Post New

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cameron-arcand/2026/...

Point by point we'll walk. To me it looks like it's inarguably ass:

The United States of America, and Islamic Republic of Iran, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.

Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah aren't part of the deal at all, and Iran has zero rights inside of Lebanon, so including that conflict in this is useless. I suspect both sides want it in here so that either side could declare the entire thing to be in breach when inevitably Hezbollah shells Israel and Tel Aviv responds.

The United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, undertake to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs.

Whatever. More symbology.

The United States of America, and the Islamic Republic of Iran commits to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days – extendable with mutual consent.

Okay.

Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the Naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States of America, further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.

Lots of flexibility in this. The blockade ends the second the Navy says it's over; it doesn't take 30 days for that. The "proximity" thing is also not defined. I'm sure the Iranians will claim it means all US forces out of the Middle East.

Upon the signing of this, MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start in considering the needs for removing the technical and military obstacles and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be initiated within 30 days, the Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with Sultaness of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Homruz discussion with other Persian gulf [...] states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

This is very badly worded. "No charge"? It's an international waterway; of course there's "no charge". This does commit the Iranians to remove whatever mines they've laid. It also seemingly hands the strait - again an international waterway - over to Iran and Oman. Uhhh, no. There is an out clause with the "applicable international law" thing, though.

The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.

So who pays this? Trump says it won't be us but this clearly implies we broker it. The correct answer to this should be $0.

The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council Resolution, i.e. IAEA Board of Governor's Resolution, and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, primary and secondary, and an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal.

In exchange for what? So far no language about their support for international terrorism or their missile programs. Terminating "all types of sanctions" is a bad idea.

The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpile enriched material, pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon, in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph 7, with a minimum methodology to be down blending on site, under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the economical public of Iran's nuclear need, based on the satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran, acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mission, and express their attention to immediately address these issues in the negotiation in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

Okay. Iran has never before even ack'd their nuclear weapons program. So this is at least a start. The key word is "minimal" in terms of the down-enrichment. How about we fly this stuff back to Hanford and do it there?

Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.

More boilerplate. The current status of the Iranian nuclear program is a bunch of sealed caves. I suppose this means they can't try to dig it out, though.

The United States of America undertakes, but immediately upon the signing of this MOU, and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives and all associated services including banking, transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.

This is the Venezuela plan part 2. This also doesn't say how much oil and other things they can ship.

The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use, the frozen, or restricted funds, and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of the MOU, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will usually agree on the procedures related to the relief of these funds during the negotiation. Such funds, whether retained in the original accounts or transferred, government may be fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.

This part is serious ass. It more or less frees the Iranians to hand out money to the IRGC, Hamas or Hezbollah.

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementations of MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.

By who? The 3 blind mice over at the IAEA?

After signing the MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.

The final deal will be endorsed by a binding [United Nations Security Council] resolution.

El barf-o.

Largely sucks?
I think you meant to say, TOTALLY SUCKS!

To me it looks like it's inarguably ass...

Agreed. A question for you. Do you think this is worse ass than the JCPOA, the same ass, or better ass?

Do you think this is worse ass than the JCPOA, the same ass, or better ass?

It's ass. Once something hits that level, it pretty much doesn't matter because all of them are covered with hair and dingleberries.

Largely sucks?

I think "largely". It does mean that we won't be wasting any more cruise missiles and other resources in this pointless conflict. Hopefully no more service members will be dying (14, so far, IIRC). If it means we can get back to focusing on China, then it doesn't totally suck. IMO.

Once something hits that level, it pretty much doesn't matter because all of them are covered with hair and dingleberries.

Not all of them! Kate Beckinsale? Salma Hayak? I could go on... :-)

IMO, this deal (in whatever form it takes in the end) is worse because it almost certainly won't restrain enrichment by the Iranians. The JCPOA did, however imperfectly it may have been.

Agreed. A question for you. Do you think this is worse ass than the JCPOA, the same ass, or better ass?

It cannot be stressed enough that we are not even yet at the same point as the JCPOA.

In the JCPOA, we agreed to trade unfreezing assets and sanctions relief in exchange for Iranian commitments to limit their nuclear program.

In the MOU, we agreed to trade unfreezing assets and sanctions relief in exchange for Iran agreeing to come back to the bargaining table to talk about possibly limiting their nuclear program.

