Under One Tent -- U.S. & Israel Wage War On Iran
"Trump says Iran will ‘pay the price’ for taking too long to negotiate"
Yeah, yeah, we have heard that 38 times before. When will new outlets stop showing Trump in a negative light by posting his phony threats?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/09/world/li … ump-israelHe is negotiating his way to putting boots on the ground in Iran
"Trump warns the US will seize key Iranian oil export hub Kharg Island"
"How Trump has deceived himself on Iran"
This says it all about Trump, lol.
"President Donald Trump is nothing if not studied at crafting elaborate alternate realities.
But for the last two and a half months or so, he conjured one that seemed primarily aimed at deceiving himself.
He painted Iran as desperate to cut a deal, which always seemed to be right around the corner. And he repeatedly gave Tehran the benefit of the doubt, relaxed his own deadlines, walked back his threats and downplayed Iran’s provocations and apparent ceasefire violations.
The problem with that approach was it made it pretty clear that Trump lacked the will to go back to war — that he preferred to just be done with it all, even as Iran played on his reluctance.
And it increasingly appears as though Trump hoping against hope just delayed an inevitable return to the kind of hostilities that have resumed this week.
Trump’s fanciful treatment of a potential deal with Iran appears to have mostly prolonged the war and its economic pain — and brought the situation closer to the 2026 midterm elections, which increasingly loom as a major leverage point for Iran."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/11/politics … g-analysis"Trump says US ‘ended the war with Iran,’ though Tehran has yet to confirm a deal"
"The president said earlier Thursday that he expected a signing ceremony for an agreement in the coming days. But an Iranian official denied any final deal had been reached."
QUESTION - which pathological liar is telling truth?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/11/world/li … israel-hnk"• US-Iran agreement: Key mediator Pakistan says a potential agreement between the US and Iran is “likely expected” to be finalized in “the next 24 hours,” before being signed and followed by technical talks next week. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment."
At least it is not the pathological liars making such a claim, but only time will tell.
As to how we got here - remember that it is demonstrably 100% Trump's fault - 100%. Had he not pulled America out of the JCPOA none of this would have happened - none of it!!!
* Most importantly, But for Trump Iran would NOT have hundreds of pounds of highly enriched Uranium!!
* But for Trump Iran would not have been as close as it is (which isn't very close at all) to putting together a working nuclear bomb!!!
* But for Trump, the United States would not now be trying to negotiate its way back to restrictions similar to the ones he threw away!!
The TRUTH of the above is UNDENIABLE by those with an open mind.I don’t think you can honestly reduce this to “100% Trump’s fault.” That’s way too absolute for something as complex as Iran’s nuclear program and US–Iran relations, which have been evolving under multiple administrations for decades.
I also don’t buy the idea that everything started and ended with one decision. Iran was already advancing its nuclear capabilities before the JCPOA, and after the U.S. left the deal, yes things escalated, but Iran’s response, regional tensions, sanctions pressure, and its own strategic choices all played a role too.
And honestly, the JCPOA itself wasn’t some perfect long-term solution either. It had serious limitations, including the fact that some key restrictions were set to phase out around 2027, which meant it was always going to need major renegotiation or replacement.
On top of that, there were real concerns about enforcement—especially around inspections. The IAEA didn’t always have automatic access to every site, and in some cases access had to go through managed procedures or approvals, which critics argued created potential gaps in verification. That was always one of the weak points in the deal.
I think it’s fair to say the withdrawal changed the situation and may have made things worse in some ways, but saying “none of this would have happened” just doesn’t hold up. Foreign policy outcomes almost never come down to a single person or a single decision.
And the “pathological liars” type of language just weakens the argument. If the goal is to be taken seriously, it’s better to stick to facts and keep it proportional.Whatever the down sides were, they were a hell of a lot better than what Trump has gotten us into. Iran is playing him like a yoyo with his cease fire one day and attacks the next day.
Trump says they are ready to give up their stockpile and the next day, Iran says they never said that. Trump and his con about putting a positive spin on everything he touches is not working in this scenario.
Whether you like it or not, Trump is a pathological liar. You just can't face the facts. That is all part of his deal making driven by his need to be admired for what he does. He has all the behavior and traits of person who is suffering from extreme narcissism, again, whether you like it or not.
Foreign policies outcomes do come down to a single person when you have someone in charge who has control of all the branches of the government. You are going to say he doesn't, but he does, you just can't face the facts...Good to see you back again.Yes, as I proved, I can reduce this to 100% Trump's fault. Let me repeat myself:
* Most importantly, But for Trump Iran would NOT have hundreds of pounds of highly enriched Uranium!!
* But for Trump Iran would not have been as close as it is (which isn't very close at all) to putting together a working nuclear bomb!!!
* But for Trump, the United States would not now be trying to negotiate its way back to restrictions similar to the ones he threw away!!
What more is there to know?
"Iran was already advancing its nuclear capabilities before the JCPOA, " - ISN'T the key word there "BEFORE"? AFTER JCPOA, that all stopped. Consequently, i am not sure what point you were trying to make.
"and after the U.S. left the deal, yes things escalated, but Iran’s response, regional tensions, sanctions pressure, and its own strategic choices all played a role too." - Do you mean Iran's response to Trump's aggression or do you mean their already established MO that the JCPOA did not address?
"And honestly, the JCPOA itself wasn’t some perfect long-term solution either." - WHO ever said it was? Wasn't the JCPOA designed to do just a single thing - stop Iran's nuclear ambitions? Seems to me it was a success in that regard, one Trump was responsible for destroying.
"On top of that, there were real concerns about enforcement—especially around inspections. The IAEA didn’t always have automatic access ..."[/i - BUT wouldn't you agree that even given those relatively small flaws, stopping Iran's nuclear program was worth it?
