No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Tough crowd.

Is that the only thing that would make you happy?

---

I never stopped being happy.

Seeing Trump and his maga twist themselves into pretzels to show how less is acceptable makes me even happier, thanks to the entertainment value being at peak level from Trump and his maga.

Seeing many a maga online (not so much here, but the interwebs are filled with so many) swallow this as if it's what Trump wanted all along and that this is a "Mission Accompllished" just tickles nont-stop.

Again, happy always, but after Trump's deal with Iran, even happier.

Well, except for the citizens of Iran, and tax money going to the MIC, but hey, as long as Trump says all is good, then all is how his 4D Chess plans wanted all along, que no?

---

So, according to Rubio, the purpose of the initial strike was to reduce Iran's ballistic missile capabilities.

Which we did.

And now we are cleaning up after the mess when Iran was whining like a little titty baby for getting their ass handed to them.

That hasn't changed.

Rubio:

Quote:

---

SECRETARY RUBIO: The United States conducted this operation with a very clear goal in mind. I haven't gotten a chance to see a lot of reporting. I don't understand what the confusion is. Let me explain it to you, and I'll do it once again as clearly as possible. Perhaps you'll report it that way.
The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it's doing quite successfully. I'll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that and the progress that's being made. That is the clear objective of this mission.

---

Here is a link for reference:
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/03/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-press-6/

No matter how much you ignore it, that isn't going to change.

Taking Rubio at his word isn't "twisting ourselves into pretzels".

Were the objectives of this mission achieved? The mission that Rubio laid out? The one that he explained to the press as very clear?

Was Rubio lying?

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

The $300B is a private-sector investment/reconstruction fund, potentially backed by Gulf states and private investors, and is not a direct appropriation from the U.S. Treasury - Reuters

Commence scoffing but that's what it is until it's not. I report; you decide.

---

Any chance any of those private investors are friends and family of someone with the last name Trump? Maybe even MIC and those with close ties to it?

Any chance at all?

---

So, are you saying that investing in Iran is such a great idea that Trump is hoarding the opportunity for his own croanies?

Or, are you saying that the $300B that is going into Iran is a terrible deal for taxpayers because it is a gift from taxpayers?

I'm trying to keep up, but you are flip-flopping so fast my head is spinning.

User name does not check out.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

The $300B is a private-sector investment/reconstruction fund, potentially backed by Gulf states and private investors, and is not a direct appropriation from the U.S. Treasury - Reuters

Commence scoffing but that's what it is until it's not. I report; you decide.

---

Any chance any of those private investors are friends and family of someone with the last name Trump? Maybe even MIC and those with close ties to it?

Any chance at all?

---

There's a difference that you seek? Take the Bidens, for example. They didn't put up any money. They just used political pressure to grift. Anyone named Trump, who wants to invest in Iran, has to put up money.

---

Worth all the money going to be spent to rebuild what was used by our military and all the costs that Americans spent on higher fuel prices, etc?

I hate defending the Bidens, but at least their actions didn't start a war that killed so many lives and caused so many problems throughout the world. Theirs was SOP political grift that presidents, at least the last one and this one, sans Iran, used to line their and their family's pockets.

Both are/were wrong. We can all at least admit that, can't we?

---

Old McDonald said:

---

well i guess we can retire this thread, seeing as this "deal" quickly fell apart like all of its predecessors

---

So, you are on the record that the negotiations are meaningless, and there is no way on earth that they get it worked out before October 31st?

Keeping up with the fog of war of these negotiations is almost as frustrating as having three different f'ing threads on the same topic on TA. According to Vance, a lot of progress was made overnight our time on Obama Deal 2.0:

Quote:

---

Vice President JD Vance said Iranian officials had agreed to allow nuclear inspectors from the United Nations back into their country, possibly as early as this week, signaling progress on an issue key to bringing the war to a permanent end.

The vice president said a so-called deconfliction system brokered by Pakistan and Qatar was designed to ensure Hezbollah no longer attacks Israelstrikes to which he said Israel had felt compelled to respondby ensuring all sides were engaging with each other. He said he had told Iran to curb its militant proxy but had also been in constant contact with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Emirati and Saudi leaderships.

The vice president also confirmed an agreement on a mechanism for communication between the U.S. and Iran in the strait so there wouldn't be any further disruption or escalation in the vital waterway.

---

Quote:

---

I hate defending the Bidens, but at least their actions didn't start a war that killed so many lives and caused so many problems throughout the world. Theirs was SOP political grift that presidents, at least the last one and this one, sans Iran, used to line their and their family's pockets.

Both are/were wrong. We can all at least admit that, can't we?

---

It is amusing to see you continue bending over backwards to equate Trump with Biden.

First of all, Biden's actions and rhetoric at minimum helped fan the flames of the Ukraine/Russia war that's taken FAR more lives than our actions in Iran have.

