronts, including Lebanon.
2) The US’s obligation not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs and to respect the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
3) Complete lifting of the naval blockade within 30 days.
4) The US’s obligation to withdraw its troops from areas around Iran.
5) Resumption of the operation of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days in accordance with Iranian agreements.
6) Suspension of sanctions on the sale of oil, petrochemical products and derivatives, as well as full access of Iran to its financial resources.
7) The need for the US and its allies to present plans for the reconstruction of Iran worth at least 300 billion US dollars.
8) 60 days of negotiations to reach a final agreement on nuclear issues and the complete lifting of primary and secondary US sanctions, as well as UN Security Council and IAEA Board of Governors resolutions.
9) Confirmation of Iran’s obligation under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons not to produce nuclear weapons.
10) During the negotiation period, the US pledged not to increase its forces in the region or impose new sanctions.
11) The release of 24 billion US dollars of Iran’s frozen funds within a 60-day period of final negotiations. Half of this amount should be provided to Iran before the start of negotiations.
12) The formation of a supervisory mechanism for the implementation of the agreement.
13) The final agreement will be approved by a UN Security Council resolution.
14) Final negotiations will not begin until the release of half of Iran’s frozen funds, the suspension of sanctions on Iranian oil and the lifting of the naval blockade, and the final agreement will only cover the fate of enriched materials and enrichment, the lifting of sanctions and a plan for the economic reconstruction of Iran. Discussions about Iran’s missile program and support for resistance groups are definitively off the agenda.
Note it is not clear that Trump can deliver much on sanctions relief. From Paper Politic (hat tip Chuck L) in Senators Try to Trump-Proof Any Iran Deal, but the Math Is Brutal:
The Senate’s Leverage Play
Start with the paperwork. Under INARA, the administration must transmit the deal text and related materials to Congress, kicking off a review period during which lawmakers can attempt to block sanctions relief.That mechanism matters because Iran policy is, in practice, a sanctions policy. Congress writes many of the sanctions into law, presidents often rely on waivers and licensing, and lawmakers can try to narrow those escape hatches if they think a White House is getting ahead of them.
Trump’s Second-Act Shadow
The durability argument is not theoretical, because Trump ran the experiment in public. On May 8th, 2018, he announced the U.S. exit from the Obama-era nuclear pact and reimposed sanctions, a move that reshaped the incentives for both Iran and U.S. allies.For senators looking to pressure a White House negotiating, that line is the leverage. If a future president can reverse course on day one, Tehran has to price in the risk, and lawmakers can argue that only Senate-ratified terms count as a real commitment.
Also note the status of the $24 billion is murky. A recap from NO1:
The $12B cash claim is contested: a White House official says it’s false and the deal is performance-based, step by step (JenniferJJacobs); others report $12B immediately plus oil/gas waivers (MonitorX99800). Reuters-sourced draft cited a $25B unfreeze. Lifting the blockade alone is ~$500M/day for Iran per Fox’s Tomlinson (ByronYork).
Recall that the DropSite New talk about Iranian concerns about Trump’s mental health flagged this lashing out as evidence either of Trump bad faith or confabulation, that Trump was mixing up ideas that were topics of discussion for later discussion with the MOU points that had supposedly been agreed, as in the Pakistani negotiators to which Jeremy Scahill had been speaking had confirmed these terms.
- Final Demand: 1.1 percent in May, 1.1 percent in April
- Final Demand Goods: 2.8 percent in May, 1.9 percent in April
- Final Demand Services: 0.3 percent in May, 0.7 percent in April
- Final Demand Food: 0.6 percent, 0.2 percent in April
- Final Demand Less Food and Energy: 0.4 percent in May, 0.7 percent in April
And Marketwatch last week: CPI report today: Inflation tops 4% for first time in 3 years. Is this the peak? — live updates
5 Trump had been looking even more weak-kneed:
Who is this helpless-president routine meant for? The Iranians don’t believe the US president is incapable of curbing Washington’s dog, no one with a brain believes it. Apparently Ravid’s readers & some MAGA dead-enders still believe, because it partly absolves Trump/USA. https://t.co/kBOBx1K87i
— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) June 14, 2026
Yves, you might want to hold off on this post as it seems to already be outdated. lol. The Iranian FM is giving a speech being broadcasted live on the Youtube channel, TimesNowWorld. It seems like the US just bombed one of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and now, the MOU is completely off the table. I’m not exactly sure what has happened as I jumped on at the end of the FM’s speech.
Please don’t let it be true. Is there conformation do you know? I was just about to write a comment on how quickly Trump would renege on that agreement but not this soon.
Watching it live now, sigh, link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmwFGuMljsk
“It does not matter how much damages have been made, attacking a nuclear facility by itself is unforgivable . . .” from the FM (in English)
“the door for diplomacy should always be kept open, but this is not the case now, we have to respond as a legitimate right of self defense…we will do that as long as needed.”
Listening from 7:30 EDT onward, this sounds to me like something that Aragchi would have said in early March.
No mention at this part of the statement of the MoU.
I suspect that this is a prior statement (though, given the “groundhog day” character of the “diplomacy”) I guess that it could indeed be a live statement as the stream asserts.
I think this is a prior statement. At 7:52 EDT there is mention of “possibility of an American attack”, which sounds like the situation in late February.
Q&A does not sound at all like what one would expect if this was an attack in context of the agreed MoU.
I think it’s early March.
The consensus seems to be that this is an example of how “dodgy” YouTube has become. Not only AI Slop, but ancient news disguised as “new” news. Is Quantum AI Slop now trying to ‘manufacture’ alternate timelines?
Stay safe, wherever and whenever you are.
Yes, Times Now is NOT reliable. I had to stop featuring their clips because they would regularly fake AI videos of attacks on Israel.
Ugh, I wish I had known this before I got folks excited this morning and me a bit upset. Apologies to all…
I wouldn’t feel too bad — its a particularly frustrating form of click-bait where the egregious channel adds a “live now” bug to the content tout image, and writes an unambiguous but dateless headline “declaring breaking news.”
In the past two weeks I’ve had to check these “breaking” YT reports against other social channels to confirm it’s scam-news.
Just one more way we’re forced to do extra, time-wasting work to stay informed in any up-to-date manner.
I see nothing of the kind on Twitter or Aljazeera and those updates usually come in within minutes. If this is accurate, the silence on Twitter is astonishing.
Are you sure you did not mishear Araghchi discussing the earlier attack and the failure of the IAEA even to note it?
I am listening to the live talk and Araghchi is still talking about Turkiye mediating….but I do hear Aragchi denouncing US aggression and mentioning the nuclear facilities and it does sound fresh. He is now calling for an emergency UN session.
This would explain, however, why Trump seemed unduly pleased in his interview with the New York Times in his interview.
It says Istanbul on the back drop behind him. Everyone looks completely bored, and no mention of MOU or Friday deadline in the press questions. It’s referencing old and vague statements from Trump and no discussion of the Strait. This has to be old.
I have to wonder if there’s another actor trying to counter-influence the market.
There’s a bunch of fake “live news” channels on YouTube. They often have real sounding names (I keep seeing cnn18 news).
They recycle old footage and have mega dramatic headlines. Assume some software is running it somewhere.
A different flavour of slop.
CNN18 is a real channel, are an Indian subsidiary of CNN and have been on for years.
In general many Indian news channels tend to be a bit sensationalist so have to double check anything they report. Timesnow is a prime example.