[i]"I think it’s fair to say the withdrawal changed the situation and may have made things worse in some ways, but saying “none of this would have happened” just doesn’t hold up. Foreign policy outcomes almost never come down to a single person or a single decision." - BUT in this case it did - BUT FOR TRUMP ...
As to Pathological liar - what you say would be true IF it were wrong - but it isn't.
Here is the definition of pathological liar again. A pathological liar is someone who compulsively lies, often without a clear reason or benefit,
Do you actually deny that is what Trump and the Iranian regime are?
As of today, this is what the MOU is 'supposed" to accomplish (with annotations comparing it to the JCPOA):
1. Extend or formalize a ceasefire. Several reports describe a 60-day ceasefire extension. (under the JCPOA there was no war)
2. Reopen the Strait of Hormuz, apparently within 30 days. (Under the JCPOA, the Striates were already open).
3. U.S. naval de-escalation / blockade relief. The U.S. would gradually lift or reduce its naval blockade of Iranian ports, reportedly over about 30 days, (under the JPCOA there was no need for a blockade)
4. Iran pledges not to develop nuclear weapons. (under the JCPOA Iran DID abandon its nuclear weapons program and the Supreme Leader issued a fatwa stating that.
5. Deal with Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile. (under the JCPOA the highly enriched stockpile was removed only to be replaced when Trump pulled the US out of the deal)
6. Short technical negotiations to follow. The MOU would be followed by technical talks next week or within a short window. (under the JCPOA the negotiations were concluded)
7. Sanctions relief and frozen assets, but likely phased. (under the JCPOA, there were sanctions relief and some unfrozen assets, but Trump highly criticized the agreement. Now he is all for it, go figure)
8. Lebanon / Hezbollah front. Some reporting says Iran wants a ceasefire or de-escalation in Lebanon included, (not part of the JCPOA)
9. International inspections: Not mentioned in the MOU but a critical part of the JCPOA
10. Centrifuge restrictions: The JCPOA had several provisions that limited Iran's use of centrifuges. The MOU is silent on this.
11. There were a dozen other provisions in the JCPOA that limited Iran's ability to produce nuclear bombs, none of which appear to be in the MOU.
It took 18 months to hammer out the JCPOA. Trump wants it done in 60 days. Iran is happy to go along with that because they know nothing will be accomplished in 60-days.So, ESO, do you think that Trump is going to settle for half a loaf? I see certain Iranian positions as not negotiable. Will he do much better than the JCPOA from the Obama period? Even if the agreement is comparable, we have to figure in the deaths of thousands and the bottle neck to world economies that the Obama agreement was able to avoid. Putting that upon the scale eliminates any idea of a comparable resolution between Trump and Obama.
Is this a “win-win”? I doubt it.The way I see if, it will barely be 10% of a loaf. That said, I guess something is better than nothing if it stops more Americans from dying.
Assuming this MOU is signed this Friday, this headline has the most important question -
"What was it all for? US-Iran agreement brings bitter rivals full circle"
Why did Trump think it was a good idea to start something only his dangerous hubris told him he could win?
If what is known about the MOU is actually implemented (my bet is it won't be) the headline still has it wrong - it is not a full circle. It is not because America, Iran, the Middle East, and the world will be much, much worse off than when Trump started this mess.
Think of it, 14 Americans had to die to show Trump what a fool he is. Billions of dollars in destroyed equipment has been lost to his dangerous ego. Billions more dollars have been spent trying to do the impossible, beat Iran without putting boots on the ground. Americans have to pay billions in higher gas prices plus the other things that Trump's inflation drove up. For What?
And that is just on our side. Consider the thousands of innocent Iranians, Kuwaitis, Saudis, and other gulf state citizens that died from the Trump Folly.
This WILL go down in the history books as probably the single most stupid action taken by an American president in our history.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/15/middleea … ircle-intlSo, what its all about Alfie?
After all this pandemonium over the last almost 4 months, the deaths and economic bottlenecks Trump thinks that there are grounds to celebrate over his bringing home a “nothing burger”? We get two pieces of bread and ask as the late Clara Peller did “where’s the beef”?
Obama did a much better job with his 2015 diplomatic accomplishment. What has Trump really accomplished within the big picture that proves that he was a tough guy, while Obama was soft on Iran?
America’s stature has been tarnished over all of this and this administration should be ashamed.
So much for “unconditional surrender” Trump. All we really have done is gone in circles, to our detriment.
Netanyahu has to be disappointed as he is not going to be satisfied with the outcome.
Iran is not going to allow any serious confiscation of its nuclear material.
This is just another “cease fire” to allow Trump to stall with a temporary reduction of the stranglehold on global economies, until after the point where he will not have to pay for it politically.
"Trump promises a better Iran deal than Obama’s. Here’s what we know"
It Won't Be!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/15/politics … a-analysisSo far, there seem to be few facts or information about the document that JD Vance will sign on behalf of the US. In my view, Vance has been very careful and appears truthful in what he has shared in interviews. He certainly has a different tone than Trump on the issue. I feel he has his own political agenda for running in 2028, so he is being very careful in presenting facts, as he knows them. In Vance's own characterization, this memorandum is the beginning of a process rather than the final deal itself. He has emphasized that the MOU establishes a framework, while the difficult technical details will be negotiated afterward.
For accuracy, here's what JD Vance has actually said about the Iran memorandum:
• He described the memorandum as "about a page and a half" and said it is "a very general document."
• He said many of the details still have to be worked out during a "technical negotiation phase."
• He stated that Iran must make a "long-term commitment to give up nuclear weapons" and accept "proper verification."
• He said international inspectors would return to Iran as part of the process.
• He stated that Iran would not simply receive money for signing the agreement and that any benefits would depend on Iran meeting its obligations.