Again, Trump had to give up most of what the JCPOA offered before negotiations even started. There's no nuclear deal yet. Iran hasn't agreed to a single thing about their nukes yet. This is just the price he had to pay to get the Iranians to start negotiating. This is just the price he had to pay to get the Iranians back to where they were on February 26th.

That's why this is deal is so horrible. Everything we're getting from Iran in the MOU is no more than what we already had before the war. But now, we had to give them access to about $100 billion in frozen assets and sanctions relief both for their oil and gas industries and for all the surrounding financial and transportation restrictions that had kept them penned in. Oh, and we had to spend many tens of billions of our own money - and burn up our own weapons stores - in order to get there.

IMO, this deal (in whatever form it takes in the end) is worse because it almost certainly won't restrain enrichment by the Iranians. The JCPOA did, however imperfectly it may have been.

The Iranians had several sites going on while under the JCPOA and were cheating the entire time.

The JCPOA was a literal kick the can down the road exercise. Had we followed it, by the timelines laid out in the deal Iran would have the bomb right now.

At least this deal ack's that Iran is not allowed to have a nuke. That said, I don't believe that pledge is worth the paper it's printed on.

It's ass. Once something hits that level, it pretty much doesn't matter because all of them are covered with hair and dingleberries.

Then no deal can ever be anything other than ass.

I think it's now pretty clear that the JCPOA represented an incredibly adept piece of deal-making- in that the Obama administration was able to extract far better terms from Iran just by maneuvering around the negotiating table than Trump was able to get after actually going to war with them.

Trump's already given away most of the carrots in the JCPOA even before they sit down to negotiate JCPOA Part II. All the asset unfreezing, the most important sanctions relief - all of it offered up even before the parties get to the table to talk about nukes.

Iran will never agree to anything that Dope1 doesn't think is ass. So the only options are to either invade them with ground troops or let them have nukes if they want them. Sanctions won't stop them from getting nukes. Threats of war won't stop them from getting nukes. Actually going to war with them, but without a major invasion with ground troops, can't stop them from getting nukes. The only way to stop them from getting nukes is to get them to either agree to not have nukes (which will always be ass), or invade.

Since we're not invading, it's either let them have nukes or have a JCPOA-like deal.

Which do you prefer, Dope1? Which is the less "ass" outcome - they have an unrestricted nuclear program (but are under sanctions), or we have something like the JCPOA? We now know there is no third option, since we're never going to invade with ground troops.

At least this deal ack's that Iran is not allowed to have a nuke.

The JCPOA also contained an affirmation that Iran's was not allowed to have a nuke. That was the whole point of the treaty! It said outright, "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons". It's literally the first substantive statement of the JCPOA, right after enumerating the parties and saying what the goal of the agreement is.

They've always been willing to say they're not getting a nuke. They're an actual signatory to the NPT, for goodness sakes - they have a formally binding treaty that says they're not allowed to have a nuke!

And you're misreading the MOU. It does not acknowledge that Iran is not allowed to have a nuke. It does not even acknowledge that they had a weapons program.

The JCPOA was a literal kick the can down the road exercise. Had we followed it, by the timelines laid out in the deal Iran would have the bomb right now.

No, had we followed it Iran would have no weapons grade uranium right now and we would be completely free to reinstate the same sanctions programs that existed before if they tried to start a weapons program or enrich beyond low levels. I think you're misunderstanding what the JCPOA said, because it never committed the U.S. to let Iran pursue a bomb once the agreement deadlines passed. It provided that during the term of the agreement, Iran would not enrich uranium beyond the ~3% necessary for civilian nuclear power. Once it expired, both parties would be just as free to respond to each other as they were before the deal - and to be in exactly the same position that Trump put us in once he ripped up the deal. Once the restrictions on Iranian enrichment expired, so too did the limits on our ability to sanction them.

So who pays this? Trump says it won't be us but this clearly implies we broker it. The correct answer to this should be $0.

It's magical. Just like Mexico paying for the wall, and "donations" paying for the ballroom. Nothing God on Earth Trump does ever costs USian Proles anything. It's all upside. It's magical, in a way that only "JC" delusions can imagine. It's "strong" and "powerful" too, according the Trump the Magnificent.

Steve

So who pays this? Trump says it won't be us but this clearly implies we broker it.

Well, no one's actually going to pay it, since this is unlikely to ever be implemented.

If it were to actually be implemented, it would be private investment money. This isn't money that gets paid to Iran. Instead, it's an investment fund - private parties (including sovereign wealth funds) agree to provide money to do private infrastructure and redevelopment activity in Iran. Kind of like the whole "Board of Peace" slush fund, where governments had to allegedly pay up in order to join the BoP - but instead, it's not governments themselves but private parties and the sovereign wealth funds.