Unless the FM always wears the same suit in Istanbul this appears to be a speech from June 2025. Here’s a link which says it’s from AP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvbZmY1-ThY
I wrote this comment to Yves during my lunch break while watching the “live” video. It didn’t occur to me that someone would re-post an old video as though it were a live press conference. I sometimes forget that you can’t trust anything in this world anymore. My sincere apologies to Yves and everyone else for unintentionally misinforming you guys.
Seems to me that considered the larger economic context (which is all that really matters), this may all turn out to be a nothing-burger.
At best it’s only potentially superior in promise (ie, really just getting back to the status quo), to what Trump has announced before. In this case there is something that passes for an agreement in terms of public relations eyewash to kick things down the road. Nada mas.
Not to mix metaphors even more unduly, but at best its simply putting lipstick on the pig of Irans ongoing control of the situation, and very little will change, with the pace of economic deterioration relaxed for as many days or weeks that this deal holds before it will assuredly collapse. And this assumes we can take the White House announcement at face value.
At best, maybe there will be a relaxation of the tourniquet on the SOH, letting a bunch of ships out to goose the markets and world economy marginally. A few ships might also enter, knowing full well they may easily be stranded. That would HAVE to be their assumption. But again, this deal does kick the can down the road.
Seems to me the Iranians are playing a long game, and this is exactly how to do it. Relax the tourniquet for a few weeks if Bibi doesn’t scupper it earlier, which is a reasonable bet of what’ll happen anyway. And Iran will look like the victim once again. Despite the release of ships (a concession to the GCC, and for other more practical logistic and maintenance reasons), the pace of economic strangulation will be only briefly relaxed.
AT BEST, the course of economic trends we need to plan on remains pretty much the same.
Assuming the text published in Links yesterday is verbally accurate, and the Mehr news report is a summary only, there are a few obvious points immediately.
First, it is what it says, a Memorandum (that is a record or agreed minutes) of joint understandings about what will happen in the future. It is not a legal document, it is not an “agreement”, a “deal” or an “accord.” It has no legal force. Right at the end a “final agreement” is mentioned, but its contents are not specified. In addition, all commitments in the text are unilateral, not bilateral.
Second, whilst drafted as a series of unilateral undertakings, it contains almost nothing for the United States except a return to the status quo ante. The Iranian statement on nuclear weapons simply reiterates their current position, and indeed it is only their current position. Nothing in the MoU prevents them leaving the NPT next year, for example.
Third, neither Israel nor Hezbollah is a party to the MoU, so what “including Lebanon” means is that Iran and the US will rein in Hezbollah and Israel respectively. In the case of Iran this doesn’t really need to be said, but in the case of the Israel the US will “consult” with Israel, to “present a short term timeframe for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.” Note that word “present”: the US is committing itself to a defined outcome, not just to put pressure on Tel Aviv.
Fourth, the MoU calls for staged implementation, which is itself interesting. Two things (ending of hostilities and lifting of the blockade) should already be starting. In the next 30 days after (presumably 19 June) the two nations seem to have undertaken to make a series of declarations about the future, though the English wording is ambiguous. For example the last tiret of Phase 2 could mean that Iran declares today that it will re-open the Straits, or that it will make such a declaration on signature. In any event, the mechanics of implementation are for Iran to decide unilaterally.
Fifth, Phase 3 begins when all the conditions of Phase 2 have been met, and these conditions have to be met within the 30-day period. No extensions. There’s thus no guarantee that Phase 3 will actually happen, but, if it doesn’t, Iran will still come out substantially ahead, notably with the payment of the first $12Bn. Apart from the second $12Bn, Phase 3 largely consists of discussions. By putting any detailed resolution of the nuclear issue into Phase 3, and then committing themselves only to “discussions,” they have managed to kick the ball a long way down the road. And absolutely nothing is said about missiles, which, if Alastair Crooke is to be believed, are a much bigger preoccupation for Netanyahu.
Thank you for that illuminating comment. One vital factor that has not been mentioned is the insurance companies. Trump may pronounce that the Gulf is open but how many insurers will tell those ship’s captains that they now have coverage and that they can now make their way out of that Strait? Trumps own insurance initiative was a dud as it had zero takers. Maybe they were familiar with Trump’s reputation of stiffing people all the time. Some ships will make a run for it but it remains to to be seen what the bulk of those ships will do. And it will take months to clear them out of that Gulf as it is.
Thank you for clarifying this complex situation!
The UAE is allegedly paying Iran not to attack it anymore ? Why ?
Isnt there a reputed $30 billion data center in the UAE (whose owners
likely put up the payments money) ?
[I was so looking forward to the data center going up in smoke]
Israeli hawks:
“Trump’s agreement does not bind us.”
Political reality:
61% of Israelis, including 27% of Likud members, do not want to see Netanyahu run again this fall.
Realists of the Greater Israel project may recognize the need to play the long-game, rather than continue to burn through US and Israeli resources at the current pace, which obviously is unsustainable.
Do they keep Team Trump and jettison Bibi’s Boys while temporarily ceasing on-the-ground advances and allowing several months of “negotiations” to take place in order to rearm with minimal threat of disruption? If Trump “wins this peace” it’ll be easier for US lawmakers to keep the spice flowing to Tel Aviv as the US midterm elections loom ever larger on the calendar.
Or “damn the torpedos, full-speed ahead!”?
50-50?
Time is not on Trump/Israel’s side.
I do not see any reason for a ship owner (or insurers) to send their empty VLCC toward the Persian Gulf any time soon.
Why risk losing it or having it ride at anchor in the Gulf of Oman?
Trump has to serve the economic factions.
Trump has to serve the economic factions.
Yes. The stock market volatility has certainly provided opportunity for some interesting trades. And US energy and defense-sector interests aren’t exactly crying poor– this war is a gravy-train for some.
Politically, Bibi’s Boys need the war to continue while Team Trump needs some breathing-room or space from voter-backlash as the US economy shits the bed. Their war, as it has been prosecuted, is failing militarily– but what if an opportunity to change strategy were to present itself (or be engineered)?
If both are to survive for a while longer politically, then how can the political interests of Bibi’s Boys and Team Trump be reconciled or met? If the war ends or fails now, someone must take the fall, and I’m not seeing any volunteers.
TPTB all want war, Israeli voters want war, so it seems to stand to reason that all that’s left to do is somehow convincing US voters of the necessity of war.
“Nuclear dust” isn’t doing the trick anymore‐- so how do you convince these US voters that their economic hardships are necessary and that they need to support further military action?
I hope Trump has had his Scrooge moment with the “spirit of energy crisis US winters”, it has not been obvious until last week that Trump worries that the people won’t appreciate war for oil and the Zion given right for the IDF to operate free fire zones in Muslim cities.
Used to be presidents could not go to war for oil or the IDF (since 1973 anyway).
Yes, war is a racket.
Let’s wait to see if a script for the continuing melodrama is signed Friday and what scenes are to be sung out. It is become a musical!
Israelis still overwhelmingly back the war.
For instance, a recent poll finds that 3/4 of Israelis say the US and Israel did the right thing in attacking Iran: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/06/09/israelis-palestinians-americans-see-war-in-iran-differently/
Many of those who do not support Netanyahu think he has not been hawkish enough. They backed him despite his corruption for the perception that he could deliver the US and was prosecuting the conflicts.
re: “Many of those who do not support Netanyahu think he has not been hawkish enough.”
