Posted on 06/16/2026 12:42:15 PM PDT by thegagline
Newly revealed details of the secretive US-Iran MOU lay out that it would extend the cease-fire to Lebanon, allow Iran to manage the Strait of Hormuz, temporarily waive Iranian oil sanctions and establish a pathway toward a comprehensive peace agreement, Israel’s Channel 12 reported Tuesday.
The framework, which would serve as the basis for broader negotiations between Washington and Tehran, outlines commitments on nuclear issues, sanctions relief, maritime security and the eventual withdrawal of American forces from the region. The following 12 points were first revealed by Axios reporter Barak Ravid, who also works for the Israeli channel. The document has previously been described as a 14-point agreement.
Iran would maintain the “status quo” of its nuclear program — which has been largely decimated — while negotiations continue.
The US would lift its naval blockade, hold off on new sanctions and refrain from sending more troops to the region.
Iran would guarantee safe, toll-free passage for commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days.
Washington would release an unspecified amount of frozen Iranian assets once the MOU takes effect.
A final deal reached after the 60 days would see the US withdraw its forces within 30 days and lift all sanctions on Iran.
It would pave the way for a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran. The US would allow Iran to resume oil sales through temporary sanctions waivers.
Iran, Oman and Gulf states would negotiate new shipping and maritime security arrangements for the Gulf.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Yeah we need to see the damn deal enough of these sources nonsense
“Details of US-Iran deal revealed in 12-point plan — timeline for US withdrawal, $300B fund, Hormuz passage”. How much money are Americans going to get?
Quit posting these useless articles claiming they know the details of the deal.
“Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute” - 1797
Billions of dollars spent, a couple dozen multi-million dollar aircraft destroyed and worst of all 13 dead American service members and a few hundred wounded.
For what? I guess Trump decided to skip the "forever war" part and skip right to defeat.
Not at all what I expected. He seems to have gotten a bad case of peacnikitis. His dealings with Iran remind of LBJ talking about offering Ho Chi Minh a Mekong River dam project. Zero understanding of the opponent.
Washington kept the terms of a treaty secret.
Jay Treaty
Formally titled the “Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America,” but more popularly known as the Jay Treaty, the document was officially ratified by President George Washington in August 1795. Debates about the treaty caused Washington to establish a firm protocol concerning the constitutional treaty-making process. His response to the public uproar over the treaty also helped define the executive’s role in shaping public sentiment.
By spring of 1794, America appeared to be on the brink of war with England. Citizens claimed that the British government resisted opening its ports to American ships, interfered with neutral shipping rights to fight its war with France, and violated sections of the 1783 Treaty of Peace that ended the American Revolution. Amid clamors from Federalists and Republicans that ranged from negotiations, defense measures, and commercial non-intercourse, President Washington chose to nominate Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay as a special envoy to negotiate disputes between the two nations. Jay’s “mission,” announced Washington, demonstrated to the world America’s “reluctance to hostility.”1
The treaty Jay negotiated with British Foreign Secretary William Wyndham Grenville, favored England’s economic and military power. Jay realized that America had few bargaining options and signed an agreement on November 19, 1794. A delay of nearly four months occurred before Washington received a copy. When the treaty arrived on March 7, 1795, Congress had adjourned, and speculative newspapers’ essays began to agitate the public.
However, terms of the treaty remained secret while the Senate convened in a special session on June 8, 1795. Few members liked the contents of the treaty, but most objected particularly to Article XII, which limited commercial access to the British West Indies solely to ships of seventy tons or less. The Senate narrowly approved the treaty, subject to a suspension of Article XII and a renegotiation of that section. According to Edmund Randolph, Washington’s Secretary of State, a “qualified ratification” was a new development in diplomatic history.2 However, Washington concluded that partial approval implied final consent.
An unauthorized copy of the treaty appeared in the Aurora General Advertiser, a Republican newspaper, on June 29. A swirl of largely negative public reaction to the treaty followed. Riots and public bonfires of the British flag, the treaty, and effigies of Jay took place. Essayists fired their opinions in the public newspapers. City and county residents sent their opinions to Washington.
The President described reactions to the treaty as being similar to “that against a mad-dog; . . . every one. . .seems engaged in running it down.” Washington urged Alexander Hamilton and Federalist supporters of the treaty to spread their views nationwide and counteract the “poison” of its opponents.3 Washington preferred solicited advice from knowledgeable men, rather than dictates from groups with no constitutional authority. His response to the petition of the Boston Selectmen and similar letters repeatedly stressed the executive’s constitutional prerogative in the treaty-making process.