It's just another instance of Trump misunderstanding the motivation of the Iranians. The intent is to create a vehicle to incentivize both Iran and the U.S.'s allies to reach a Final Deal once the MOU negotiations get started. The pitch to Iran's leaders is obvious - "Give up your nukes, and you all can get rich!" The pitch to the Gulf States (who will have to live with the newly unchained Iran) is equally simple - "You all get a piece of the reconstruction action and a change to increase your influence in Iran."

The problem, though, is that the Iranians aren't motivated by that. It's the same reason the BoP fund failed in Gaza. The leaders of Hamas aren't gangsters pretending to be motivated by ideology. They're true believers. They're not interested in becoming Gazan oligarchs. The same is almost certainly true of Iran. Those leaders aren't going to be much tempted by a $300 billion slush fund they can dip their beaks into. They're true believers.

But, since Trump gave away most of the carrots that were in the JCPOA as a precondition to negotiating, they're not available to be part of an actual nuclear deal. So they have to come up with something.

It's the same reason the BoP fund failed in Gaza.

I submit that the "BoP" has been a success at it's core purpose: laundering bribes for Trump. Trump's "Executive Branch" club is a bribe laundering scheme. The ballroom "donations" are a bribe laundering scheme.

How much has the "BoP" actually raised to reconstruct Gaza?

Trump Board of Peace's official Gaza fund is empty

https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-board-of-peac...

The Billion dollar "membership" fees probably went directly into Trump's pocket. Same thing with the "hundreds of millions" for the "ballroom", and the member fees for the "Executive Branch".

Trump has stolen Billions. But now Musk has raised the bar to Trillions. How is Trump going to steal that much?

Steve

The Billion dollar "membership" fees probably went directly into Trump's pocket

Probably not. They were just never paid. It wasn't laundering bribes. It was just a fake. All those countries made "commitments" to pay the money, but they never paid any.

Trump's motives were venal - he wanted there to be a huge pot of money to be spent on stuff, and which he would have control of. That would have given him lots of chances to wet his own beak, self-deal, steer business opportunities to allies and relatives and anyone willing to kick some back to him.

But it never happened. All the countries who he planned on giving up the money quickly realized that there was not going to be any rebuilding in Gaza, and so no reason to fulfill their "commitments." And since Trump also realized that there was never going to be any rebuilding in Gaza, and thus no opportunities to wet his beak - so he didn't press the issue.

It cannot be stressed enough that we are not even yet at the same point as the JCPOA.

I totally agree. I was just asking Dope if he agreed. It doesn't seem so, based on his response.

I was just asking Dope if he agreed. It doesn't seem so, based on his response.

The obsession with somehow making the JCPOA a good piece of policy boggles the mind. It's not. It wasn't then, and in hindsight it's just as bad. Just because Trump is in the process of letting Iran off the mat it doesn't make Obama's thing any better.

Put it this way:

You want to eat a sandwich but have 2 choices:

The one at Barack's Sandwich Shop is two pieces of rye with onions and a patty made of cow sh1t.
The one at Big Bad Orange Man's is a ciabatta bun cut in half with mayo and a healthy patty of horse sh1t.

Which one would you rather eat? You of course have the option to decline both. It's a false choice to claim you need to pick either.

Which one would you rather eat? You of course have the option to decline both. It's a false choice to claim you need to pick either.

Do you, though?

I mean, that's just a construct of your hypothetical. But if all your choices involve sh1t as an ingredient, then you have to figure out which is the best of those alternatives.

Iran is a large, sovereign country with significant economic assets (oil) and strategically advantageous geography. That constrains our choices in trying to get them to do things we want, or force them to not do things we don't want. We don't have an unlimited set of choices.

We don't want them to have nuclear weapons. They have, of course, agreed several times that they will not have nuclear weapons, including but not limited to entering the formally binding Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that says the will not have nuclear weapons. However, we do not trust them to honor those obligations.

That means we have only a few options:

1) Enter into some sort of agreement with them that gives us sufficient monitoring, access, and enforcement powers that we deem it a non-trivial restriction on their ability to get a nuclear weapon that is better than leaving them unconstrained - offering to them economic inducements (including relief from existing sanctions) to get them to agree; or

2) Keep all of the existing sanctions and eschew any agreement, thereby leaving Iran with whatever constraints might be imposed by such sanctions but otherwise free of either constraint or monitoring, to engage in whatever they might choose to do; or

3) Invade with ground troops and overthrow the government.

