Posted on 06/20/2026 7:19:39 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Trump may have given Iran everything it wanted on paper—but the real question is whether Tehran fell for a deal that gives America the leverage to walk away.
To evaluate the Iran Memorandum of Understanding on its merits, beyond the hype, let’s start by separating what we know from what we don’t.
Iran’s military has been destroyed. It has no air force, no navy, and no air defenses.
We have obliterated Iran’s uranium enrichment plants, its uranium mills, and its uranium hexafluoride conversion facility, as well as the secret bomb-making workshops in Parchin that Iran would never allow the IAEA to inspect.
We have destroyed most of Iran’s ability to manufacture drones and ballistic missiles.
We have shattered the Iranian economy.
We have pitted the regime against itself, as seen in recent demonstrations organized by hard-liners against the MoU.
We have also demonstrated that America has a new “special relationship”—with Israel, not Britain. We have gone to war with the IDF, flying thousands of joint air missions without a single mishap, something we could arguably not do today with our NATO allies.
These are facts, and they are major accomplishments of a military campaign that no previous American president has been willing to attempt.
But we did not defeat the Iranian regime. That, too, is a fact—one the regime reminds the U.S. of every day.
Not only do they appear to be undeterred, but they enjoy taunting us, threatening to “bloody” our noses, and deliver a “harsh blow” should we not keep up our commitments under the MoU.
But just what are the U.S. commitments?
The 14-point MoU reads like a wish list crafted in Tehran. And I suspect that is exactly what it is. (More on that below).
Over the past several weeks, I have watched with disbelief as pro-regime media in Tehran released this or that version of the accord, including what appeared to be U.S. commitments to establish a $300 billion reconstruction fund and to withdraw all U.S. military forces from the region.
Astonishingly, those measures do indeed figure in the 14-point MoU. Paragraph 6 says that the United States “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.”
Paragraph 4 states that the United States “undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.”
These are just two of the extraordinary concessions made by Trump’s negotiating team to the Iranian regime. Other concessions include immediately releasing frozen Iranian assets, and the future removal of sanctions.
But will all of those U.S. concessions actually occur? Listening to President Trump at his G7 press conference on Thursday suggests perhaps not.
He said that if the Iranians didn’t hold up their end of the agreement—opening the Strait of Hormuz and surrendering their nuclear material—then the U.S. would return to bombing, maybe for two weeks, maybe for two years.
He also said the U.S. wasn’t putting up one cent for the reconstruction fund. Any U.S. “contribution” would come from Iranian money the U.S. has frozen and now has pledged to release.
It all raises the question whether Trump didn’t somehow snooker the Iranians.
That’s right.
From the man who said the Iranians had never won a war but never lost a negotiation, did Team Trump actually get the better of the Iranians in this deal?
He gave them all they could possibly want. But it’s not a deal. It’s an MoU.
It contains only three active pieces: an end to immediate hostilities, opening the Strait, and an undefined release of frozen Iranian assets. Everything else is to be negotiated at a later date, in principle, by August 15.
Those follow-on negotiations were supposed to have started in Geneva on Friday, June 19—the day after Trump signed the MoU publicly at the G7 conference in Evian.
But nobody came.
Ever since Jimmy Carter, U.S. presidents have bet a piece of their presidency on the quixotic notion that somehow they could offer the Iranians something so enticing they would change their behavior.
But I have long argued that this Iranian regime can never change the behavior we object to. It can never abandon its nuclear ambitions; it can never give up its terror proxies; it can never abandon the charter of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is to spread the Islamic revolution around the globe, because these are core values of the regime.
Give up on those core values, and the regime disintegrates.
JD Vance has made clear that the goodies contained in the MoU are all “performance-based.” In other words, if the Iranians don’t deliver on their commitments—whether it’s the ceasefire itself, freedom of navigation in the Strait, or the surrender of their nuclear program—then they will not receive the benefits set forth in the MoU.
And that’s what leads me to suspect that the president may actually have snookered the Iranians.
