Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
Not a deal folks. CNN ought to know better. It is an MOU for a framework to begin a negotiation for a concept of a deal that is likely to never be achieved. Just like the Gaza "deal" was.https://bsky.app/profile/djrothkopf.bsky.social/po...The bottom line: Trump could no longer take the political heat (despite him saying he didn't care if there even
was a deal) and wanted to book a "win" as a present on his birthday.
No. of Recommendations: 7
The bottom line: Trump could no longer take the political heat (despite him saying he didn't care if there even was a deal) and wanted to book a "win" as a present on his birthday.
If Trump wants "credit", why isn't HE the one signing it? Why is Vance in the limelight, doing all the TV "news" interviews, while the torrent of NeoCon/Israeli outrage closes in?
Could be a typical "JC" setup: set Vance up to fail, because the failure of the deal is already baked in? 60 days of "negotiating" time, gets us almost through the summer travel season.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 15
If Trump wants "credit", why isn't HE the one signing it? Why is Vance in the limelight, doing all the TV "news" interviews, while the torrent of NeoCon/Israeli outrage closes in?
He was up late last night. I don't doubt he'll be claiming all the credit as we go forward.
Could be a typical "JC" setup: set Vance up to fail, because the failure of the deal is already baked in? 60 days of "negotiating" time, gets us almost through the summer travel season.
This part of the deal isn't going to fail. Trump can't have the Strait closed again until after the midterms at the earliest, and probably not again during his term. The Iranians have his number on that. Regardless of whether Israel strikes Lebanon, regardless of whether the 60 days is enough time to reach a deal. Having declared that peace is at hand, having obtained some relief on gas prices and inflation, and having reached the end of Congress' rope, he's not re-starting the bombing campaign.
The next part of the deal will certainly fail. They're not getting a nuclear deal worth the paper it's written on in just sixty days. That's just not a realistic time frame for how long these things take to negotiate even if both sides are eager to move quickly and kind of on the same page but for some details. But I think they'll likely fail, not just be delayed, because Trump isn't going to be able to bring himself to accept a deal that's worse than the JCPOA, and there's no reason the Iranians would ever agree to anything as good for the U.S. as the JCPOA ever again. What's likely to happen is just delay, delay, delay - talks that stretch on for years, and IMHO out until the end of Trump's term. That way he never has to admit failure.
No. of Recommendations: 4
He was up late last night. I don't doubt he'll be claiming all the credit as we go forward.He is always up late, posting on social media. That's why he has to snooze in Cabinet meetings.
The heat is coming fast and hard. I don't think he wants to take personal "credit" for this, except for one thing.
Interim US-Iran peace deal sparks anger among Israelis, who lash out at Netanyahu
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israelis from across the political spectrum reacted angrily Monday to the news of an initial deal between the U.S. and Iran, calling it a disaster for Israel and directing their fury at one man: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Israeli leader said at a news conference Monday that "with an agreement, without an agreement," he would continue fighting to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,
Critics say Netanyahu led President Donald Trump into the war with Iran while overpromising what it could achieve, and Trump now might be dragging Israel out of the conflict before it feels ready. They say the prime minister misjudged Trump's appetite for a protracted conflict, was outflanked by Iran in negotiations and grew increasingly sidelined by the region's other major players.
"Israel is paying the price of Netanyahu's hubris and blindness, and the price of the manipulations that he tried to pull on Trump," former Prime Minister and Netanyahu rival (Me:and close Epstein associate) Ehud Barak said in an interview with Israel's public broadcaster Monday. "Iran emerged stronger; Israel emerged weaker. That is Netanyahu's strategic responsibility. He failed."https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/inter...Iran deal threatens to fall apart before it's signed with firm Israel response to clause
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told President Donald Trump that Israel does not have to follow the stipulations in the emerging peace deal between the U.S. and Iran for the fighting to end in Lebanon, according to new reports.
Israeli officials added that Jerusalem wouldn't accept a deal that limits its ability to act against Hezbollah.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-deal-thr...Trump is turning victory in Iran into an American humiliation
What was the point? On the upside, Iran has sustained the mother of all military and economic batterings. On the downside, it appears to be rapidly rebuilding its strength. And under the terms of a new “peace” deal, will it soon be aided by many billions of dollars of sanctions relief from the very president who condemned Barack Obama for doing just that?https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-is-turn...whether the 60 days is enough time to reach a deal. I figure that 60 days receives the same kabuki dance as the every-other-day "peace is at hand" announcements: repeatedly extended. That at least gives a glimmer of hope there will be "free and fair" elections this fall, as the extensions will enable God On Earth Trump boasting he brought gas prices down, (from the peak they rose to, because of the war he started).