• He said the agreement had already been digitally signed and that he expected the text to be released publicly.
Those are Vance's own descriptions of the memorandum. Whether people support or oppose the agreement, it's important to distinguish between what has actually been said and assumptions about what may be included in the final details.
Quotes source ChatGPTVance may have said all that but the issue is whether the MOU itself leaves America and the world in a better position than before Trump tore up the JCPOA. - Virtually impossible to do in a page and a half.
The next question is after 60 days, will that negotiation leave America and the world in a better position than before Trump tore up the JCPOA. And that is assuming they even get that far, which to me looks very doubtful. It took what 18 months for the two sides who were not a war with one another to come up with an agreement that did more than what Trump is currently saying he wants to achieve. It is incredulous to think an incompetent like Trump can do it with the crazy Iranians HE put in charge could agree to anything in 60-days.
This, according to the CIA, State Dept, and DoD, is what the great and wonderful Oz did for the world, this is his legacy -
"US intel assesses Iran can shut down the Strait of Hormuz at will from now on"
Talk about screwing up BIG TIME!!!
Trumpers must be so proud of their Wizard-King."‘Trump has surrendered to Iran’: Some prominent GOP hawks fear Trump just caved"
Does anyone really believe otherwise?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/15/politics … icans-iranCNN received an unauthorized copy of the MOU, supposedly the one signed by Trump and an Iranian official. (CNN recognizes this may still not be the final test.) So, what is in it.
1 - The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, - Netanyahu can throw a wrench into this with point 1.
2 — The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs. - Wasted words
3 — The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent. - Meaning this MOU falls far short of the JCPOA
4 — Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore traffic within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity; the traffic of ships shall be proportional to the pre-war volume of traffic on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement. - That last point is a surprise as Trump said the opposite and is quite a cave-in.
5 — Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume, - Notice that Iran "will take steps" while the US in point 4 that wording is omitted - WHY?
6 — The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. - Is this similar to the plane loads of Iranian cash?
7 — The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, - Sounds like total surrender by Trump to me.
8 — The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; - Milquetoast. not even JCPOA-lite. Sounds more like Trump surrendering.
9 — The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region. - Is this more US concessions? Seems to me Iran had already given up its nuclear program under the JCPOA, a Supreme Leader fatwa, and recent declarations by Iranian leaders.
10 — The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like. - More concessions by Trump
11 — The United States undertakes that, in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement, frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available. - Here is the equivalent to the plane loads of cash and another major Trump surrender.
12 — The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that an implementation mechanism will be established to oversee the successful implementation of and future commitment to the Final Agreement. - Say What??
13 — Following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and upon receipt of assurances regarding the commencement of implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this Memorandum of Understanding, and the continued implementation of these steps, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States will enter into negotiations for a Final Agreement solely with respect to the remaining Articles. - Again - Say What?
14 — The final agreement will be approved through a binding resolution of the UN Security Council. - Really!?
This American surrender document doesn't sound like anything Trump would sign. It makes me suspect its authenticity, frankly. If it is real, Trump wasted 14 American lives and billions upon billions of US treasures.
(Some points were edited for brevity.)
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/middleea … -text-intlFrom Reuters:
EVIAN-LES-BAINS, France, June 17 (Reuters) - U.S President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the memorandum of understanding on Iran was not final, and that he could resume a bombing campaign if he did not like it.
"It's a memorandum of understanding. And if I don't like it, we'll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head. If I don't like it, if they don't behave, we'll go right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head, OK?" said Trump, at the G7 summit in France.
Trump said the Iran memorandum of understanding did not include immediate sanctions relief for Iran, while adding he would talk about this matter later.
Point by point:
I thought that this “Memorandum of Understanding” was in effect an end to the war? Obviously, Trump in his comments seems to indicate that this is more a continuation of negotiations between the parties. What is there not to like?
1. Netanyahu wanted a much harder line toward Iran and would not be a party to such an agreement. The bloodletting in Lebanon will continue, which remains a sticking point from the Iranian side. That does not appear to have been resolved.
2. Bullshyt on a stick?
3. More negotiations, this MOU is hardly the conclusion the Trump Administration has been boasting about.
4. Remove our forces from the region, that is not going to happen, did Trump sign off on this?
5. Contracting 101, shall and “take steps” has two different meanings. Imperative verses “best efforts”.
6. I certainly remember Obama being criticized for opening the coffers to Iran, how much money are we letting loose of here?
7. I thought that ending sanctions would be tied to immutable terms placed upon Iran in return, I don’t see that happening.
8. Trump is folding up like the proverbial lawn chair. Iran has always claimed that the development of a nuclear warhead was not its intention, so what is new here? This “so called” critical point remains in a quandary? No wonder the GOP warhawks are having their feathers ruffled. I seriously doubt that Iran will ever give up its nuclear material voluntarily. Why should they hobble their own capacity for self-defense after witnessing aggression from Israel and the United States?
9. This provision seems to contradict the Iranian position that the US military leave the region, that does not sound like status quo ante to me. Did the U.S go to war against Iran just to return to a status quo position regarding its nuclear program? We had that prior to hostilities, so what has been gained, really?
10-11 Seems like we are putting the cart before the horse……
12. Yeah, i say, what does that supposed to mean?
13. Sounds like more stalling to me by Trump who is afraid of escalation and its political costs verses letting Iran have the run of the store. We, obviously, can see which course he has chosen.
14. Since when has Trump ever did anything consistent with international law? I can’t imaging Trump capitulating so obviously, but he may have no choice if he wants to save his own hide from the wrath of the world and the American electorate.
