What a "deal"....!?

@moonbus said
@Soothfast

Thanks for your diligence in this matter. It is clear that the Trump administration went into this fiasco for all the wrong reasons, without a clue how to conclude it, and that there is no shred of diplomatic competence anywhere in Trump's team of advisors. Trump will blame this on Vance, but the responsibility is ultimately Trump's since he chose Vance to lead ...[text shortened]... mal level of experience in government and lawmaking. More than one year in the Senate, as per Vance.

MB: As some Republicans are already saying publicly, this could be the worst deal any US president ever made.

You must be joking; it's an agreement that ends a destructive war which has killed thousands and inflicted tens of billions (at least) of economic damage on the countries involved and the world in general. It also gives Iran a way back into the global economic community and ought to relieve some of the suffering that excessive sanctions have inflicted on the Iranian People for years.

I hardly see why anyone but hardcore neocons would be dissatisfied with it.

@no1marauder said
MB: As some Republicans are already saying publicly, this could be the worst deal any US president ever made.

You must be joking; it's an agreement that ends a destructive war which has killed thousands and inflicted tens of billions (at least) of economic damage on the countries involved and the world in general. It also gives Iran a way back into the global economic ...[text shortened]... ian People for years.

I hardly see why anyone but hardcore neocons would be dissatisfied with it.

It ends nothing. It merely sets a 60-day period for reaching an agreement, at the expiry of which, all options (including a resumption of hostilities) are open.

@moonbus said
It ends nothing. It merely sets a 60-day period for reaching an agreement, at the expiry of which, all options (including a resumption of hostilities) are open.

That option is always open.

You're doing a lot of complaining about something you say doesn't do anything. However, your synopsis shows that assertion is clearly wrong. It ends the US blockade, for example.

@Soothfast said
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/politics/how-to-read-us-iran-agreement-mcgurk-analysis

[quote]How to read the US-Iran draft agreement: Big commitments from Washington, not from Tehran

Brett McGurk is a CNN global affairs analyst who served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

N ...[text shortened]... copies the entire text of the article to the clipboard. Now paste the text into any word processor.

And Iran is already closing the Straight down, because Israel keeps bombing Lebanon…

@no1marauder said
That option is always open.

You're doing a lot of complaining about something you say doesn't do anything. However, your synopsis shows that assertion is clearly wrong. It ends the US blockade, for example.

Trump could end the blockade unilaterally any time he wants. He does not need any compliance from Iran to do that.

John Kerry's team of experienced diplomats required 18 months to hammer out the treaty T45 tore up. Trump's team are amateurs, and 60 days to reach a complex agreement, plus reparations to the tune of 300 billion, is a pipe dream.

@moonbus said
Trump could end the blockade unilaterally any time he wants. He does not need any compliance from Iran to do that.

John Kerry's team of experienced diplomats required 18 months to hammer out the treaty T45 tore up. Trump's team are amateurs, and 60 days to reach a complex agreement, plus reparations to the tune of 300 billion, is a pipe dream.

He could, but he wouldn't. So what's wrong with an agreement that does?

Trump is ending the war because it's wildly unpopular esp. because of the effect on US prices and he fears a Democratic sweep in the midterms. Sure, if there's no agreement within 60 days on the nuclear issues (there won't be) he could start bombing again, but that would surely be political suicide. So the likelihood is we'll get extensions and delays.

That's better than a shooting war if not exactly ideal.

@no1marauder said
He could, but he wouldn't. So what's wrong with an agreement that does?

Trump is ending the war because it's wildly unpopular esp. because of the effect on US prices and he fears a Democratic sweep in the midterms. Sure, if there's no agreement within 60 days on the nuclear issues (there won't be) he could start bombing again, but that would surely be political suicide ...[text shortened]... ihood is we'll get extensions and delays.

That's better than a shooting war if not exactly ideal.

One could wish that your optimism were well-founded in Trump's prior diplomatic successes.

@no1marauder said
I understand that Trump bashing is mandatory for the Left but what is really wrong with an agreement that ends a useless and pointless war and relieves the economic suffering of the Iranian People?

I don't agree that the Left should join with far right neocons like Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz in attempts to scuttle the deal because Netanyahu doesn't like it. It seems t ...[text shortened]... oad terms, a good one if albeit rather late in the game after unnecessary bloodshed and destruction.

I'll answer your question as honestly as I can.

Here's the thing: I'm glad Trump caved. I'm glad there's a prospect of ending the war of aggression against Iran sooner rather than later.

I suppose I could frame the whole thing differently. I could come here and say: "As a leftist commie deviant, I applaud Trump for deciding to sue for peace with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Bad on him for starting it, but good on him for recognizing that it was a mistake to start it, and has chosen to end it despite the fact that suing for peace now, with none of the initial objectives of the war having been achieved, will be widely seen as a significant loss of face for the US on the world stage. It must have been a difficult decision for the president, because his decision to join with Israel in a war of aggression against Iran has resulted in the latter being in a position far stronger than it could have imagined in January of this year. But that's okay, because war is terrible, and this "war of choice" in particular was destabilizing the world economy and inflicting incalculable human suffering."

Maybe next time I'll try that tack instead.

So why did I frame things the way I did, especially as one who believes a permanently weakened US would be a good thing for the future health of humanity and the planet? I already said in this very thread that nothing I say here has any chance of reaching the right-wingers who actively post to this forum, and was addressing the lurkers who may be amenable to persuasion. And why address the lurkers in the way that I have? It's simple: I've gotten the feeling over the years that Americans across the political spectrum are, broadly speaking, insanely patriotic.