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 9
I figure that 60 days receives the same kabuki dance as the every-other-day "peace is at hand" announcements: repeatedly extended.
Oh, there won't be an agreement within 60 days - or even for much longer, I don't think. But peace is at hand, in the sense that the war has basically ended. It's hard to imagine Trump resuming the bombing attacks against Iran as we had before. We went to war with Iran and achieved nothing but them agreeing to go back to the negotiating table - which is where they were before the war began.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's hard to imagine Trump resuming the bombing attacks Trump may not be the "decider". Israeli PM candidate Bennett on Piers Morgan, today, promising to be Iran's "worst nightmare"
https://x.com/PiersUncensored/status/2066598615775...And pushback from within the Trump regime.
CIA director doubts Iran's intentions on deal, sources say
CIA Director John Ratcliffe told President Trump and other senior officials that intelligence gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies raised serious doubts about Iran's willingness to make the nuclear concessions the U.S. is seeking in any final deal, according to three sources familiar with those discussions.
Friction point: Ratcliffe isn't the only skeptic in Trump's top team. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have both expressed concerns and raised questions about the deal in internal discussions, while Vice President Vance and U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner advocated for it, according to two of the sources.https://www.axios.com/2026/06/15/us-iran-deal-cia-...NeoCons and Israeli tools are making a lot of noise.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 6
Trump may not be the "decider". Israeli PM candidate Bennett on Piers Morgan, today, promising to be Iran's "worst nightmare"
So what? A candidate for PM isn't going to make that decision. By the time the PM elections are done in Israel, we'll have unwound the military buildup. We're not going back to the war posture of March or April, once we pull out. And I doubt that Trump is going to be the least bit interested in what Israel wants after he didn't get his Delcy 2.0.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe told President Trump and other senior officials that intelligence gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies raised serious doubts about Iran's willingness to make the nuclear concessions the U.S. is seeking in any final deal, according to three sources familiar with those discussions.
Of course. No one should think that Iran's going to make the concessions the U.S. is seeking. They've been quite clear that they have red lines that they're not moving on. We're just back where we were in late February, with the U.S. and Iran sitting around a table and Iran refusing to give us what we want and the U.S. refusing to give Iran what they want. We went to war because Trump thought he could force Iran to give us what they wouldn't agree to at the negotiating table. He was wrong. And now that Iran knows that the U.S. won't go far enough to really force them to give up these concessions, they're not going to do so voluntarily.
The war is basically over - we couldn't stand the high oil prices and Trump decided to end the war with us not getting of our goals rather than keep them high any longer.
No. of Recommendations: 1
So what? A candidate for PM isn't going to make that decision.That's like saying a candidate can't make a sitting POTUS look "soft on Communism/crime/Islamic boogyman". Seems all the rhetoric in Israel is about how many Muslims to kill today.
Here's another entry, from a sitting Minister.
Trump's deal doesn't bind us: Israeli minister rejects US-Iran peace agreement
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Monday mounted a fierce attack on a reported US-brokered agreement with Iran, declaring that Israel would not be bound by any arrangement announced by President Donald Trump and insisting that the country's security decisions would be made in Jerusalem, not Washington.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-s-deal-..."Bibi" has been saying, all along, this war is not over.
By the time the PM elections are done in Israel, we'll have unwound the military buildup. Doesn't matter. IAF pilots can mount their US made jets, and drop US made bombs on Iran.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 13
rather than keep them high any longer.
I am mindful of the saying “prices rise like a rocket, come down like a feather”.
There are lots of reasons why this will be true in this case. China throttled its consumption by about 3m bbl per day during war. Expect that to go back up. The US and China both drew from their strategic stocks, the US level is now at its lowest point since the strategic reserve was established, so that will have to be refilled.
Countries which were severely impacted, Japan and those in Europe most notably, will be returning to their former habits; each time the price comes down a little, they will have an incentive to “buy more” which will tend to keep the price higher. This is also true of those factories which rely on oil not just for energy but also for feedstocks of plastics and other materials as were curtailed during the past several months.
I’m not saying that prices won’t come down, just that the glide curve will be much much slower than when it went the other way at the beginning of this absurd conflict. I would predict that the price of gas will still be higher on Election Day than it was at the beginning of the year. And I hope with the appropriate voter behavior rewarding the instigators of this nonsense.