A bully always cowers as he never would pick a fight with someone or something that is more than a match. He certainly did not put all that sanction and restraint stuff on China when it was moving materials through the region, did he?"EVIAN-LES-BAINS, France, June 17 (Reuters) - U.S President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the memorandum of understanding on Iran was not final, and that he could resume a bombing campaign if he did not like it."
Does that mean Trump hasn't read the MOU that he just released? ROFL
Trump just released the official version. It is substantively the same as what CNN publish the morning with only minor wording changes.
Sen Grahams worst fears have been realized, Trump surrendered.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/middleea … -text-intl
Thus far, I see this statement as the only one that I feel we can hang our hat on...
"Vice President JD Vance said the full language of the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran could be released as early as today and on Friday by the latest during a Wednesday interview with CBS.
Vance told the network that the U.S. had refrained from releasing the full text after requests from its allies in Qatar and Pakistan.
"There are some frankly diplomatic protocols that I don't fully understand. The Qataris and the Pakistanis who have been helpful in mediating this agreement with the Iranians, they've asked us not to release the full text for a little while. It will come out at the latest on Friday. We're actually trying to push them to get it out today because we want to tell the American people what's in this deal," Vance said.
"It's fundamentally a good deal for the American people. But it's also very simple, and I've also seen some misrepresentations about it. So, in short, what it does is it opens the Strait of Hormuz immediately. This is why you see oil prices down in the seventies from a high in the 120s, is because you're seeing the Strait already open its traffic to the flow of oil and gas," he said.
"It also provides a framework, whereby if the Iranians give us what we need on stopping the funding of terrorism, on no longer pursuing a nuclear weapon, then they can get some benefits, be re-invited into the world economy. And when I say benefits I'm talking about sanctions relief on their economy," Vance concluded.' Fox news.
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/iran- … es-june-17
Reuters June 15
"LONDON, June 15 - This is what the U.S. and Iran, along with mediator Pakistan, have said about what is in the preliminary deal they have announced to end the war.
The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide during the World Cup. Sign up here.
HOW THE DEAL WILL BE PHASED AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said both sides had declared an immediate and permanent end of all military operations.
All sides have said the memorandum of understanding on an end to the war will be signed in Switzerland on Friday. Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the memorandum would then be published.
Iran and the U.S. have both said the Strait of Hormuz would start to reopen and the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports start to lift as soon as the memorandum is signed.
Both sides have said negotiations on more difficult further areas of dispute - notably Iran's nuclear issue and U.S. sanctions on Iran - will be conducted over the following 60 days.
STRAIT OF HORMUZ AND BLOCKADE OF IRANIAN PORTS
U.S. President Donald Trump said the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened on Friday and he had ordered a lifting of the blockade on Iranian ports.
A senior Iranian official said the strait would be reopened "to all commercial vessels" once the memorandum was signed.
Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported that under the memorandum, marine traffic through the strait would be regulated by Iran in coordination with Oman.
IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME
Both sides have said that Iran agrees that it will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons - a promise Tehran has been making repeatedly for decades.
The senior Iranian official said pending a final agreement Iran would freeze its nuclear activity, refraining from further uranium enrichment or the expansion of nuclear facilities.
The senior Iranian official said the U.S. had agreed that Iran could dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium inside Iran under a future comprehensive agreement.
Trump said on Saturday there was no urgency to extract Iran's stockpile of nuclear material, and that the U.S. would retrieve it "when all is calm".
Trump said there would be a strong inspections regime for Iran under any deal, but he did not give specifics.
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said any final deal on Iran's nuclear programme would have to be reviewed and approved by Congress.
SANCTIONS AND FINANCIAL IMPACT
The senior Iranian official said the U.S. had agreed not to impose any new sanctions on Iran until a final deal was reached.
They added the U.S. would waive oil sanctions on Iran for a specified period and that after the final agreement all U.S. and U.N. sanctions would be lifted to an agreed timetable.
The senior Iranian official said the U.S. had agreed to release $25 billion of Iran's frozen assets, including via direct cash transfers, cooperation among regional countries, and financial credit lines.
Washington, in coordination with its regional allies, would prepare a reconstruction and development plan for Iran, to be negotiated and agreed with Tehran within 60 days, they added.
Trump said Iran would not be provided with cash but that sanctions could potentially be lifted.
LEBANON
Sharif said the immediate and permanent end of all military operations would include Lebanon.
The Secretariat of Iran's Supreme National Security Council said military operations would stop permanently on Monday night including in Lebanon.
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said there must be a complete halt to Israeli attacks against Lebanon and the U.S. bears responsibility for implementing the framework deal.
Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz said the Israeli military would remain in security zones it has captured in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made this clear to Trump.
Before the memorandum was announced, Trump said he would bring peace to the region, including Lebanon. He said there should be no more Israeli attacks on Lebanon and no more attacks by the Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah on Israel.
Compiled by Angus McDowall; Editing by Alexandra Hudson and Ros Russell
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles."
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci … hatgpt.comWhy would you "hang your hat" on anything Vance or the Administration says without corroboration? With their documented history of lying, people should believe a single world they say.
"President Donald Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act to force defense companies to manufacture more weapons after the war with Iran depleted stockpiles
In a document signed last week, the president says that he finds [that HE created the conditions] “that conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs.”
.https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/politics/trump-weapons-iran-defense-production-actMan, that M.O.U. SMH
He's already "joking" that he'll blame Vance. You know what his "joking" is about.
“If it works out, I’m going to take the credit. If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD. You better be careful, JD. He’s going to turn his plane around and get the hell out of here,” he joked.How did Trump put it - "total and complete unconditional surrender"? Well he got what he wanted, except that it isn't Iran doing the surrendering, is it.