When they see a U.S. president offering them $150 billion in sanctions relief, as Obama did, they take it to the bank. It’s not up to further negotiation; it’s a fait accompli.
But with President Trump, those bets are off. They can point to all the goodies they believe they are entitled to in the 14-point MoU, but until Trump declares that they have fulfilled their commitments, they won’t be getting them. Not a one.
So what does the MoU achieve? It settles the oil markets, it fuels the stock market, and arguably it enhances the chances of the Republicans to win the midterm elections. If it collapses on November 5 because the Iranians didn’t carry out their part of it, so be it. America will be back to war without the restraint of another election..
As has been said numerous times, with the exception of Iran selling more oil now, the other ‘benefits’ are all “performance based.” Iran won’t hold to any of them.
So no huge payment is coming, no US troops are leaving and more bombing awaits Iran when they, likely, shoot some missiles & drones, mine the Strait and Hezz bombs Israel.
I pretty much think this is true. Trump is just hitting the pause button to get past the midterms. Later he’ll say well I tried to get a peace deal but the Iranians refused to negotiate.
This is about as rose-colored as glasses can get. The writer is overlooking two things:
1) Despite his claim that the Iranian military has been destroyed, we have seen that Iranian threats to shut the Strait are effective enough that few ships risk it. That is the entire reason Trump cut the deal in the first place. And that reason will remain after the election.
This deal expires in mid-August, and the subjects of extensions and potential consequences for Iran if it does not comply are going to be front and center in he election. Every single Congressional candidate is going to be expected to take a public position on whether or not hostilities with Iran should be resumed. It is going to be very difficult to restart a war in a majority of Congress is on record as opposing it.
Trump got snookered.
Trump ankle biter bump.
This is an MOU, not an agreement that only binds both sides to open the Persian Gulf to shipping.
A Memorandum of Understanding is not an agreement. It is a statement that we understand what Iran wants and they understand what the USA wants. Negotiations determine what each side commits to do and that has not happened yet. Why would anyone expect the MOU to not have everything Iran wants? That is what the document is for, what Iran wants and what we want.
I hope we use the time to arm and train the resistance to the IRGC, the "Immortal Guard".
No, it will workout the other way. Lucy has already pulled the ball on Charlie Brown.
It’s clear trump is playing 35D chess.
Once Iran is able to charge for passage through the straights and once those electronically delivered pallets of cash arrive in their bank accounts and they restart their peaceful uranium enrichment program and missile replacement program, Trump will have them right where he wants them.
It’s brilliant. Even though Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are in Switzerland ‘negotiating’ this, it’s really JD Vance who is the architect if it fails and Trump if it succeeds.
Lol, is the Strait open or closed right now?
bfl
That’s not the right question.
The real question: who loses the most from it being closed?
The answer: The regime loses the most - by far.
The US structured the MoU to retain maximum flexibility and leverage (“walk away” or re-engage militarily if needed), while dangling enough incentives to bring Iran to the table. This fits Trump’s negotiating style (big asks, conditional delivery). Iran got short-term relief and a framework but with strings attached and the shadow of resumed US/Israeli pressure. Whether it was a “snooker” depends on implementation over the next 60+ days. If Iran complies on core issues (nuclear constraints, Hormuz stability), it could be a pragmatic de-escalation. If not, the US has positioned itself to claim the moral/high-ground for renewed action.
Hahaha idiot it’s strait.
There are two really big problems on President Trump’s mind. Aside from the need for keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, we have midterm elections coming up which can be very serious for the continuation of President Trump’s policies. Second is the plight of the Iranian people who are suffering under the Islamic regime. They are the ones who have to take the responsibility for finishing the job of changing their rulers. They may not yet have the capability. I don’t think President Trump wants to kill any of them as they are being held hostage in and around the military targets. It is now a time to wait for the next opportunity to strike but that will not be until December or January. If the elections go wrong, it will be November. Meanwhile keep the Mullahs thinking that they are getting their money because that is really at the top of their list of wishes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.