Posted on 06/18/2026 9:05:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Despite the suggestions that I am irrationally hard on Trump's "deal" with Iran, I really am trying to keep an open mind. My assessment of the situation is based on watching and interpreting Trump's moves during the so-called "ceasefire" with Iran that began on April 7th of this year. I thought the ceasefire was likely a mistake, based on Trump's assurances that Iran was on the ropes and ready to make a deal.
I know that sounds odd. If I thought Trump was right about the conditions, why oppose the ceasefire? Simple: if true, we had them on the ropes. When your mortal enemy is down, keep kicking.
But, whatever. That is water under the bridge. The question now is whether Trump's signing the Memorandum of Understanding was a good move. While I have made the case that it wasn't, I keep an eye out for arguments that contradict my own, so I thought I would share the optimists' point of view.
I've ignored the people who applaud Trump no matter what he does, for obvious reasons. I wanted to read what hard-headed people whom I trust to be rational say, and there are a few whose opinions I respect who make strong cases.
Let's look at two arguments that I think have merit: Cynical Publius and James Lindsay.
Also, I suspect that this is all about getting gas prices down before the midterms, and once those are in the past we retain full flexibility to resume bombing the crap out of the mullahs.
Realpolitik, in other words.— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) June 18, 2026
RE: Iran
Like many, I am troubled by the verbiage I am seeing in the Iran MOU.
While I am pleased that the USA has eradicated Iran's nuclear and conventional military capabilities, the financial and diplomatic terms of the MOU are unfortunately reminiscent of the kowtowing of the Obama JCPOA.
HOWEVER.
Since 2016, and with only one exception, the actions and decisions of Donald Trump as President have ALWAYS served American interests to a greater degree than any other President in my lifetime.
Thus, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happens.
I recommend that rational Trump supporters adopt the same approach. Wait and see.
(My one "exception" is when Trump trusted Fauci and his hooligan minions during COVID.)
What I like about this take is that he doesn't try to sugarcoat the bitter pill, but he cautions that we don't yet know whether Dr. Trump is feeding us a placebo, a dangerous medicine, or a drug that will eventually benefit us. We know it tastes horrible right now, but Trump has earned enough trust to wait before we decide that the medicine that tastes terrible actually won't work for us in the end.
Chemotherapy, for instance, famously sucks. But it works remarkably well most of the time.
On the other hand, he touched on my own still-stinging wound, for which I have yet to fully forgive Trump: on the most important issue during his first term—COVID—he really blew it when it counted. I give him some credit for trying to recover after he realized that fact, but it left a permanent stain on his record in my mind. He trusted Fauci, who sang a siren song that lured America into the rocks.
That time haunts me. But maybe this time is very different.
The second argument comes from James Lindsay, who had a very interesting exchange with Cynical Publius that I thought I would share:
Great post James.
Also, most people also don't understand what a "Memorandum of Understanding" ("MOU") actually is.
Trump is a businessman first and foremost, and I'm a corporate lawyer who has done a lot of financings and mergers, so I think I get where he is coming from.
An MOU is merely an initial framework for deal negotiations. MOUs are generally non-binding, and they simply chart a path towards a definitive agreement.Deals fall through all the time even after an MOU is signed, and if the deal actually closes, about 95% of the time the definitive agreement differs materially from the MOU based on diligence and further negotiations.
Trump knows this, and it's how he thinks.— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) June 18, 2026
Basically, what James is arguing is that Trump operates so differently from most of us that we just don't get that, to him, the MOU is just a piece of paper. He is making a bet, and if that bet goes sour, he'll just try something else. People like me see him abandoning his war aims, which he and Marco Rubio outlined many times, a number of which now appear to have been tossed out the window.
Iran's proxies were to be taken off the board, for instance. Getting the nuclear "dust" was a red line, which has become a yellow line now. And it's missile capabilities were to be wiped out.
For instance:
Secretary Rubio just a few months ago said that eliminating Iran’s ballistic missile production is a goal of the war.
Now, it’s not.