This has been reported many times, and every time I read it, I wonder what the izzies could have done differently outside using nuclear weapons against Iran. Calling the government of ben gvir, smotrich and mileikowsky “not hawkish” enough is beyond my understanding. Are the izzies delusional?
Strawberry Jam used to report that the amount of damage Iran did was not enough to deter their ardor, but it seems likely that Iran has enough weapons to go up the escalation ladder, and might even have some nuclear capability. I am sure the izzie deep-state might have an idea where this could end up, and are behaving accordingly. The public perception is quite puzzling.
They (AIPAC) and Trump could have put 300000 US boots on the ground in Iran! That is about the size of the dog US would have had to send to grab the atomic dust Trump buried last June (SARC!).
They could not get enough American troops dead, to grow a crusade to make sure those Americans dying for Israel did not die in vain!
I cannot believe I dreamed up such a horror.
It seems to me that resupply of US troops in Iran is all but out of the question, but perhaps Lebanon could be a more realistic goal, at least in the interm?
Israel to stay ‘indefinitely’ in newly-occupied lands in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza: Minister
Whoops, nope– it looks like Israel will consolidate gains and catch their breath for now before returning to the ring for another round.
I was tongue in cheek, US is not what it was in 2003, far from 1991.
Yes, Iran location, size, topography make it 10 times the nut to crack as Iraq..
I seriously doubt US could wage sustained war with 300000 in the sealift friendly west Pacific.
Also from Aljazeera:
There is no way this is going to last.
The Iranians fully anticipate Israeli sabotage and the only question for them is choosing which provocation to respond to. They likely believe that they can make considerable gains in clarifying Israel’s destructive role, especially in the sense that Trump is committed to a deal fantasy and can now be counted on to denounce Israeli actions. Those denunciations won’t be easily washed out of political discourse here since the costs of the war are and will continue to be so high. This iteration of a deal won’t last, but its impact on Israeli power will.
Jeremy Scahill has a good interview today on Democracy Now! about the MOU and other recent happenings with Iran:
https://www.democracynow.org/2026/6/15/scahill_trump_iran_deal_israel_lebanon
Are there Polymarket bets on how soon this “deal” blows up or is blown up? I shall believe in each step after it has occurred.
It’s Ploymarket, right? Or have I had that wrong for a while now?
nevah underestimate the power of Israel first
Greater Israel now has as much probability of realization as Greater Kurdistan or Greater Armenia. Israel overreached and failed to take down Iran. Israel used all available methods to secure U.S. military engagement and it was insufficient. This is the high water mark of Israel’s military expansion, and it is America’s Suez moment. Nuclear weapons proved to be irrelevant in an age of unstoppable precision guided conventional missiles. Turkey and Egypt now know the formula for deterrence of Israel. I believe we have reached an historical turning point, and it does not favor the Israeli ethnostate.
This is just a delaying tactic. The only way to kill cancer is to destroy it completely. The ZioUS empire will bide time and continue to work toward liberalizing Iran into a puppet state (at the least) or more likely future decapitation strikes/unrest/balkanization.
It’s not just the unstoppble precision guided conventional missiles that is the lesson to be learned. It’s the location of thousands of missiles stored/launched deep underground. And that Iran has a geography that makes its large army readily capable of defending. (The other lesson is that the US military machine is overrated.)
Who would have anticipated that it would be Iran’s stout intransigence that changes the balance of power?
The other lesson is that the US military machine is overrated.
Yes, it is in many ways overhyped and its reputation is based on outdated concepts due to a war over 30 years ago and a bunch of silly Hollywood movies, but your initial point is the more important factor here, which is that **no** country’s military, no matter how powerful, can fight against geographic realities.
UFOs aside, it is like fighting against gravity–any imbecile that tries deserves to lose.
A lot of people thought that the Lebanese had “won” the 2006 war against Israel. But look at Lebanon now.
The Iranians have by no means defeated the aggressor powers. They have held their own, for the time being, against a considerably superior opponent. But the fundament power relation has not been altered.
In the Suez crisis, the USA peremptorily demanded that Israel, France, and Britain cease their attack on Egypt, and they all obeyed. Where is the similarity to the current war? Which mighty world power has told the aggressors to desist?
It’s not like the Chinese told the USA and Israel to back off. If that had happened, then a Suez analogy would be apt.
HH, I think it’s absurd to claim that nuclear weapons are, “irrelevant.” If Iran had possessed a demonstrated nuclear strike capability, this latest war would probably never have begun in the first place.
And would you tell a robber that his gun is “irrelevant,” merely because he hasn’t shot you yet? Apparently, you are determined to insulate yourself from plain reality, up to very moment that you get shot, or in this case, until somebody gets nuked.
How can blind yourself to the way in which general massacre has become normalized in our time?
Over the course of WWII, the wholesale devastation of cities and outright butchery of the inhabitants had become something so commonplace, that when nuclear weapons were used, more people were stunned by the technical virtuousity of the means, than by the moral outrage of the deed.
In our current period of major conflicts, dating post-9/11, we can see higher and higher tolerance for open aggression, invasion, ruin and slaughter. I believe that psychological and cultural conditions are developing worldwide, which favour the employment of nuclear arms.
Merely because Russia hasn’t yet nuked Ukraine, and the Israelis and Americans haven’t yet nuked Iran, does not mean that escalation is something to be dismissed. Those who think that nuclear warheads can be offset by pin-pricks are living in a fool’s paradise.
Maybe China and Myanmar in the 18th century? 4 campaigns between 1765 and 1769 by the Chinese to punish Myanmarese who were subduing border tribes who claimed to be under Chinese protection, all of which were defeated by the Myanmarese with varying degrees of disaster, with Chinese officials and commanders resorting to blatant lies (some of which sound eerily “Trumpian,” ie Myanmarese adopted the qeue as show of loyalty to Qing China) to mollify the emperor who was in early stages of senility, with the war ending with “nominal Chinese victory” (to paraphrase the top Myanmarese general, we have to go through the formalities of “submitting” to China because we can’t fight them forever because they are a huge empire with nigh unlimited resources.), but in fact ended with a total Myanmarese victory and the rise of the country under leadership of the Konbaung Dynasty as a military powerhouse (it did not end well since, a few decades after defeating China, they picked fight with another big empire, the British, over eastern edges of the British Raj, which eventually led to the downfall of their empire by the end of 19th century…)
This whole deal may be a sign of desperation on the part of Trump. For several weeks now he has been trying to wait out the Iranians – and from time to time has prodded them with military attacks. He figured that the Iranian government would collapse under his pressure and that he would get his victory though perhaps it eventually dawned on his little brain that they could wait several months whereas he could not. But it seems that the execs of big oil got through to him and burst his bubble and told him that the US economy is heading for a cliff and that the price of oil could be suppressed only so long. And that Trump is facing Midterms whereas the Iranians are not. So he goes along with this Memorandum of Understanding to break the dead lock and get things moving. Trump being Trump, he probably is figuring that he can renege on the parts in this agreement that he does not like. As for the fact that this agreement will not be signed for several days, this may be Iran giving Trump those days to see if he can get opponents of any agreement to go along with it but if he can’t – or won’t – then no signing.
The warnings from oil executives that were 2 to 3 weeks away from hitting an oil cliff mean what precisely? Does it mean we’re 2 to 3 weeks away from flows resuming in the strait therefore filling up inventories three months from now to avoid tank bottoms in September-October? Or 2 to 3 weeks away from tank bottoms? Big difference, as no pease deal will help the latter situation due to the lead times involved
I’ve seen it reported here that Trump would meet with oil experts daily as he was concerned on the price of gas and other oil products from a political perspective.