No. of Recommendations: 14
"Bibi" has been saying, all along, this war is not over.
So what? He doesn't get to decide what the U.S. does.
I should have been a bit clearer in my earlier statements. The active war between the U.S. and Iran is basically over. Trump could neither tolerate the high oil prices that came from the Strait being closed nor bring himself to do a full ground invasion - so he capitulated. We have ended our direct war, without achieving any of our goals.
Israel might continue to engage in combat with Iran or Hezbollah. But American forces won't be joining them in that combat anymore. Now that it's finally apparent to Trump that there is no easy legacy-burnishing win to be had by getting into direct combat with Iran - something all his predecessors knew immediately - that phase is over. Trump was willing, even eager, to do a "low-cost massive-reward" operation in Iran. Since that failed, he's not down for the long-term grinding struggle that Netanyahu might want.
Remember, Trump's defining quality is that he's transactional, not principled. The Middle East doesn't offer him the same opportunities for personal enrichment and glory anymore. Gaza didn't get him his Nobel Prize. Despite all the public pledges no one ever ponied up any money for the Board of Peace. There's no major rebuilding efforts in Gaza - no massive construction projects, no lucrative real estate deals. The Abraham Accords model isn't going anywhere further. Obviously the Iran war was a failure. And a lot of that easy Gulf State sovereign wealth fund money is now a lot less easy, since these countries now have huge holes in their pockets they need to fill.
So Trump's tapping out, and he'll find something else. Look out Cuba! But the U.S.' active war with Iran is done.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So what? He doesn't get to decide what the U.S. does.
How will Iran react, when Israel keeps killing Lebanese by the thousands? How will Iran react, if Israel starts bombing Iran again?
Maybe Iran closes the Strait again, and tells the US "call off your rabid dog", because Israel can't continue it's wars, without US money and supplies.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
And pushback from within the Trump regime.Clearly, these guys never worked for a "JC" before. They don't understand. "JCs" don't tolerate any dissent. Wonder what is in store for Rubio? He was mentioned in the previous article too.
Trump eyes firing Pete Hegseth and CIA chief John Ratcliffe over Iran deal clash
Sources close to the administration told Israel Hayom that some officials who could face the president's wrath include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. "he debate has been settled. Anyone who opposed it could pay a personal price," the source said. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-eyes...Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
How will Iran react, when Israel keeps killing Lebanese by the thousands? How will Iran react, if Israel starts bombing Iran again?
Don't know. Iran and Israel might go into open war even after the U.S. has dropped out. Seems a bit unlikely, given that Israel doesn't have the ability to actually win that war.
Maybe Iran closes the Strait again, and tells the US "call off your rabid dog", because Israel can't continue its wars, without US money and supplies.
I mean, maybe. It's very possible that Iran now realizes it has this power and chooses to use it in response to what Israel does, not just what the U.S. does. But I think it's a bit unlikely, since Israel is far less likely to actually change their behavior due to the strait being closed than the U.S. They'd be more likely to instead launch missiles and drones.
No. of Recommendations: 1
...since Israel is far less likely to actually change their behavior due to the strait being closed than the U.S. They'd be more likely to instead launch missiles and drones. Israel is dependent on the US for money and weapons. That gives the US leverage, or "cards". So, Iran could tell the US "call off your rabid dog".
God on Earth Trump seems to think he, and he alone, has been Israel's guardian angel, since 1948.
Trump says Israel wouldn't exist without him
President Donald Trump signaled a deepening rift with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by claiming "there would be no Israel" without him in a stinging rebuke at the G7 (Group of Seven) summit.
Speaking alongside Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, at the summit of the world's biggest economies in Évian-les-Bains, France, Trump said: "Without the United States, there would be no Israel. Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/politics/arti...The US has the leverage. Will the US use it? With some 90% of Congress bought by the Israel lobby. With Congress considering bills to give Israel unfettered access to US R&D, procurement, and intelligence, the window to yank Israel's chain, may be closing.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 1
Seems a bit unlikely, given that Israel doesn't have the ability to actually win that war.
Actually, they probably do. They have nukes. I was not sure the Felon wouldn't use them, but -fortunately- he didn't. Israel is in a different situation than we were. Their civilians are killed semi-regularly. Various proxies against Israel launch actual attacks in force. It's sort of existential for them.
Not saying they will do it. But Bibi is enough of a hawk that I wouldn't put it past him. They have on the order of 100 nukes. That's more than enough to do the job. I don't think any other Islamic country (except Pakistan) could respond in kind.