"Trump’s Iran agreement may be a dud, but he’s getting what he wants"
Trump is 100% responsible for the disaster and deaths (including Americans which his supporters ignore with the silence) that is the Trump War. Now he will once again refuse to take responsibility for his monumental errors (as any good psychopath must do) and has surrendered while mislabeling it a win. SO SAD for America and the world.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/18/politics/trump-iran-dealStating the Obvious!
"How Trump’s Iran agreement fails to achieve many of his goals"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/18/politics … iran-goalsIs ANYBODY surprised (maybe Trump, he seems surprised by a lot, lol)
"US-Iran talks postponed as Israel’s clashes with Hezbollah strain truce"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/19/world/li … el-lebanonAre we surprised, ESO. This MOU is just another stop-gap, the main points of contention between the parties have yet to be resolved.
Netanyahu flips Trump the bird. Trump in his endless arrogance and stupidity did not consult with Bibi as to how to present the Iranian negotiating team with a united front. Trump started all wrong by allowing Netanyahu to put a ring in his nose and drag him into a war that he was prepared to prosecute properly. Consequently, now both Bibi and Donnie are in trouble politically.
Trump probably fired all of the competent and qualified people at the State Department who could have sorted out all the risks before Trump decided to impulsively attack Iran. But, most would not kiss his ass, so now he ends up with an agreement/armistice that is “half ass”.
He makes himself and our country look totally incompetent on the global scene.I think most people would agree that Iran is unlikely to honor this MOU. In my view, they signed it primarily to ease the blockade, not because they ever intended to fully comply with its terms. Believing otherwise seems overly optimistic.
The question now is: What comes next? From where I stand, the situation appears to be heading toward a dangerous free fall. President Trump faces a difficult decision: either finish the job decisively or walk away and accept the political consequences. Prolonging the conflict while facing daily criticism serves little purpose. If this drags on for another two months without a clear resolution, it could have significant consequences for America's credibility and standing on the world stage.Sharlee, your point of view is how I am seeing things right now.
Yes, the decision is difficult, come away with less than half a loaf or escalate hostilities in the region which is fraught with danger materially, militarily and politically. Neither choice is good.Like Credence, ignoring how we got here, your analysis seems to be spot on.
If he thinks he is going to avoid criticism, however, he is delusional. The criticism from the Left is baked in given we will not forget how we got to this point, the criticism from the Right will only grow as Iran and Israel do not live up to the terms of the agreement, and the criticism from the voters, Left and Right is already baked in as well with daily reminders of his folly as they fill up at the pump or buy groceries.
I read an analysis yesterday which said Republicans now think they can keep the House because of the historic loss of Black representation in Congress due to their gerrymandering. It is so bad that it exceeds what conservatives achieved right after they ended Reconstruction.Hopefully, their attempts to water down the black vote may well be too little too late. The independents and GOP light are either going to vote against the GOP in the midterms or in their despair and dissapointement, decide to sit this one out. Their attempts to skew and gerrymander their way to keeping the chambers can fail dismally.
Trump might well resign as after the midterms put Democrats in control, both he and his agenda will be placed under a leash. He is not the type that will compromise or live in an environment that would require it.One can only hope. Although I am not sure if Vance will be any better; at least he isn't as mentally unstable as Trump is - I hope.
But, the first order of business for the Democrats is to impeach Hegseth and PulteI think there's some truth to what you're saying. Whether people support Trump or not, I don't think the criticism is going away. The Left will continue to criticize him because they disagree with many of his policies, and if any agreement with Iran or Israel falls apart, many on the Right will likely criticize him as well.
Where I'm less certain is the prediction about gas prices and grocery costs. Those are influenced by a lot of factors, and it's too early to say what the long-term impact will be.
From what I've seen reported, the administration appears to be trying to pursue a diplomatic solution that could reduce tensions while also preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. If that effort succeeds, it would be a positive outcome. If it fails, the criticism will undoubtedly intensify.
The issue of "historic loss of Black representation" due to Republican gerrymandering is more complicated than you're presenting. Courts have struck down maps from both Republican- and Democratic-controlled states, and in several states, including Alabama and Louisiana, court rulings actually resulted in the creation of additional majority-Black congressional districts. Black representation in Congress has generally increased over the past several decades, even as redistricting battles continue.
One final thought regarding Iran. This morning, Vice President Vance, speaking about the talks in Switzerland, said the administration hopes to offer Iran a path toward becoming part of a broader Middle East peace agreement, one that could include a better relationship with the United States and greater prosperity for the Iranian people.
If that is truly the goal, I applaud it. Peace is always preferable to war.
That said, in my view, the administration is facing an enormous challenge. I believe Iran's leadership has long demonstrated that its ideological and strategic objectives, including its hostility toward Israel, take precedence over improving relations with the West. That makes me skeptical that economic incentives or diplomatic outreach alone will change its course.
Perhaps President Trump believes there is still a path to a breakthrough, or perhaps he is trying to create an off-ramp from an increasingly dangerous situation. I sincerely hope he succeeds. A genuine peace agreement, one that includes Iran verifiably giving up its nuclear weapons ambitions, ending support for terrorist proxies, and reducing tensions throughout the region- would be a historic achievement. I hope peace prevails, but I also believe any agreement must be judged by Iran's actions, not just its promises.Thanks for your commentary. How do you figure? Trump has failed to include Israel or Hizballah as signatories to this agreement, while making demands of them. That is a fools errand. I cant blame Israel for defending themselves against Hizballah attacks. Iran needs to get control of Hizballah, can they? Are they obliged to listen to Tehran? Missing these key factors that should have been considered in advance, reveals negligence on the part of the negotiators.
The global economic community is going to withhold its sigh of relief as the danger is yet to pass which could very well mean more of the adverse effects on our economy that we have recently been experiencing.