I'll pause to let you gasp in awe of my detective skills.

So, having an insanely patriotic public on the one hand, and a de facto insane president on the other, my feeling is that to drive home the point as incisively and effectively as possible, the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran should be cast in a light that best accentuates the manifold ways it violates the basic tenets of patriotism as most American voters conceive them.

So yes, I'm pitching the message with rhetorical devices that recognize the political angle here, in hopes that maximum hurt is inflicted on Trump specifically. You'll note that I didn't mention the Republican party even once in all this, because I want to persuade those who identify with that party that hitching their wagon to Trump and his incompetent administration is doing them no favors. MAGA may be a cult at its core, but not everyone who votes MAGA is incurably brainwashed. An election is only a few months away, and anything that hurts Trump's image and knocks him off his pedestal is a good thing. Trump will not be on the ballot, but the Republican party's fortunes rise and fall with Trump's, and the Republican party needs to have its clock cleaned in November to a degree that wins the Democrats at least one chamber in Congress so that Trump can be contained as a lame duck for the ensuing two years.

That's the dream, anyway. I frankly see no purchase in being "nice" to Trump even when he once in a while does the right thing for the wrong reason. (He never does the right thing for the right reason.) His practical surrender to Iran is a political move. The elections are looming closer, and even his addled brain has apprehended the deep unpopularity of the war he started at Netanyahoo's instigation. So, the stakes being political, I'm working the political angle here. That's how the game is played, I'm afraid, in a country as hopelessly national chauvinist as the US.

@no1marauder said
He could, but he wouldn't. So what's wrong with an agreement that does?

Trump is ending the war because it's wildly unpopular esp. because of the effect on US prices and he fears a Democratic sweep in the midterms. Sure, if there's no agreement within 60 days on the nuclear issues (there won't be) he could start bombing again, but that would surely be political suicide ...[text shortened]... ihood is we'll get extensions and delays.

That's better than a shooting war if not exactly ideal.

I admire you for your stance here, even if the feeling is nowise mutual. 😉

@shavixmir said
And Iran is already closing the Straight down, because Israel keeps bombing Lebanon…

That darned ol' Netanyahoo. Why, he's acting just like a terrorist, ain't he?

@Soothfast said
I'll answer your question as honestly as I can.

Here's the thing: I'm glad Trump caved. I'm glad there's a prospect of ending the war of aggression against Iran sooner rather than later.

I suppose I could frame the whole thing differently. I could come here and say: "As a leftist commie deviant, I applaud Trump for deciding to sue for peace with the Islamic Republic ...[text shortened]... That's how the game is played, I'm afraid, in a country as hopelessly national chauvinist as the US.

Americans are patriotic, but not soooooooooooooo patriotic that they ever supported this war. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/issues/military-action-iran

@moonbus said
One could wish that your optimism were well-founded in Trump's prior diplomatic successes.

Sarcasm is useful sometimes, but in this case it has lapsed to BS.

@no1marauder said
Americans are patriotic, but not soooooooooooooo patriotic that they ever supported this war. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/issues/military-action-iran

Yes, the war was never popular. Given MAGA's long-standing isolationist attitudes, it was not even particular popular among Trump's brainwashed groupies. With MAGA, at least in principle, patriotism doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with foreign wars. The slogan "America First," in fact, has more to do (at least in principle) with abandoning foreign entanglements, international institutions, and foreign aid programs in order to concentrate on improving the lives of American citizens. In practice, of course, MAGA has failed in most of these endeavors except to the extent that they could be partially achieved in the short term through wanton acts of cruelty and illegal decrees.

I suppose a simpler way of describing my approach in this thread is this: Playing "devil's advocate," I implicitly grant the opposition's premises, and then highlight how Trump runs afoul of those premises. Whether this is really an effective deprogramming technique when arguing with cultists I leave to others to decide.

However, it seems to me that the Democrats' tendency toward taking the "high road" when confronting naked fascism and racism hasn't really worked well these past few years. This may have more to do with the Democratic party's leadership failing to promote a bold and truly progressive platform, though.

@Soothfast said
Yes, the war was never popular. Given MAGA's long-standing isolationist attitudes, it was not even particular popular among Trump's brainwashed groupies. With MAGA, at least in principle, patriotism doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with foreign wars. The slogan "America First," in fact, has more to do (at least in principle) with abandoning foreign entanglements, interna ...[text shortened]... the Democratic party's leadership failing to promote a bold and truly progressive platform, though.

A side bet; when the polls are done, a majority, probably a significant majority, will oppose the agreement even though they opposed the war.

For years, public opinion polls showed the US public opposed the war in Afghanistan and wanted us to get out but when Biden did exactly that he immediately plummeted in approval rating and never really recovered.

Opinion is fickle and at some point large segments seem to just say "I don't like X and will oppose anything he does". Trump is very unpopular now and I doubt whether this will help him much.

I'll leave it to Groucho to explain: YouTube

@no1marauder said
A side bet; when the polls are done, a majority, probably a significant majority, will oppose the agreement even though they opposed the war.

For years, public opinion polls showed the US public opposed the war in Afghanistan and wanted us to get out but when Biden did exactly that he immediately plummeted in approval rating and never really recovered.

Opinion is fi ...[text shortened]... l help him much.

I'll leave it to Groucho to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

LOL—that guy behind Groucho reading a book the whole time!