Another complication arose in July 1795, when reports surfaced that the British government approved a new Order in Council concerning neutral vessels that carried provisions bound for French-controlled ports. In mid-August, Washington ratified the Jay Treaty unconditionally amid concern about the impact of protest efforts, how the French might take advantage of such negative reaction, and news of Randolph’s possible intrigue with the French government. Washington did not consider the treaty “favorable,” but believed ratification far better than “unsettled” conditions.4
Anti-treaty protests continued into 1796, including an effort by the House of Representatives to force Washington to submit documents that related to the treaty. Washington refused and insisted that the House possessed no constitutional authority to determine treaties. Public sentiment gradually began to praise Washington for his leadership during the crisis. In May 1796, Washington expressed the hope that his ratification of the Jay Treaty would provide America with peace and the time to become a prosperous and powerful nation.5
Carol Ebel, Ph.D. Assistant Editor, The Papers of George Washington
Jeanne and David Heidler, authors of Washington’s Circle, discuss the historical significance of the Jay Treaty.
Notes
1. The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, ed. Theodore J. Crackel (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009), 15:608.
2. Notes of Edmund Randolph, c. June 25, 1795, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress.
3. “George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 29 July 1795,” Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress.
4. “George Washington to Edmund Randolph, 22 July 1795,” Letter book #30, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress.
5. “George Washington to Charles Carroll, 1 May 1796,” The Writings of George Washington (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931).
Bibliography:
Combs, Jerald A. The Jay Treaty: Political Battleground of the Founding Fathers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.
The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, Vols. 15 and 16, ed. Theodore J. Crackel. Charlottesville, Va: University of Virginia Press, 2009, 2011.
Elkins, Stanley and Eric McKitrick. The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Estes, Todd, “The Art of Presidential Leadership: George Washington and the Jay Treaty.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 109 (2001):127-158.
Estes, Todd, The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evaluation of Early American Political Culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006.
They didn’t sign an agreement. They signed an framework for an agreement in 60 days conditioned on performance.
The $300B fund to pay Iran is the key to all of it.
We have been paying Egypt billions of dollars a year since 1979 so they will be nice to Israel.
Now we have a slush fund to start paying Iran billions of dollars a year to be nice to Israel.
That’s what it has been about the whole time.
I’m sure they will be appreciative.
Where the hell did you get 24 aircraft destroyed?
Bull.
13 died in an accident. 8 just died at Edward’s AFB. Is that a sh__ sandwich?
Hundreds injured. Bull.
Looks like the gag (praeses supremus osor) is suffering from monkeypox again and is not up for a call for an assassination today.
Well maybe next week we’ll see his call - Sic semper tyrannis! Trump/Vance 2024-
We’ve been paying tribute for decades. During the Cold War it was called give us money or we will go commie.
Exactly! According to the CRS/Library of Congress May 16, 2026 report, 42 US aircraft were lost or damaged (see CRS Product Number: IN12692 for details)
Clearly a defeat fir the US. The bottom line is that the US military was unable to control the Strait of Hormuz and guarantee free passage of shipping. The Iranians were able to control passage and the Strait with their drones. Those drones were very effective and the US was not able to effectively counter them. The US destroyers sent to control the Strait and escort takers were forced to withdraw after depleting their expensive defensive missiles. The drones were even able to hit an Apache helicopter in flight at night.
The economic consequences of a closed Strait forced Trump to make this deal to extricate himself from this impulsive intervention. The mullahs not only control the Strait, but still have the uranium and the “help is coming” that was promised to the Iranian people never arrived.
Some KIA were killed in Iranian attacks on Gulf bases, not just "accidents" and accidents during combat operations are still KIA.
The main point is that we seem to have expended a lot and gained nothing.
At least the Israelis shoved Hezbollah back over the Litani, but it's not too late for Trump to give that away to the Iranians, too. It's a total humiliation for the US and the worst aspect is that it will just come back to bite us in the butt again.
Name every 24 planes
Exactly! According to Capt. Tim Hawkins, spokesman for US Central Command, as of April 14, 2026, 399 US servicemembers have been wounded in our “conflict” with Iran.
So at this point, we seem to be on track to end up with Obama era agreements. Of course, Iran’s nuclear ambitions are hindered for a while. Then again, they were last year apparently as well. I still remember when we bombed their nuclear facilities and learned they would take years to rebuild. I ask, how many years exactly? Or will we be wiping out their nuclear capabilities again a year from now?
I’d like to see a breakdown of the wounds.
It’s like the term casualty. Can be anything.
Trump has made and is making far too many concessions on every front, starting with pulling back ICE operations in MN, caving to out of control leftists in the lower courts, complete ineffectiveness regarding Ukraine, failure to hold firm on tariffs, etc.
All of his tough talk now looks like cringeworthy bombast, both domestically and abroad.
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.