It will be hard enough to get Iran and involved parties on the same page, maybe he had better leave the Abrahamic accord for the entire region aside for now .
iran is not Venezuela, they have had animosity toward the West for half a century, who would believe that they would not be prepared to deal with them effectively.
Peace and capitulation are incompatible concepts for either side.
From what I have been observing Trump and his MOU has already been under criticism by those normally amongst his ranks. He has folded like a lawn chair over the elimination of Iran conventional missile arsenal. Who is going to believe that Iran is ever going to forgo its nuclear capability short of force? I wouldn’t if I were them. Most reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain declaration of “peace in our time” in 1938, the MOU is just a stopgap, a mere scrap of paper at this point.
On the subject of gerrymandering, Republicans say it is just to give them a partisan advantage, but because Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, so partisan comes off as racial. Perhaps if they were a little less zealous in their determination to wipe out all contrary voices, I would not have the ire toward them that many of us do.Then there is Cushing, OK commercial oil reserves. It is nine or ten days from effectively having to shut down which drive up WTI oil prices and cut exports.
In my view, what is not being seen is the elephant in the room. That is Netanyahu (Bibbi). For years he has been making inroads into Palestine with his Jewish settlements. Oct.7 was a horrific event, but it was the Arab's way of telling Bibbi that he has gone too far with the treatment of fellow Arabs in their own land.
So, then he retaliates by turning Palestine to rubble and killing millions of men, women and children with the excuse that he is looking for Hamas and making them refugees in their country. He also continues to push the point that Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon that could be used against Israel. He has pushed this propaganda for years.
Now he is doing the same thing in Lebanon with Hezbollah which is the proxy for Iran as well as Hamas. It is the Arabs' way of trying to protect their own kind.
Bibbi talks Trump into thinking Iran's nuclear program is an imminent threat to us. So, Trump thinks he can use the same tactics that he used in Venezuela without realizing the choke point of Hormuz is a tactical strategy that can be used by Iran.
He takes us from bombing the hell out of Iran for the second time and regime change to where we are today. Bibbi is still trying to get regime change in Iran and at the same time attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon.
While at the same time Trump is trying to find the way to get out of this fiasco that he and Bibbi created, but Trump wants to stop Bibbi from attacking in Lebanon because it is threating his negotiations with Iran.
Trump thinks he has power over Bibbi, but he really doesn't. Bibbi will continue to push the nuclear thing because it is a direct threat to his complete takeover of Gaza and the Palestinians who are still refuges in their own land. Now we are down to a memorandum of understanding which is Trump's way of trying to get out of this fiasco he and Bibbi have created.
From my research, Iran is 10 years away from having a nuclear delivery system that can reach the US. There is no nuclear threat for us that Bibbi has created. Fear can be a great motivator.
Yes, the MOU does not include the Israel–Hezbollah conflict. I can only share my view on this.
I don’t feel that Trump has any right to make demands on Israel, or any other sovereign nation, especially regarding an issue he alone helped set in motion. In my view, Israel is essentially a sitting duck in this situation, and they have every right to defend and protect their people.
From where I stand, I find Trump’s approach and comments on this matter to be blunt and, frankly, absurd.
"The global economic community is going to withhold its sigh of relief as the danger is yet to pass which could very well mean more of the adverse effects on our economy that we have recently been experiencing." Cred
Yes, I think that’s a plausible concern. Any instability in that region tends to have ripple effects through global energy markets, trade routes, and investor confidence, so it’s reasonable that the economic community would stay cautious rather than immediately “relax” even when an agreement is announced.
At the same time, a lot of these outcomes depend on how things actually unfold on the ground in the coming weeks and months, not just the announcement itself. So I can understand the hesitation to see it as fully resolved at this stage.
I agree. From what I have witnessed, Trump and his MOU have attracted criticism. I will agree, Trump has cornered himself, and folded over much of his original demands regarding Iran's conventional missile arsenal, and more.... He has contradicted much of what he shared three months ago.
In my view, it is doubtful that Iran will ever voluntarily give up its nuclear capability unless force is used. I also don’t believe Trump has the willingness or capacity to fully follow through on the level of threats he has made toward Iran.
It appears he assumed they would back down under pressure or blockade, and that didn’t happen. Meanwhile, the global economy has already felt the impact of that miscalculation.
I have supported the idea that confronting this issue is necessary, but I also believe that fighting—or negotiating—with one hand tied behind your back is not a workable strategy.
From my perspective, Trump has created a significant problem here, and I don’t see a clear path from him for resolving it. Nor do I think rhetoric alone will be enough to repair the situation. This is likely something that will follow him into his legacy.
He may want the issue to fade from attention in the coming months, but I don’t see that happening so easily. Iran, for its part, will likely claim victory in its own way, and in practical terms, they may well be able to shape that narrative.Making note of a comment Island Bites provided earlier, yes, VP Vance is being set up as the “fall guy” in this affair.
Trump must be planning to fail. “Take over the Country”? What would possess him to go on a tantrum with vile threats and accusations in the midst of such delicate negotiations? Does he have the ability to contain himself in pursuit of a more important objective?
Republicans have said that Trump has been getting “bad advice”. Sharlee, the man is notorious for not listening and going on his instinct and intuition which have proven disasterous.
Insurance companies and shipping firms are notoriously tepid, premiums will rise and/or the risk of crossing will not be considered. Things wont return to normal until hostilities between the parties are resolved
I can only agree with your comments, none of this is going to come out well, at least so far. Trump is trying to slither out of this and there is not going to be any accessible exit. At the “bully pulpit” the “buck stops here”, he needs to take full responsibility for failure and not blame subordinates.Sharlee, I commend you on your perception about Trump in this regard, it is spot on. That is exactly what my side has been trying to get across.