Are we not allowed to ask basic questions about this? pic.twitter.com/cRFgUZ9FHj— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) June 18, 2026
Has turned into this:
Trump says that Iran will retain its ballistic missile force.
"They hurt a little location but they dont blow up the planet" pic.twitter.com/QCsxYAYa4F— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 17, 2026
People like me set our hair on fire when we hear that, because Rubio is certainly right that missiles and drones matter a whole heck of a lot. So much so that, even without a Navy or Air Force, Iran brought the oil market to its knees, creating the conditions for what Trump predicted would be a Great Depression.
🚨WATCH: Trump repeats his admission that he had “no choice” but to cave to the Iranian blackmail https://t.co/HDLFdVAEvI pic.twitter.com/fNkhF3Ujm0— Raylan Givens (@JewishWarrior13) June 17, 2026
Lindsay's retort is simple: take Trump seriously, but not literally. If he sees things going south, he will change course. He believes that Iran understands his intentions and will behave rationally, and if that turns out not to be true, he will zag after this zig didn't work.
That's how he has gotten where he is, and it has worked out pretty well for all concerned. We shouldn't take too literally what he says at times, like this:
Trump: "The current Iranian leadership are very rational people. They are nice to deal with, they are strong and smart people. They are not radicalized, and they are looking to help their country." pic.twitter.com/5QRUNGtg2i— נועה מגיד | Noa magid (@NoaMagid) June 16, 2026
As I said yesterday, it all comes down to whether you trust Trump. James, looking at his overall record, says that at least for the moment, he has earned that trust. Criticizing him now, without seeing the end result, is premature and gives us all heartburn. If, in the end, heartburn comes, at least we didn't suffer unnecessarily before it was necessary.
These aren't the voices of Trump's cheerleaders, although they certainly like Trump; they are making a serious case that we are ignoring how Trump works in the real world. That has been a big mistake often enough, because Trump has a habit of pulling rabbits out of hats.
Neither is saying that Trump is always right—Cynical Publius rightly points to COVID as a massive screwup. They are just saying that the record is pretty damn good, and far better than any president we have had in many decades.
On that they are right. I just fear that this is more like COVID. I hope I am very, very wrong.
And please, don't compare me to NeverTrumpers. That hurts.
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
Everybody’s got their opinion of ‘The Deal’ when there ain’t no deal yet...................
I trust President Trump to do the RIGHT THING for America, Israel and the World!
Trump’s 1st Political disaster that will cost him dearly in the Midterms.
if we signed a deal with terms that appear to be huge and/or unprecedented actual and proposed concessions, it is because our other options were much, much worse than we have been told by our leaders.
but a lot of people are going to a considerable amount of effort to come to a less linear explanation.
The Iranians have no intention on following the agreement. But here’s the kicker: We have no intention of following it either. This is all window dressing to get through the midterms. It also gives us time to replace depleted munitions and take care of maintenance issues.
CC
No I suspect Trump lost his nerve as he did not expect the Iranians to fight back so he caved.
We don’t know the whole story of Covid yet either, just as we don’t know the whole story of the Iran negotiations. Specifically, we don’t know what the Deep State INTENDED to accomplish through Covid, and which Trump averted by choosing the lesser evil.
On the Iran thing, we have offered Iran life, or death. Iran gains nothing unless & until they reach a deal that Trump will agree to, and Trump has been firm on his red lines even in the face of strong pressure from people who are supposed to be his friends and in the thick of media lies. The only benefits Iran will receive immediately is the ability to sell oil, and that is in return for them also letting everybody else sell oil. The money they will make from selling oil is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost to repair their country just to get back to zero, much less go into positive growth. And most importantly, we will be able to see where the money is going, whether it is going to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis - which would be a deal-breaker.
It is up to the regime to choose life, or death. I believe it is extremely unlikely that they will choose life. But it’s important that we show the people of Iran - and especially the 300,000 armed men of Iran’s regular, non-IRGC, military - that the only way to keep the IRGC from choosing death for the whole country is to get rid of them before they can.