I’ve also seen that the inventory at Cushing are a week or two out from being a critically low levels. It would make sense for Trump to be pushing for a deal if the cliff is getting close. Time will tell.
I wonder if any thought is being give to how long that it would take to build up oil reserves around the world again. Years perhaps? After all these disruptions, oil supply will be irregular and you wonder how much could be spared to go back into reserves again.
Build up oil reserves!
US drained over 200 million barrels to salve the loss of Russian crude from March 2022.
As far as I can tell and I read the Petrol Balance Sheet each week, not many barrels of that draw have been replaced! Once in a while a small gain.
Now the SPR is less than 350 million barrels (week ending 5 Jun 2026) on book, how much is tank bottom/spoiled ullage I do not know. One report said 66 million drawn from SPR since the Trump war.
I doubt we will see US build inventory!
Bc Trump has declared “peace in our time!” (I apologize for the sarc)
Sometimes sarcasm is all that we have left. Wouldn’t wanna be US President number 48 for quids with the mess that Trump is leaving behind.
No, the 2-3 weeks is hitting operating minimum, although most other sources say the crisis date is more like end of July-early August. There is not even remotely centralized data and how much businesses and consumers are cutting back is one of the variables that can only be inferred.
This morning’s post on the Strait from the Russian-language Pars Today channel. I’ve bolded the most relevant section. I’ve also included a second, later post that summarizes the current situation in the Strait.
Basically.
Right now, the Strait is closed.
After Friday’s signing, if it happens, the Strait will be “open with fees to Iran”. However, for 60 days – so into Phase 3 of the MOU, but not for the full 30+60 day period envisioned therein – Iran will waive the fees.
This is how the Iranians are presenting it. As Trita Parsi told Glenn Diesen back on Saturday, a lot hinges on the exact interpretation of the phrase “the Strait is open”…
—–
https://t.me/parstodayrussian/209031
Informed Iranian source: “the debate over the first point and the point about the Strait of Hormuz continued until the last minutes before the announcement of the memorandum.”
According to an informed source, in the last days of preparing the memorandum between Iran and the US the phrase “guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon” was added to the first point, while “control the navigational services in the Hormuz Strait” to the fifth point.
It has also been decided temporarily not to assess fees on transiting ships for a period of 60 days. The process of opening the Hormuz Strait will commence after the signing of the memorandum on Friday.
—–
https://t.me/parstodayrussian/209035
Iranian state television correspondent:
“For over 96 hours now the IRGC Naval Forces have not issued any permits for the transit of ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Until further instructions, the Strait of Hormuz is closed for all vessels both entering and exiting.”
$300 billion reconstruction payday!
The Hormuz Letter
@HormuzLetter
BREAKING: Iran says the US has agreed to pay $300 billion in reconstruction funds directly to Iran as part of the deal Pakistan announced, alongside the release of $24 billion in frozen funds with $12 billion released before negotiations even start, per Mehr News.
This directly contradicts Trump’s & Vance’s claim that no funds will be transferred to Iran at all.
If Trump denies this is true, there never was a deal. If Trump confirms, the US has fully capitulated to Iran’s demands.
This was in the 14 points. No one has said anything re current terms.
Prof Marandi, in a fresh interview, said there was no deal until Netanyahu bombed Beirut and Trump was desperate to escape counter-attack, so he made key concessions.
The US will never pay $300 billion, ever. Trump can’t get the appropriation. This IMHO is an Iran placeholder for damages. When Trump can’t deliver, they they say they will impose Strait of Hormuz fees until they have collected that much after their expenses.
Persians invented chess and this a 3D move! very cogent analysis Yves! thx
Plans within plans within plans.
So the entire world pays doubly for Trump’s blunder in starting this war. Privation from the incoming energy shock, and hundreds of billions in fees applied to vital resources as they transit the strait. Fun times.
From any perspective, this is a huge strategic defeat for the United States, and a graphic personal failure for Trump.
Didn’t Woodrow Wilson have 14 points too?
I am seeing some wild numbers thrown around and wondering if anybody has any insights:
If we assume that the most optimistic numbers are correct and that Iran receives:
1. $10B from each of UAE and KSA (I am guessing that Kuwait and Qatar must also be ponying up, but haven’t seen any numbers)
2. ~$50B in Straits tolls
3. $300B in reparations payments
4. ~$10B in (new) oil revenues
5. ~$20B in its own frozen funds being returned
Let’s say that Iran’s GDP is ~$500B. Can the country actually absorb ~$400B in capital inflows without a massive speculative boom and trade deficits? Either way, what are the other consequences?
Just curious…
I would guess that all this would be just an initial negotiating position. So Iran may tell the UAE and KSA that if they give the nod to transit fees, then Iran will forego any financial demands on them. Since those fees would be coming out of foreign importer’s pockets and not their own national budgets, they would agree. Any returned frozen funds would likely be spent on reconstruction. As for that $300 billion in claimed reparations, again it would be a negotiation point that would be dropped if instead Iran got official recognition of transit fees or services.
Let’s see–I would be surprised if Iran does not take the money, since one of the key points is to rub their neighbors’ (and US’) noses in the defeat to ensure that they never, ever contemplate attacking again. However, even half of that is an enormous amount of inflows given the size of Iran’s current economy.
I just don’t know what Iran can actually do with all this money without either causing massive inflation, speculative manias, and/or hollowing out its industries. That’s a medium to long term problem, though–in the short run, I guess Iran will be able to party like it’s 1998.
And of course my economics is not very good, so maybe this really is a non-issue.
A nice purchase for Iran with the inflow would be a couple new Chinese subs and a couple hundred Oreshniks along with technical specs and Russian engineers to work alongside their own to build in-house.
Interesting thought. Maybe that’s a good problem to have? Money spent on infrastructure and social improvements would help temper bumpy transition out of enforced impoverishment. This will be new territory for Iran. I imagine they will make the most of it.
Maybe better than the current problem, but here’s an old (absolutely superb) post which suggests that (to shamelessly rip off Churchill) Iran’s “problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult.”
(Anytime I post a link, the post gets eaten, but the site is nakedcapitalism)
2015/02/michael-pettis-syriza-french-indemnity-1871-73.html
Who knows–maybe Iran has already thought this through
I wager both that they have thought this through, and that someone of influence there reads NC.
Very possibly the first part is true, although I am not sure how they would deal with this. War planning and economic planning are very different beasts–the former requires outsmarting your adversary, while the latter involves outsmarting fundamental accounting identities and human nature :)
I don’t think they read NC…I am sure that like every other government, they are already drowning in a tsunami of information, fake and real data, and unsolicited, uninformed opinions :)
I don’t know about that, Paradox.
Ain’t no place like NC on the English speaking internet.
Lots of valuable information for our allies against the Epstein Class to be found here.
Well, I am not in their heads, so I guess you could be right.
If they are reading, though, I have some great LEGO video ideas :)
They have 25 years of deferred maintenance plus rebuilding from the war damage.
That is actual hard asset investment.
Speculation = when money goes into paper or hard assets that become speculative, like Vancouver real estate.
There was no speculative boom in Europe due to the Marshall plan investment.
Thanks for the response/insights–greatly appreciated!
Two phrases come to mind.
1) That depends on what the meaning of “Is” is.
2) What do you mean “We”, White Man?