I don't know if this has put a new light on other things he has done, but I hope that this will allow you to at least take another look.I am very dissatisfied with his handling of this huge problem. I felt in his first term he avoided problems, and in some cases was speedy with remidying problem. He appeared to be attempting to keep his promises. You can well bet I will be keeping my eyes open. I feel I was always fair with my assessment of Trump, as I am now. I am not on board with how he is handling, or should I say not handling, this Iran mess, a mess, I see as he created, before having a plan to reach the goals he set forth. It is apparent, in my view. He is not listening to his advisors, and it is clear to me that they are carefully moving away from him. Not deserting him as of yet, but being very careful with personal statements.
I am not happy with the way things are going there but try to remember what it is about. If Bill Clinton would have stopped the Arab student who went to flight schoold to pull off 9\11 do you think he would have got any credit for that! If Trump stop Iran from developing ICBMs with nuclear warheads do you think he is going to get any credit for that?
Typical MAGA response, "What about Clinton?" Your comparison is a false equivalence.
You are regurgitating the typical idiot Dem response. Why do you people always think can pull this BS about MAGA anyime you are not able to defend a positiion? If you are not intelligent to tell that there is no benefit to preventing terrorist threats, only responding like Bush did, you are part of the problem.
I don’t know? I think that we are defending the positions quite well, the question remains “are you listening”, or has MAGA stopped your ears?
There is benefit to stopping terrorist threats like the agreement negotiated between multiple parties by Obama 11 years ago. It was landmark, nothing like what we get from the clown prince of crime these days.Obama did not stop the threat. He paid them to hide it.
Well, look who’s here, i guess the coast is clear to the point that you want to participate?
Yes, i am pissed by your comment. I did not expect Clinton or GW Bush to have a crystal ball, but I do expect the President to make good use of the resources available. Had he not fired them all and, for example, decided to have that addled son and law of his participate in delicate negotiations, things may not have turned out so bad. You don’t think Iran knows that we send amateurs and not professionals and consequently, should not be taken seriously?
This entire matter has been a fiasco at the point of conception. The talk about Trump preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon by conventional bombing, killing school children, is pure stupidity, otherwise known as pure Trump. We have been warned about that sky falling for almost 50 years and it is quite tiresome. The only thing Trumps gets credit for is being impulsive, shortsighted, bullheaded, self-assured without any basis for it. He is literally the dumbest man that we have ever had in the history of the office.
So, Alfie, what is it all about?
BTW, welcome back.Too bad he will never be able to show you what could happen, but most Dems would be happy as long as the majority of deaths were MAGA.
No need for the draconian, Doc. I just want the agenda stopped cold and hard and make Trump and his MAGA inert and powerless. A good Democratic Congress would not so much as pass gas for him. He wont be able to go to the bathroom without expecting an investigation. That is a joke, I would not want to impede him to that point, but pretty damn close.
I understand your point, and if Iran's nuclear weapons or ICBM program is permanently stopped, I believe history would likely view that as a significant achievement. Preventing a future catastrophe is always difficult because people rarely give credit for events that never happen.
My concern isn't with the goal. I don't think many people would argue that a nuclear-armed Iran is desirable. My concern is with how we got here and whether there was a clear strategy before military action was taken. Good intentions don't always guarantee good outcomes, and once military force is used, the consequences can be unpredictable.
You must know by now that I have supported President Trump for years. I voted for him three times, and I've defended him at length whenever I believed the criticism against him was unfair. I have never had a problem giving him credit when I thought he deserved it.
I also supported this conflict in the beginning. In my opinion, confronting Iran was long overdue, and I believed President Trump was taking the right approach by projecting strength and making it clear there would be consequences.
Where I part ways is what has happened since. I have become deeply disappointed to see the United States negotiating with what I consider a terrorist regime. Iran has a decades-long history of violating agreements, deceiving the international community, and using negotiations to buy time. Because of that history, I never imagined we would see any sanctions eased, funds unfrozen, or blockades lifted before Iran fully accepted and demonstrated compliance with demands to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
From my perspective, President Trump needs to finish what he started. I do not believe Iran will voluntarily capitulate simply because negotiations continue. Instead, I worry they are gaining time and leverage while continuing to threaten the region, including using the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point whenever it serves their interests.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, because I want this administration to succeed. But supporting a president does not mean agreeing with every decision. I believe it's fair to applaud what I think was the right approach at the outset while also expressing disappointment with what I see as a change in direction. Right now, what I see is an outcome that I believe weakens America's position rather than strengthens it.
To answer your question --- I do not feel Trump would get credit if he came out of this obaining the goal of stopping Iran from developing ICBMs. He would not get credit if he completely came up with a cure for cancer.“From my perspective, President Trump needs to finish what he started. I do not believe Iran will voluntarily capitulate simply because negotiations continue. Instead, I worry they are gaining time and leverage while continuing to threaten the region, including using the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point whenever it serves their interests.”
There is only one way to “finish the job” he started. That way would create a conflagration throughout that region, turn away most any allies that the United States once had abroad and guarantee that Trump would not win a popularity contest in the coming midterms in pushing a resulting war on the domestic front. He hasn’t got the nerve to finish the job, it will exact a price too high for him to pay.I woild like to see him finish it too, but unfortunately there are many not supporting him, and never would even if he did come up with that cure.
I am sure you wrote that before this headline came out.
"Oil prices climb, stocks dip after Trump threats cloud US-Iran talks"
"Oil prices climbed on Sunday after President Donald Trump told Fox News that the US could resume bombing and “take over” the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy trade, if a deal is not reached with Iran.
The price of Brent crude rose 1.35% to $81.66 a barrel, and US crude rose 2.4%, to $77.66 a barrel.
Talks in Switzerland between the US and Iran stalled Sunday over the Strait of Hormuz, a ceasefire in Lebanon and Iran’s nuclear program. Negotiations will continue “through the night,” a US official said.