It sure sounds like you're claiming that all of the possible deals under basket 1) are ass, or sh1t sandwiches. There's absolutely no reason to believe that anyone could ever get a better agreement out of Iran than Obama did. So either the Obama agreement is not ass, or they're all ass.

We know, though, that #2 is completely unacceptable. We saw what happened with it. Iran was under sanctions but not under a deal, and (per the administration) they got within two weeks of a nuke. So that's also a sh1t sandwich.

That only leaves #3. Which, after our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan (two much smaller countries), we know is a sh1t sandwich with a sh1t topping and extra sh1t on the side.

So - what's your choice? You don't get to not choose. Iran exists, they have their own sovereignty and agency, and you have to do something in response to their decisions. You don't have the option to "decline" Iran having a nuclear weapon just because that's what you might prefer. You have to do something, and none of the choices are palatable.

The obsession with somehow making the JCPOA a good piece of policy boggles the mind.

Actually, I never said it was good or bad. I was just asking for an opinion on the relative "ass-ness" of the canceled agreement vs the new proposal.

Actually, I never said it was good or bad. I was just asking for an opinion on the relative "ass-ness" of the canceled agreement vs the new proposal.

Sorry, wasn't referring to you.

"The Iranians had several sites going on while under the JCPOA and were cheating the entire time." - Dumbass Dope

You keep repeating this but have never been able to substantiate it despite being asked multiple times.

The only link you have ever produced was one that you clearly misread (your typical reading comprehension problems even on your own links). The link stated that Iran was enriching uranium beyond the peaceful amount both before the JCPOA was signed and then after Trump ripped it up. The link never showed that Iran was enriching beyond peaceful levels while under the JCPOA.

U.S. intelligence services are pretty much in agreement that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA after signing it, before Trump ripped it up.

European intelligence services are pretty much in agreement that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA after signing it, before Trump ripped it up.

Middle Eastern allied intelligence services (the Saudis, etc.) are pretty much in agreement that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA after signing it, before Trump ripped it up.

IAEA inspectors and the IAEA governing body are pretty much in agreement that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA after signing it, before Trump ripped it up.

Heck, even Israeli intelligence services say Iran was abiding by the terms.

All of the experts in the world disagree with you. Yet you somehow think if you keep repeating your falsehood over and over someone might believe you.

Doesn't it bother you that you cannot produce one credible source that shows Iran was enriching when they shouldn't have been?

Doesn't it bother you that you cannot produce one credible source that shows Iran was enriching when they shouldn't have been?

Are you saying FOX 'news' isn't a credible source? That'll be news to Dope.

Trump has stolen Billions. But now Musk has raised the bar to Trillions. How is Trump going to steal that much?

Trump says: “Hold my Adderall and watch this!”

Everyone Agrees Trumps Deal Is "100% Total Ass"...

Calling Trump's handling of the conflict "the worst foreign policy blunder in decades," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said Wednesday,
"Reagan is rolling over in his grave. Iran's nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz
now works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal.
Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive. Now, 13 Americans are dead,
families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades."

Conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro, told Fox News on Wednesday the agreement is a "Disaster that does not achieve any of the actual goals set by the administration at the beginning."

Conservative radio host Erick Erickson reposted a video compilation of Trump bashing the Obama-era Iran deal on multiple occasions:
"I would have never given them back the money, I would have said, the money is off the table! I would have won that negotiation!" ~Trump

Fox News host Mark Levin, said "I sure as hell hope I am misreading and mishearing things. If there is confusion it is due to the withholding of the MOU and publicly stated comments,
not to those of us who can see and hear."

Steve Bannon said, "We can't get in the business of giving these guys all this money and giving them access. We got the sanctions, keep the sanctions on, don't let them sell any oil,
don't give them $300 billion. I think we're looking at this cockeyed, we shouldn't be doing anything for these people."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/17/tr...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump...

To your point:
"Trump and his aides have heralded as a major accomplishment the eighth of the framework’s 14 paragraphs, which states: “The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.” Notice the word reaffirms.
The Obama-era nuclear deal, which Iran and six other countries signed in 2015 (and Trump scuttled three years later), stated, in its prologue, in almost identical language: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”
Even there, Iran “reaffirmed” the pledge because it had made the same promise when it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970."
- Fred Kaplan/Slate

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.