I must admit I’m disappointed. I was banking on Iran holding out a few more weeks and sending the world economy into a recession, or possibly a depression. Yes, obvious downsides for the western world, but Iran has been living under a depression economy for some years. The upside would be the mortal wounding of Trump and his MAGA coalition, and very likely grave and possibly permanent damage to the US-Israel relationship, and to the Zionist-Neocon foreign policy cult in Washington. It’s too soon to tell, but Iran may have missed an opportunity to secure its sovereignty and security for the foreseeable future.
Might be worth your while then to read what Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut, had to say-
https://xcancel.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2066364267184500825
Every single one of the US & Israel’s objectives failed totally and Iran is stronger than ever. This defeat will go down in the history books as a Suez moment.
Nice summary Senator Murphy. Now do Ukraine!
My reaction to Murphy’s critique of Trump’s Folly is the same as my reaction to super neocon Robert Kagan’s critique in the neocon Atlantic Monthly. Though true, it is pure hypocritical partisan positioning. As if to bolster my perspective, I see the comments are full of Trumpian reactionaries pointing out what a treasonous lying liar Murphy is and what a great victory Trump has actually won. I expect the NY Post will have an editorial saying the same thing about Murphy’s post soon, if it doesn’t already.
If Trump does pull off this retreat without Zionist sabotage, then Murphy and his ilk will be back to plotting the long-game strategy against Iran favored by the “realists” in the Establishment.
I agree…Iran may have missed an opportunity to secure it’s future. An Israeli surrender is necessary. An actual surrender. Iran will have a difficult time re-starting hostilities. Pressure will be on to sustain the new “peaceful status quo”. It would be more than disappointing to find this is a long win for the Empire.
Rather than wait for Isntreal to formally surrender, maybe Iran just waits for it to dissolve in a civil war between the religious nuts and the secular nuts. It’s similar to the Ukraine fandango, where a lot of the commentariat would like Russia to bomb Europe. But maybe Russia figures Europe is doomed anyway, so just wait them out and they will fall apart. (And, similarly, Russia and China probably figure the US is rushing to collapse itself, so keep playing nice and let it happen without nukes getting launched.) Hard to say if this is the common sense path forward in each of those three cases, or whether it’s excessive optimism on the part of the anti-Empire forces.
Funny that you should say that. I was reading recently about how China is no longer dealing with the US like it does with other countries but is ‘managing’ it. Like a guy would do with managing an elderly parent in the throes of dementia. Don’t laugh. It has come out that Iran recruited psychologists to help them deal with their messaging to Trump-
https://thecradle.co/articles/tehran-recruits-psychologists-to-tailor-messages-for-mentally-ill-trump-report
IMO, waaaaay premature to conclude that Iran is content to fall short of those goals. Given how long it’ll take to restore oil flows even in the best case, a US depression is already baked into the cake. Iran has also left themselves numerous off-ramps in case Trump reneges, and when hasn’t he?
Your disappointment is premature. If the “deal” goes through, will still have a recession and possibly depression, and trump and his maggot coalition will be mortally wounded. There would be a little less suffering and privation throughout the world. But when the terms of the “deal” to which Trump committed for an undisturbed birthday celebration are revealed, he will cry foul and renege. It’s lose lose for everyone.
What we will never lose is the shame of citizenship in a country that elected Donald Trump (or his major opponent). Perhaps one day we will look back with bizarre appreciation for the end of the Empire.
“I tried ! See, i tried !!”
Saith President Trump when his latest Deal is blown up…
Close to The Mid-Terms that appeal might firm a few votes but
the sympathy wont outlast a week or two….
So he’ll have to try, try. try again !!
not bearish! Gatlin
@sam_gatlin
·
12h
While my entire Twitter timeline is talking about tonight’s gap down in crude oil futures, nobody’s talking about what’s happening with the curve.
The December crude oil contract is breaking out to new multi-month highs relative to the July contract.
This is NOT BEARISH!!
Official statement from the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
UAE Categorically Denies Media Reports Alleging Transfer of Funds to Iran
So they’ve banned Axios? Good to hear!
“The United Arab Emirates has categorically denied reports published by certain international media outlets alleging the transfer of funds from the UAE to the Islamic Republic of Iran, including allegations concerning USD 3 billion.”
They also denied that Iran ever struck any UAE targets, even after videos showing the contrary emerged. They have also imprisoned people for filming those non-existent events. Oh yeah, they also denied that any attacks took place from its soil. And so on and so forth.
Here’s the key MoFA line: ‘no frozen Iranian funds have been released’.
They just wrote a check from the payola account set up by US corporations based there.
If this signing ceremony goes ahead in Switzerland, then the Iranian delegation had better fly there through Russian territory. If they fly there through any other route, there would be a good chance that the Israelis would try to shoot down their plane.
I thought the signing would be remote? (I have no idea how that’d fly in practice. Photo op via composite screens?)
I think the immediate signatures were electronic, presumably for the sake of asserting that “the deal” had been agreed. Formal signing ceremony to be held Friday, with authorized representatives present in person, in a neutral venue.
See CNBC quote from Jason Boxman below.
Iranian media says the signing is Friday. That is from the Foreign Ministry and separately, Pezeshkian.
I think the US claim is utter BS. At best Trump signed a doc Sunday (by himself!) so he could tell himself his birthday timetable was met.
Spinning that loss (CNBC)
Those would be Pokémon cards.
What did I say… and everyone was jumping down my throat weeks ago.
Iran really did want a deal and wanted to get paid. No 5D chess just materialist analysis.
I apparently missed your comment weeks ago, but … of course Iran wanted a deal, and of course it wanted to get paid. It’s hard to see how anyone would disagree with that. The catch is, what *kind* of “deal,” and *how much* will it be paid? So I assume disagreement over those issues is why people were “jumping down your throat”?
A bit like the old Winston Churchill joke:
Him: Tell me, young lady, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Her: Why yes, I believe I would.
Him: Would you sleep with me for one pound?
Her: Certainly not! What kind of a girl do you think I am?
Him: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling.
Her: Certainly not!
What kind of a girl do you think I am?I’m not that cheap.To be honest, this is not a different answer from the original: for high enough a price, most, if not all, people can be bought and I don’t think that’s all that problematic. The trouble with people like the joke-Churchill is that they use sophistry like that to cheat the other side of what they ought to be paid–there is a big qualitative difference between a cheap w****s and noble mistresses.
Is there, though? Assuming that the ‘noble mistresses’ are only in it for the money, the difference is that one group is richer than the other, and I’m not convinced that this is all that important. The cynical attitude to morality that you express ends up validating class hierarchies. I don’t think joke-Churchill is trying to ‘cheat’ the lady of anything, he is just making a point. Personally, I have no moral objection to sex workers, but I do have one to, say, paid genocide apologists, regardless of how rich and ‘noble’ they are. A man’s a man for a’ that, and all that, you know. Your position seems to be that no man is a man anyway.
What is probably true is that all people make at least some compromises with some of their principles if their interests are sufficiently affected. However: 1. It depends on which principle is concerned; 2. it matters whether a positive or a negative effect on their interests is concerned. It is one thing to be threatened or tortured into doing something, and a very different thing to be bribed to do something. The ability to endure torture isn’t just a matter of moral character, but willingness to be bribed to do anything is not excusable and shouldn’t be normalised.
Well, the point originally raised was that “Iran ‘just’ wanted to be paid.” I don’t think Iran’s goals were limited to just material ends, but there is a lot that you can do that is not necessarily for your own material good that you can do with the proverbial million pounds.