Secondly, Iran's actions have cause a lot more problems around the world over the years with their terrorist proxies attacking Americans and allies. Educate yourself on how many harm Iran has inflicted before assuming they were a peaceful nation that 'MAGA' attacked and 'caused so many problems'.

BusterAg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

The $300B is a private-sector investment/reconstruction fund, potentially backed by Gulf states and private investors, and is not a direct appropriation from the U.S. Treasury - Reuters

Commence scoffing but that's what it is until it's not. I report; you decide.

---

Any chance any of those private investors are friends and family of someone with the last name Trump? Maybe even MIC and those with close ties to it?

Any chance at all?

---

So, are you saying that investing in Iran is such a great idea that Trump is hoarding the opportunity for his own croanies?

Or, are you saying that the $300B that is going into Iran is a terrible deal for taxpayers because it is a gift from taxpayers?

I'm trying to keep up, but you are flip-flopping so fast my head is spinning.

User name does not check out.

---

I'm just asking if there's a chance. Last I checked it's not uncommon for politicians, including presidents, to use this like Iran and the deal, as a way to enrich themselves.

Maybe Trump will make sure no one in his family or his friends use this as a way to enrich themselves.

Doesn't mean it's not a question worth asking.

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

I hate defending the Bidens, but at least their actions didn't start a war that killed so many lives and caused so many problems throughout the world. Theirs was SOP political grift that presidents, at least the last one and this one, sans Iran, used to line their and their family's pockets.

Both are/were wrong. We can all at least admit that, can't we?

---

It is amusing to see you continue bending over backwards to equate Trump with Biden.

First of all, Biden's actions and rhetoric at minimum helped fan the flames of the Ukraine/Russia war that's taken FAR more lives than our actions in Iran have.

Secondly, Iran's actions have cause a lot more problems around the world over the years with their terrorist proxies attacking Americans and allies. Educate yourself on how many harm Iran has inflicted before assuming they were a peaceful nation that 'MAGA' attacked and 'caused so many problems'.

---

Rhetoric doesn't equate ordering your military to attack a country. Biden didn't attack Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine all on their own.

I agree that Iran has caused problems for almost fifty years.

I never said Iran was peaceful.

Iran created newer problems that affected more people than ever, after Trump's war on them.

How would you address a nuclear capable Iran?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

How would you address a nuclear capable Iran?

---

I have no clue, but I'm not the CIC, so it doesn't really matter what I'd do.

The best I can do is support, and if need be, hold accountable as best as possible the one who is.

There's really no reasonable basis for any answer other than a clear NO.

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

The $300B is a private-sector investment/reconstruction fund, potentially backed by Gulf states and private investors, and is not a direct appropriation from the U.S. Treasury - Reuters

Commence scoffing but that's what it is until it's not. I report; you decide.

---

Any chance any of those private investors are friends and family of someone with the last name Trump? Maybe even MIC and those with close ties to it?

Any chance at all?

---

So, are you saying that investing in Iran is such a great idea that Trump is hoarding the opportunity for his own croanies?

Or, are you saying that the $300B that is going into Iran is a terrible deal for taxpayers because it is a gift from taxpayers?

I'm trying to keep up, but you are flip-flopping so fast my head is spinning.

User name does not check out.

---

I'm just asking if there's a chance. Last I checked it's not uncommon for politicians, including presidents, to use this like Iran and the deal, as a way to enrich themselves.

Maybe Trump will make sure no one in his family or his friends use this as a way to enrich themselves.

Doesn't mean it's not a question worth asking.

---

I also asked two questions, and you answered neither of them.

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

The $300B is a private-sector investment/reconstruction fund, potentially backed by Gulf states and private investors, and is not a direct appropriation from the U.S. Treasury - Reuters

Commence scoffing but that's what it is until it's not. I report; you decide.

---

Any chance any of those private investors are friends and family of someone with the last name Trump? Maybe even MIC and those with close ties to it?

Any chance at all?

---

So, are you saying that investing in Iran is such a great idea that Trump is hoarding the opportunity for his own croanies?

Or, are you saying that the $300B that is going into Iran is a terrible deal for taxpayers because it is a gift from taxpayers?

I'm trying to keep up, but you are flip-flopping so fast my head is spinning.

User name does not check out.

---

I'm just asking if there's a chance. Last I checked it's not uncommon for politicians, including presidents, to use this like Iran and the deal, as a way to enrich themselves.

---

Well, yeah. They're called fraudster grifting democrats.

Edit: And RINO's.

I.E.: The SWAMP

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

I hate defending the Bidens, but at least their actions didn't start a war that killed so many lives and caused so many problems throughout the world. Theirs was SOP political grift that presidents, at least the last one and this one, sans Iran, used to line their and their family's pockets.

Both are/were wrong. We can all at least admit that, can't we?

---

It is amusing to see you continue bending over backwards to equate Trump with Biden.

