Posted on 06/18/2026 5:51:19 PM PDT by Miami Rebel
President Donald Trump told Marc Caputo of Axios on Thursday that the U.S. had bombarded Iran into “unconditional surrender.” His remarks came a day after he signed a memo of understanding meant to end the current war.
Pundits and politicians from across the political spectrum have panned the deal as being too lenient on Iran. Some of the loudest criticisms have come from the right.
Fox News host Mark Levin called it “unthinkable,” while his Fox colleague Trey Gowdy said the deal will make Iran “richer.” Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Trump is getting “very poor advice.”
The arrangement, which could ultimately end the war, contains 14 provisions, which require Iran to allow ships to travel freely through the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. to cease its naval blockade of the country, and Iran to have access to at least $300 billion in financing.
In the interview, Caputo asked Trump what he had learned about presidential power:
CAPUTO: What have you learned about, not just the exercise of power, but the limits on your power as a result of the conflict?
TRUMP: There are no limits.
CAPUTO: No limits?
TRUMP: No, none. I haven’t learned that lesson yet. I know there are. But you know, there are no limits. We defeated them totally militarily.
[…]
CAPUTO: At the beginning of the conflict, you had talked about, you only wanted unconditional surrender. And–
TRUMP: Well–
CAPUTO: The [memorandum of understanding] doesn’t look like unconditional surrender.
TRUMP: Well, it really probably is unconditional surrender.
CAPUTO: It is?
TRUMP: I think so.
Unconditional surrender is when one or more parties in a war surrender without receiving anything in exchange and fully submit to the other side.
On Thursday, Vice President JD Vance, who helped negotiate the deal, offered a stinging rebuke to the agreement’s critics, particularly those in the Israeli government, which launched the war with the U.S. in February.
“Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time, Vance said. “And he happens to be the head of state of the world superpower. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”
The surrender is following the rules of negotiation.
We’re allowing them to sell oil and NO NUKES.
What more do you want?
A bunch of dead Persians and US military?
That could happen if they break the agreed to points, but I hope it doesn’t.
Mediate lies.
The headline is in direct conflict with the article.
Is it unconditional surrender?
“It probably is.”
I don’t recall any other President threatening publically to wipe out the entire enemycivilization while in war.
Please cite examples of world leaders threatening to wipe out the entire enemy civilization. Include citiations that can be easily verified.
You wrote that he never intended to carry through. This means the threat was a joke. You don’t joke about wiping an entire civilization.
Now you said it wasn’t a joke and just a threat. You don’t threaten and you don’t joke.
Trump’s idea of “unconditional surrender” and mine are very different.
Mine is they do not get to stay in power. The people of Iran are free and NO to them getting $300 billion!
Thanks for your Grade-A hair-splitting.
On what planet is maybe/probably/sort of unconditional surrender?
How about NO MISSILES?
Hegseth said NO MISSILES..
Leavitt said NO MISSILES.
Rubio said NO MISSILES.
The U.S. and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding establishing a 60-day cease-fire and a framework for negotiations.
Trump had initially demanded an unconditional surrender and later controversially claimed the signed agreement amounted to one.
International observers and analysts widely reported that the document was a negotiated compromise rather than a capitulation.
All this Iranian “peace and prosperity” comes at a steep price for taxpayers.
Here’s the estimated US cost of war with Iran:
There’s Iran’s $300 Billion “Reconstruction Fee” (read bribe to come to the peace table): Under a “preliminary” US-Iran framework agreement, the US and regional partners (Gulf-area countries) outlined an “economic development plan” for Iran. US officials “clarified” that this is an “incentive fund” made up of private investments and petrostates.....NOT direct US government tax dollars.
Got that, America?
Plus Iran gets another $24 Billion in Frozen Assets: This figure represents “Iran’s own money” locked up in foreign bank accounts (due to international sanctions). Unfreezing these funds would only occur.......(drum roll, please)....... IF agreed upon during the “finalization” of the (cough) “peace agreement.”
Israel is still adding up its bill.....that’ll be a whopper. Tax dollars to fund Israel’s rapid delivery of artillery shells, precision-guided bombs, and other heavy munitions, Israeli military research and development, including using technologies to detect underground tunnels, billions more US tax dollars to fund post-war Israel’s “public health initiatives” and regional “environmental protection,” etc, etc, etc.
All of the above is besides the costs of billions in weaponry the US used and more billions in gifts of US weaponry to Israel that Israel used for the 10,000 or so bombing sorties conducted to make Iran immensely richer and “peaceful.”
Um, no. Regimes that surrender unconditionally don’t get $300 billion.
Pffft. There is absolutely nothing wrong with threatening to bring utter destruction on an enemy even if you don't intend to see it through.
Nor would I lose one second of sleep because of a threat to the Iranians. I simply don't care. For that matter, what was the actual harm/damage caused by the threat? What damage did it do that justifies removal from office? That's just absurd.
He is weak.
Doesn’t carry out his threats.
If I were Iranian and someone threatened to kill me, I woudl consider him an enemy.
He said he was going to kill all the people he was going to help. They shouldn’t trust him and consider him an enemy.
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with threatening to bring utter destruction on an enemy even if you don’t intend to see it through.”
That’s personally, politically, and militarily absurd.
This war was pocked with empty threats that evaporated with the dawn of the next day. Aside from the criminal nature of a threat to obliterate a civilization, the fact is that it, like a dozen other times we threatened to knock out infrastructure, never was fulfilled and we backed down.
The cumulative effect has been to cheapen our word on the international stage.
Israel and Iran also have vetoes, in that they can ignore any part of the deal at any time.
These people make a career out of riding fences ...in the end, no one wants to hear a single thing they say!!
It's absurd.
For reference:
The only previous unconditional surrenders to the USA were after the Civil War and the Second World War. And even in the First World War -- it wasn't quite unconditional -- the Kaiser had to go.
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.