TBH, I doubt many genocide apologists do what they do just because they are paid. It takes people convinced of their cause’s righteousness to do actual evil, to paraphrase Dostoevski. Maybe they aren’t quite so convinced to do the deeds themselves, but such wilful blindness takes more than just material greed.
Iran really did want a deal and wanted to get paid.
They want to be left alone and be able to operate as a sovereign state without interference from the people on wall st and tel aviv whose only life goal is getting paid, and with the crashing global economy threatening this malevolent life goal, the big shots in the west are the ones who need a deal in order to get paid. Iran simply continues to stand their ground because they have the whip hand.
What Iran needed was a way to get world-level sanctions lifted permanently.
They needed a situation like this to force the world to make Isr/US fall into line.
This scenario has been under preparation for a long time by Iran, waiting for the moment that Isr/US decided that they would be defeated in 3 days. Remember that Iran kept its weapons superiority well hidden until US attacked. Iran needed this war to get out of the sanctions sinkhole.
No, Iran wants the US and Israel to be so comprehensively defeated that they do not think of attacking Iran for a very very very long time.
The US is not agreement capable. The US/Israel have now attacked four times (counting the two Israel attacks on Beirut when Iran did or threatened to retaliate) when negotiation were on.
If you think you can come to an agreement with someone who rolls that way, you are nuts.
Iran has to negotiate because:
1. Russia and China very much want Iran to try
2. So to do its neighbors.
Trying gets Iran lots of geopolitical status points.
I agree that the US is not agreement capable, but that doesn’t matter if the grifting element in Iran can spin this as a win and pocket some capital for themselves and the country.
In order for the US to be “comprehensively defeated” the Iranians would have to crash the global economy, which they are clearly unwilling to do.
Any details on the “grifting element” you cite?
Did you forget that it was the US that asked for a deal after the 12 day war and now? Can you not get basic facts straight?
No, the US is comprehensively defeated now. Iran Has met Clausewitzian standard of destroying enemy’s military (sufficiently) to force them to do its will. The 14 points are Iran’s 14 points and = a US capitulation
1. US is out of weapons on a global basis in many key categories
2. Iran is NOW greatly outproducing US in missiles and drones, so its dominance in theater will increase.
3. US bases in region destroyed. Host states will not pay to rebuild them
Yves you were a doomer during tariffs and you were dooming during this whole debacle. When is this grave economic recession you’ve been predicting?
The US was “defeated” but global capitalism continues to reign supreme with the emergence of Iran as a new regional power in this multipolar landscape. Nothing will fundamentally change, and the US will probably go on to attack Cuba or some other dumb nonsense.
I thought this website was “Naked Capitalism” but it’s just an echo chamber for reflexive contrarianism lol
This is a misrepresentation and bad faith argumentation in multiple ways: straw manning, grounds shifting as you have lost the main argument, and personal attack rather than arguing on the merits. Each type of bad faith argumentation is a violation of our written site Policies.
What about TACO don’t you understand? Tariffs were the original Trump TACO.
Trump massively and repeatedly backpedaled on his tariffs after the stock market meltdown in April. Investors en masse reacted the same way I did.
Trump also greatly reduced the level of his original tariffs v. most countries, importantly v. China. So Trump HIMSELF was forced to retreat.
And his tariffs have now been rejected by the courts and Treasury is having to make refunds.
I trust you will find your happiness on the Internet elsewhere.
0710 PDT
Iran’s Fars News Agency Says Hormuz Maritime Fees Added to US Deal Last Minute
https://english.aawsat.com/world/5284250-irans-fars-news-agency-says-hormuz-maritime-fees-added-us-deal-last-minute
Regarding point 4) The US’s obligation to withdraw its troops from areas around Iran
Anyone know what this is likely to mean long term (assuming the deal is fully implemented, however unlikely that is)?
I haven’t seen any commentary/speculation on whether that means withdrawal of the buildup of forces back to the status quo ante, or whether it’s withdrawal from the GCC/Iraq/etc completely… This update did, however, bring up the question of the damage done to the bases with US and who is to pay to rebuild. This issue has been, to me, one of the primary issues that neither side could concede through negotiations because both see them as fundamental to existence/strategy
Anyone know what this is likely to mean long term (assuming the deal is fully implemented, however unlikely that is)?
It means that the US is going to bomb again as soon as it thinks it can win and will have to leave under even more humiliating circumstances a few weeks later. Nobody is going to rebuild those bases–Iran refuses to allow it, the GCC can’t protect them, and the US has acquiesced because it has no abilities to dictate otherwise.
I am genuinely fascinated to see how Trump will spin this as better than Obama’s JCPOA, especially as the Israelis scream bloody murder. Maybe as part of his brilliant strategy to withdraw from the rest of the world and focus on “America First”?
According to the war powers act Trump was required to redeploy the tankers, blockade ships etc out of the theater of war around May 1, 60 days. He did not comply with US law, how will he respect an agreement with a country he says has no government bc he killed them!
I wonder if the Iranians should negotiate a “Church Amendment” in the rounds about limiting its nuclear science.
What if Iran says we go back to letting IAEA in if your congress stipulates in the next reconciliation bill, the only money bills existing in US, that no money be spent in DoW, DoS and CIA for warring on Iran.
Not much assurance but getting congress in is better and might show US is somewhat agreement capable,
As Trump is not!
Cast me as “doubting Thomas” but I will believe this when I see ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz and the Israelis stop whatever military misadventures Iran has demanded end — and not one minute sooner 🤨
A severe commodity shock is already baked in the cake even if the Strait is fully reopened today.
And it will take Years, not Months to repair the damage to Gulf infrastructure, refineries and processing plants are not simple or inexpensive to build.
Assuming that the current MoU will be agreed to and implemented promptly and in good faith seems unrealistic given the parties involved…
It’s going to be a lively Summer.
if we posit that trump actually ordered leashing in Israel, what is the likelihood that the deep state would follow his orders? And would he remember them fifteen minutes later?
I recall in his first term he tried to pull out of Afghanistan but never got them all out. My impression was resistance was from the military. But in this case it’s Israel, which imo has strong ties with military.cia/congressMsm and trump.
My impression is that most of the military leadership has been replaced in the last couple of years for people who are loyal to Trump
I don’t for a minute believe that the “deep state” is at all unified on the issue of a winable war in the middle east, especially after Afghanistan. That is why it was necessary for Trump to install loyalists in all the administrative positions. I would think part of this whole capitulation is the possibility of serious growing disagreement with those actually pulling the levers.
Wikipedia has dubbed it the Islamabad Memorandum.
Regardless what happens next or how much of of this MoU sticks, if it gets signed Friday, as seems likely, so much changes in geopolitics. The USA started a war with Iran, lost and the USA signed this capitulation. Amazing! The limits of US military projection and doctrine laid bare. The end of Western colonialism in West Asia is within sight. Iran’s deterrence of Israeli terror and expansion so serious that the USA begs its enemy to not retaliate against its ally!
Who’s up for war with China now? How does S Korea feel about US protection now?
N. Korea leader’s sister says nuclear program ‘non-negotiable’
https://globalnation.inquirer.net/326371/n-korea-leaders-sister-says-nuclear-program-non-negotiable
I remember one commentator proposing that it be called a “resort fee.”
Works for me!
The Ticketmaster model.
That won the internet at my house today! Good Job!!
Trump’s past demonstrated modus operandi has been to talk peace and then stab in the back (Israel being the usefuul assassin). How can Iran trust the USA and Israel otherwise? Where are the ships, planes, and troops?