Trump floated the idea of the US collecting tolls if a deal is not reached. The current memorandum of agreement between Washington and Tehran includes a commitment to reopen the waterway without tolls for 60 days."
"The scale of Trump’s political blunder in Iran is coming into focus" You can add military and economic blunder to that headline as well.
"The first major poll conducted since the Trump administration signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran has a point that seems like good news for Trump: Americans overwhelmingly agree he should end the war rather than push for more concessions.
But it’s not because they actually like the agreement; it’s because they think the war is a debacle, and they just want to be done with it.
A new CBS News-YouGov poll shows that even as Americans get their first glimpse — however tentative — of the finish line, it hasn’t improved their views of the war one iota.
And as the administration enters a new phase in this process, it’s worth a check-in on where the politics stand and how they could impact what comes next.
Americans think it’s a bad deal
The poll shows 78% of Americans said they’d prefer to end the war now, while just 22% wanted to hold out — to “continue … until Iran gives up more.”
At least one Trump political adviser was celebrating that finding on Sunday. He suggested it showed the American people were on Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s side on the accord with Iran.
But the rest of the poll makes it abundantly clear that’s not true."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/22/politics … -deal-pollWhich PATHOLOGICAL LIAR do YOU believe?
"Trump keeps claiming Iran made concessions. Iran keeps denying them"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/politics … inspectorsESO, let me ask you and some of the other Constitutional scholars out there, based on this article
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/art … 28380.html
————
The legislation is unlikely to impact the course of the conflict. The measure cleared by both chambers is a concurrent resolution, which will not go to Trump for his signature or veto, and therefore lacks the force of law. The Supreme Court has ruled against measures that negate executive actions that aren't subject to presidential signature or veto.
And Trump would almost certainly veto any binding legislation that restricts his authority. The Senate last month advanced a joint resolution to end the war, though Democratic advocates haven't yet pressed for another vote on the measure.
———-
What is the point? Trump is not going to agree to rein in his own power and authority. Where is the check and balance to allow Congress to reassert its authority, do we have to have 2 thirds of the chamber on board just to enforce the War Powers Act, to override an almost guaranteed veto and disregard by Trump? Did the “founding fathers’ anticipate or provide for such an occurrence? Where are the teeth?I asked AI about your last paragraph and here is the summary of the response.
So, what happens if Trump ignores the War Powers Act?
Historically, presidents of both parties have ignored it.
Congress’s options would be:
Cut off funding (simple majority)
Pass a withdrawal order (simple majority → veto → 2/3 override needed)
Sue in court (courts usually refuse to intervene)
Impeach (politically unlikely)
So yes — the War Powers Act is weak unless Congress uses the purse.
The real check on presidential war-making is not the War Powers Act
It’s this:
Congress controls the money.
If Congress wants to stop a war, it can stop paying for it.
That’s the one power the president cannot override.
So, what’s the point?
The point is this:
The Constitution gives Congress the power — but not the courage.
The Founders built a system where Congress must actively defend its authority.
If Congress refuses to use its tools, the president fills the vacuum.
This is not a Trump‑specific problem.
It’s a structural problem that has been growing for 70 years.Thanks, People. Trump may well just dig into another pot of money that is available and can be considered more discretionary on his part. I was taught that Congress appropriates money to be used for a specific purpose. An honorable leader would comply with the spirit of the congressional intent to cease hostilities representing the people of this country who have a right to weigh in on how their tax dollars are being spent. But, alas, that is not the case.
The congresspeople knew their votes were nonbinding. The point of the effort, in my opinion, is purely political. For any other president who actually cared about abiding by our Constitution and not pissing all over it, the effect would be devastating to have a bipartisan group from both houses effectively reprimand you for carrying out an illegal war. It would significantly weaken the presidents ability to do their job overall.
For this president who sees the Constitution as an obstacle to overcome on his road to dictatorship, it will just make him even more irrational than he already is.
Related Discussions
- 17
Why President Trump Was Right to Target Iran’s Nuclear Sites
by Sharlee 12 months ago
And Why the World Can't Afford to Keep Guessing at GhostsIran’s Decades of ProvocationIran has spent over four decades cultivating its status as a rogue regime. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has waged a slow, deliberate campaign of terror, subversion, and bloodshed, fueling proxy wars, funding...
- 129
Iranians terrorists funded by the US!
by Deforest 13 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
- 9
U.S. Moving Heavy Bombers To Middle East After Iran Vows Revenge
by Ken Burgess 19 months ago
As we near the election, military actions abroad are escalating at an alarming pace, from North Korean troops being deployed to battle Ukrainian troops along (and within) Russia's borders, to Iran (and China) heightening military efforts in Iran. The U.S. Department of Defense announced this week...
- 316
Is the World More or Less Safe Given Trump Killed an Iranian General?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Donald Trump, after some discussion with few of his top generals, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense as well as some of his advisors, over a two or three day period, decided to assassinate the second most powerful person in the Iranian government - General Qasem Soleimani, the leader...
- 22
Foreign Policies / 2024 Debate Issue.
by Kathryn L Hill 21 months ago
Neither candidate has zeroed in on the best way to deal with current foreign affairs/wars. What will JDT do about Israel/Hamas/Iran?What will JDT do about Ukraine /Russia?What will Harris do about Israel/Hamas/Iran?What will Harris do about Ukraine/Russia?After all, "Before he/(she) enter on...
- 16
Biden's Foreign Policies Talk Loud Insult Whoever...
by Sharlee 5 years ago
It is early to determine how Joe's foreign policies will work out for America. However, he appears to be starting off with an ideology that he will speak loud and strong, and carry a big-ol' foam rubber stick. In comparison to our previous president that stated on several occasions "keep...