Trump said from the very beginning that we would destroy them militarily and then the Iranian people would have to rise up and take their country back. That can’t happen when bombs are flying. This gives a 60-day window for the Iranian people (including Artesh) to see whether the IRGC will choose life (probably not) and to be armed for the revolution if the IRGC tries to take out the whole country with them. Because if the IRGC chooses death for Iran, we can turn the blockade back on and squeeze the life out of them, as well as hit all their critical infrastructure.
Artesh has to know we prefer not to have to do that. We’re showing them our will toward the Iranian people is good but we are not going to be suckers.
How have the Iranians fought back?
Our worst enemies are people like you who ignorantly heckle from the sidelines, not the IRGC. The IRGC is mostly impotent.
If we want to achieve Regime Change, I’m afraid bombing from the air ain’t gonna work. This will require BOOTS ON THE GROUND like what was done in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then, it’s definitely going to be a bloody mess and more of our soldiers will be killed ( like in Iraq ). The American people are NOT going to stand for that.
So, If we can’t achieve regime change, this is probably our best long-term solution.
Worst case scenario: Iran sticks to the agreement juuuust long enough for foreign investors to spend billions of dollars — but then nationalizes those projects, steals from investors, and reallocates the money for terrorism, weapons, or nuclear development.
And that’s a legitimate concern.
But since the $300 billion won’t be spent simultaneously, Iran can’t steal all the money — that’s impossible. (The moment the first project is nationalized, all foreign investments will cease.) But yes, there’s still a chance for theft, graft, and misappropriation.
Presumably, the wording of the still-unfinished Iran-U.S. peace deal will close this loophole. (And just as presumably, investors will understand that investing in Tehran has obvious risk factors, and their terms will reflect that reality: The greater the risk, the more onerous the lender’s terms; that’s usually how investments work.)
Best case scenario: Foreign investors get their hooks deep into Iran, the mullahs participate in the profiteering, and the new Iranian government prefers this cozier status quo to the old one with large craters, rampant poverty, and a dead Supreme Leader. Iran honors the peace agreement, foregoes nuclear development, stops funding terrorism, and is gradually integrated into the family of normal nations.
These investments, after all, are contingent on Iran’s behavior: If the mullahs want the money, they must behave.
Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. But to dismiss the idea as dead-on-arrival is unfair and inaccurate.
Fair assessment.
Although unless the IRGC also agreed to guarantee freedoms for the Iranian people I say there’s an even better solution: the Iranian people are the boots on the ground that will achieve regime change.
But this process is basically what we’ve done to get the GCC to finally side with the free world rather than kowtowing to the terrorist radicals within their populations. We’ve welcomed them into the world of vibrant economies and trade.
It’s also the strategy for Gaza. Trump’s idea was to remove the people of Gaza temporarily while Gaza was rebuilt at the hands of the neighboring countries so that the people could go back to home where there was a non-violent future for them. This would, of course, depend on Hamas and Hezbollah being dismantled, because who would want to build a modern, prosperous place only to have it be destroyed by terrorists?
This was also Trump’s approach to Kim Jong Un - establishing camaraderie with him based on showing how cool things could be if there was prosperity and peace. How he could build a name for himself in North Korea if he created a world of peace and prosperity.
4-D chess with a couple of wild card rolls of the dice thrown in. I thought everyone would understand the precise goals & targets are moving variables. This ain’t a movie script.
November’s Mid-Term voters are unlikely to vote against an administration actively fighting a war.
(Changing horses midstream).
“I know that sounds odd. If I thought Trump was right about the conditions, why oppose the ceasefire? Simple: if true, we had them on the ropes. When your mortal enemy is down, keep kicking.”
************************************************************
I guess it went over the writer’s head that TRUMP’S SEA BLOCKADE WAS THE “KEEP KICKING” that dealt continuous damage to Iran.
You are right about “Our worst enemies are people like you who ignorantly heckle from the sidelines, …….”
That’s why I’m holding my fire on this deal for 60 days to see how things shake out. Trump almost never fails to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
Can we compare you to Brutus, then?
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.