I like this formulation. One of the huge problems in bringing this war to a close has been the fact that the US and Israel are completely untrustworthy. “How do you negotiate with someone like that?”, I have frequently asked myself.
Saying that the MOU is built on “active distrust” of the US illustrates that diplomacy can be a profession, with real skills and imagination.
On that “trust” issue, which Anthony Martin also emphasizes in the comment just above: I had just read a post over at MofA which provides a short but useful summary that basically corresponds with the more detailed overview provided here by Yves. But I thought the heading was significant:
‘War On Iran: The MoU – A Small Pause In A Decades Long Conflict’
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2026/06/war-on-iran-the-mou-a-small-pause-in-a-decades-long-conflict.html
It is important to keep this in mind. This war did not start with Trump, but is indeed the culmination of a “decades long conflict” that has been simmering at several levels through both Republican and Democrat administrations. In commenting on the 14 points listed by Yves in her footnote, b also makes this relevant observation:
“Points 2., 3., 6., are straight out of the 1981 Algier Accords which had ended the Iranian hostage crisis. Under that agreement the U.S. had committed to not intervene politically or militarily in Iranian internal affairs and to remove the freeze on Iranian assets and sanctions on Iran. The U.S. started to break those commitments as soon as the Accord had been signed.”
And they continued to do so in various ways through much of the subsequent 45 years.
When Iranian officials state that the MOU “has been written with active distrust,” I believe them.
For the sake of a billion or so souls facing food scarcity if this damn war continues, I sincerely hope the new MOU holds, at least enough to [partially/mostly] normalize traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
The obvious weak link is the part about Lebanon. I figure Trump might be able to talk Bibi out of bombing Beirut again, but I can’t imagine Israel abandoning plans to annex southern Lebanon (up to the Litani? or Zahrani?).
To force a full withdrawal, Trump would have to threaten to completely break the “Special Relationship”. I imagine that Trump is capable of making such a threat, but I doubt that Bibi (or Israelis in general) will find it credible. Trump would have to make the 2026 Midterms into a referendum on AIPAC, which would be great for selling popcorn but would wreck both major US Parties. Wall Street would blow up, too, but that’s long overdue anyway…
Times are getting interestinger and interestinger.
Iran might be able to finesse that problem by reserving the right to attack any IDF forces in Lebanon; and Trump might have to agree to keep US forces from interfering. Lotsa Devils in the details, though (US satellite data?).
I’ve made the point before that a written document of some kind, and the way the situation works out on the ground, are two different things. There is no “deal” here, and it’s highly improbable that there ever will be an agreed legally binding document between the two countries. All this MoU does is to provide a list of largely unilateral political undertakings, out of which the US comes badly, but which can be waved around to persuade the credulous that something has been gained from the fighting.
The existence of such an MoU doesn’t and cannot change the realities on the ground. Iran has won militarily, and has the economic upper hand. Any further assault by the US and Israel on Iran would be less successful than the previous one, and the retaliation would be a lot more severe. The Iranians can close the Straits, directly or just by making threatening noises, any time they like. To that extent, even if the US ripped up the document next week and decided to attack Iran again, it wouldn’t make any difference. The game is effectively over, and there is nothing the US, Israel or the West in general can do to change that, no matter how fiercely they beat their chests.
Sure. That’s how I see it. At the same time it’s hard to miss the significance of it. The USA started a war against Iran, lost and now to get out of it has agreed to sign this memorandum of capitulation at a ceremony in Switzerland. It’s a milestone in the decline of Western power no matter what happens with the memo.
There is one thing they can do and it will make a difference. Let’s hope they don’t go there (nukes, in case I am being too obtuse).
How would it make a difference?
It would be a difference in a very bad way. I did not mean to imply that it would help in anyway, even for the US/Israel team. It would lead to a whole new understanding of ‘worse’. Even a surprise nuke attack on Iran would probably still leave it with enough missiles specifically targeted at Israel’s desalination plants to make it a lose/lose situation.
Of course somebody, somewhere would point out that the oil and gas in Iran would still be there.
No, actually, following a thermonuclear attack, the oil would not still be there. With the infrastructure destroyed, the wells collapsed, and the desert too irradiated to frack, the oil and gas would be gone.
Also, most of the models I’m aware of show that the fallout would flow right back to Israel. A nuke is not a solution here. It’s not even a point of leverage.
All this MoU does is to provide a list of largely unilateral political undertakings, out of which the US comes badly, but which can be waved around to persuade the credulous that something has been gained from the fighting.
Surely nested in some subparagraph to a subsection somewhere somehow is a pledge that Iran will stop making fun of Trump in Lego videos, yes?
Off topic:
By “negotiating” with US/Israel the Islamic Republic of Iran let the devil in the door and risks its demise.
How does one make a deal with the devil?
Ask Daniel Webster. / ;)
Play a tighter fiddle, heh heh.
Frank said: “how does one make a deal with the devil?”
No problem, simply assume the U.S. is not the devil.
Perhaps there is something in your own extremely firm belief in the truth/certainty of your own opinions about the U.S. that may contribute to you believing your are dealing with the devil rather than simply powerful institutional structures of American foreign policy that have been around for a long, long time.
Who slaughter by the millions for profit.
If the US releases the billions in frozen assets, Iran should convert it immediately to yuan … LOL
While that would be hilarious fellow Chris, would that not also spike the value of the yuan in the direction the chinese typically don’t want it to go? They want their currency cheap compared to everyone, right?
It is a great question though. What should Iran or any other state that manages to assert sovereignty do with their currency given participation in Swift and other US dominated exchange mechanisms means that it is simple for future sanctions to be applied?
Esteemed chris:
I’ve done a little digging on this. Seems like somewhere in the vicinity of $300B/day (via Hong Kong Monetary Authority) in transactions between USD/CNY. $80B – $300B would be but a blip considered over the course of a year … :)
> What should Iran or any other state that manages to assert sovereignty do with their currency given participation in Swift and other US dominated exchange mechanisms means that it is simple for future sanctions to be applied?
Stop using USD … :)
I know … I know … this is not feasible for small countries … like the tiny islands of my Caribbean home. But someone needs to build it. It won’t be BRICS, but it can be built. I’ve commented on it before … :) (via NC)
US at Odds with Allies Over How Easy It Is to Reopen Hormuz
According to Bloomberg, European allies don’t share US optimism. They disagree that trade can resume by week’s end, like Trump promised, and have practical questions about what exactly was agreed before they can commit to de-mining missions and patrols. According to one G7 official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics, there are serious difficulties in finding a common position among the group about how to deal with the situation in Iran.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who for the most part has artfully avoided provoking Trump, said her country’s contribution is conditional on a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, where Israel’s military has carried out strikes in recent days.
The memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran will make it explicit that the strait will be open toll-free for 60 days, and the US will expect that provision makes it into a final agreement. The fact is that free navigation, once a given, is now the subject of negotiations that haven’t even started.
a contact who has worked in Israel and in Saudi Arabia and watches regional developments argues that if Netanyahu goes down, so too does Israeli influence in the US. He does not think the Ben Gvirs can form a government. Natalie Bennett isn’t skilled or connected enough to manipulate Trump and US officials any where near as effectively. But that may merely translate into a slow erosion of Israel’s leverage, given its vast influence over Congress.
Bibi is toast. Everyone will wash their hands of him and Naftali will be presented as a different, more reasonable type of Israeli.
Bibi goes but the Adelsons and Ellisons stay. So how much power is lost? How much was indeed Bibi’s personal charm indicating Trump, and how much came from other parts of the money/crime American Zionists? They own TikTok and they own the news. And who holds Schrödinger’s Kompromat.
—-
Will Israel pull back from the buffer zone? No.
How will Iran react when it doesn’t?
It could make Strait opening conditional and parallel with withdrawal as an elegant solution.
As Araigchi said on Friday
Our sword will always be present above the Strait of Hormuz
Israeli clearly doesn’t give a shit about Hormuz. Trump cares about almost nothing but the Strait being open.
“Control your dog, bro.”
(Assuming Iran will not yield on Israeli withdrawal)
I also noticed there’s been no talk of ballistic missiles. That alone is a victory.
Wow…Even Netanyahu and all the Pro-Israel bots on Twitter are unable to spin this as anything other than “we destroyed their nuclear abilities” and “people who disagree are dumb” and “haha we killed the last Ayatollah” This sort of sorry half-hearted attempt to go through the motions is pretty remarkable…
It would be fun to track Israeli and Iranian Immigration stats over the next year…
1339 PDT
A US Air Force B-52 bomber crashes at Edwards Air Force Base in California, the base says
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/15/us/b-52-crash-edwards-california
America has lost its war with Iran
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/america-trump-iran-ceasefire-agreement-war-hormuz-b2995971.html
1425 PDT
Six Russian ships flee Channel in 77 minutes after UK seizes Putin shadow tanker
https://inews.co.uk/news/six-russian-ships-flee-channel-uk-seizes-putin-shadow-tanker-4477390
Hezbollah fires missiles toward Kfar Tibnit
https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1538206/iran-us-deal-southern-lebanese-displaced-begin-returning-to-villages-as-fragile-calm-takes-hold-live.html
Russia Is Now Disguising Fuel Trucks as Milk Tankers to Get Them Into Crimea Alive
https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/putin-has-a-problem-russia-is-now-disguising-fuel-trucks-as-milk-tankers-to-get-them-into-crimea-alive/
Iran and usa have already signed MoU
https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-war-live-trump-says-us-tehran-have-reached-peace-deal-2026-06-15/
U.S. officials says Iran pact signed, Hormuz traffic will rise significantly
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-vance-irans-parliament-speaker-signed-mou-2026-06-15/
Ministers say Israel won’t be bound by Iran deal, as opposition castigates Netanyahu’s ‘absolute failure’
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-vows-to-stay-in-south-lebanon-if-iran-strikes-well-hit-it-with-full-force/amp/
Consortium News discussion with Alistair Crooke. A number of items about the “deal” which I have not heard elsewhere.
1530 PDT
Starmer vows new sanctions on Russia and nuclear energy support for Ukraine
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/15/starmer-g7-sanctions-russia-nuclear-energy-support-ukraine
Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r2l352z2do
Predictably, Israel wants a word (Al Jazeera)
Deal sunk already?
In the Consortium News interview, linked above by upstater, Alistair Crooke says he believes that continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon is a deal breaker for Iran.
Hmm..Just some thoughts:
1. Israel may not feel bound by the agreement (I doubt even the US feels bound by it yet), but the point is that attacking those countries is no longer free–Iran has shown the capability to attack Israel in return, and even without Iran’s direct involvement, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon has been a laughable failure. Bombing Beirut may be an Israeli “feel good moment”, but the retaliation would not be.
2. Even if Iran for whatever reason does in fact feel bound by an agreement to not attack Israel (this is really a stretch), what if Yemen and Hezbollah decide to attack Israel, US, or allies in the region in retaliation?
3. Even if nobody attacks in retaliation but Iran simply closes the Strait again (or the Houthis close the other strait), what will Israel/US do? Go without oil and the economy?
Both Israel and commentators here seem to have not realized how much the world has changed over the past three months (well, since True Promise 2, I guess). Israel has lost its free lunch, and it has lost most of its backers on top of that. Once you remove the melodrama and hysterical headlines, the country will be more or less on the defensive for the rest of its likely brief existence unless it smartens up and removes its belligerence (which, again, simply is not going to happen).
Latest from NYTimes on the deal. no paywall.
Israel Counts the Ways That Netanyahu’s Iran Strategy Failed
The U.S.-Iran framework agreement appears to omit some of the most important provisions that Israel wanted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/world/middleeast/israel-netanyahus-iran-strategy.html
“Iran Says Strait of Hormuz Won’t Have ‘Tolls’ but It Will Have ‘Fees’”-The New York Times LMAO
1503 PDT
Secret Memo Exposes Trump Team’s Debate on Suspending Constitution
https://newrepublic.com/post/211828/trump-close-suspend-constitutional-right-habeas-corpus
1508 PDT
Pete Hegseth Insists Trump Iran Deal Is Totally Different From Obama’s
https://newrepublic.com/post/211845/pete-hegseth-claim-difference-trump-obama-iran-deal
1905 PDT
Trump says $300B fund to rebuild Iran is ‘Fake News’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5925541-trump-iran-300b-funding/
Vance: Iran ‘could have access to’ $300B reconstruction fund
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5924963-vance-iran-300b-reconstruction-fund/amp/
Thanks, lol.
The headline and the Trump post which the story links to are different in a CENTCOM type of dissemblance. Trump actually posted that that $300 million is fake news; the $300billion may still be accurate
Or maybe Trump old man brained the number.
Yep.
And there is a really easy way to settle which interpretation is correct–like, by actually releasing the actual text of the MOU. I can’t (LOL!!!) understand why the US hasn’t done so yet.
Having said that, the blind lashing out and blaming the Democrats (“Iran has agreed to never have a Nuclear Weapon! Also, the story that the U.S. is paying Iran 300 million Dollars is Fake News, put out by the Dumocrats!!! President DJT)” suggests that the agreement is probably an embarrassing capitulation of some sort
lol, this is the absurdest of comedies. I missed the Ds doing D stuff. I’m old enough to remember the observation that we are not a serious country.
Pass me the bottle, Mr Jones
Via MidEast Observer on Twitter.
According to information, the most important change that occurred last night is America’s acceptance of including a punitive clause in the memorandum of understanding that stipulates Iran’s right to punish the entity in the event of a breach of the agreement in Lebanon. This text was included in Article 13 of the document, which also indicates that Tehran may withdraw from the entire negotiation process if “Israel” does not adhere to it.
The information also confirms that Washington
offered Tehran a package of economic concessions to prevent it from retaliating, but Tehran insisted that the only thing that would prompt its response is the inclusion of additional clauses related to Lebanon.
Dr. Mohamed Hassan Sweidan
It is very hard to me to believe that the US would sign that. Big if true I guess.
I still think this all comes down to the buffer zone and I wonder if Iran would ever strike directly to affect it.
—-
It occurs to me that for all the media reports of “disaster for Israel”, they have annexed a large portion of their neighbour while Donald was flailing around in the Gulf and unless pushed back now, will have increased their territory.
I think the world is finally gonna have a reckoning with the expansionist settlers. No-one likes them.
I don’t doubt that the MOU will be signed, because this war has no realistic prospect of success if continued and the cost to the global economy of pursuing it — not to mention to Trump’s personal political fortunes — can only grow. But this is a ceasefire extension and an agreement on Hormuz, not a peace deal that would reimagine US-Iran relations or bring stability to the region. It is a mark of the war’s failure that all of the problems that predate it have been left to the future.
By Marc Champion (Bloomberg)