First of all, Biden's actions and rhetoric at minimum helped fan the flames of the Ukraine/Russia war that's taken FAR more lives than our actions in Iran have.

Secondly, Iran's actions have cause a lot more problems around the world over the years with their terrorist proxies attacking Americans and allies. Educate yourself on how many harm Iran has inflicted before assuming they were a peaceful nation that 'MAGA' attacked and 'caused so many problems'.

---

Are you really claiming that Biden caused Russia to start a war with the Ukraine?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

How would you address a nuclear capable Iran?

---

We bombed Iran last year to stop their nuclear ambitions.

I have read that our intelligence agencies said that Iran was not actively building nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Iran has suffered billions of dollars worth of damage that needs to be repaired. We tried to keep the damages to a minimum too. We purposefully avoided striking Oil, Electric and Water Systems. So we could have done lots more.

---

Sure, but now trump gets us on the hook for what, 300billion to Iran to repair?

Define "actively building".

They had paused enrichment and could not readily access enriched material following the bombings a year ago.

But was someone sitting in another bunker or girls school working yields, design, guidance systems, rockets (for satellites)?

Were they feverishly working on weapons to provide them perpetual deterrence against anyone wanting to stop their furtherance of nuclear ambitions?

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

Iran has suffered billions of dollars worth of damage that needs to be repaired. We tried to keep the damages to a minimum too. We purposefully avoided striking Oil, Electric and Water Systems. So we could have done lots more.

---

Sure, but now trump gets us on the hook for what, 300billion to Iran to repair?

---

No, we are not on the hook for any funds. It's been made pretty clear. Unless you are Chuck Schumer or another member of the Hate America Party who just lie about this point.

eric76 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

How would you address a nuclear capable Iran?

---

We bombed Iran last year to stop their nuclear ambitions.

I have read that our intelligence agencies said that Iran was not actively building nuclear weapons.

---

They were, also, ramping up production of long range missiles to help protect their nuclear facilities (use as threat). Believe we set them back there, too.

No, but it will be one of the best deals ever for several government contractors. Blackwater, Raytheon, Lockheed, etc who will be gifted contracts to rebuild what our tax dollars already paid to bomb.

Them fellas are making it coming and going as usual. Only a craptastic criminal fraud of a government like ours could pull that off.

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

Iran has suffered billions of dollars worth of damage that needs to be repaired. We tried to keep the damages to a minimum too. We purposefully avoided striking Oil, Electric and Water Systems. So we could have done lots more.

---

Sure, but now trump gets us on the hook for what, 300billion to Iran to repair?

---

Dude, for real. If you watch CNN and MSNOW try giving some time to a conservative network like NEWSMAX.
Not even trying to change your mind on politics, but just watch what each chooses to report on. By the way, I watch CNN, MSNOW and even tune in a bit on podcasts like Jim Acosta. One was focused on the algae all weekend and Acosta equated the bringing down of the Berlin Wall to the Trump name coming off the Kennedy Center. If I were a Democrat I'd be wondering why they are spending so much time on this instead of major national or world-wide news.

There are many good points in this article from the National Review:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-u-s-loses-its-war-against-iran/?lctg=606d0c187d093a292d2f1eb5

Quote:

---

The U.S. Loses Its War Against Iran

... not quite an across-the-board surrender on the part of the United States ...

... Every dollar that the Iranian regime doesn't have to spend on rebuilding a bridge or other destroyed infrastructure is money they can spend on ballistic missiles, drones, rebuilding their military, secret efforts of their nuclear weapons program, etc. We have promised to provide Iran with at least $300 billion 13 times the Iranian defense budget.

...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days." ...

"The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal." ... this deal may require the U.S. to remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. ...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc." ... this provision violates U.S. law; under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, any "agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran" must allow Congress 30 days to approve or disapprove of the deal, and under the law, "The president may not provide Iran with relief from U.S. sanctions laws during those 30 days of congressional review."

... "The Iranian regime may end up in a better financial situation than before the war started."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons." ... The Iranian regime has broken every treaty it has ever signed.

"The United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region." ...

The U.S. and Iran have agreed to "refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs." This means that the next time the regime starts slaughtering protesters in the streets, we have publicly pledged to not do anything about it. ...

Witkoff ... insisted his experience in negotiating real estate deals meant he was better prepared to negotiate with foreign leaders than "foreign policy people" and boasted of his "natural instincts."

...

when you select a Manhattan real estate guy who sees previous foreign policy experience as a liability to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs, you end up losing your shirt.

... when you have an administration thoroughly permeated by the philosophy that knowing a lot about a subject or consulting those who do know a lot is a weakness and a liability, you cannot be surprised when endeavors like a war against Iran go terribly awry and leave the United States in a weaker position than when it started.

---

I do not see how negotiating with foreign governments by the seat of your pants could possibly produce anything more than a very mediocre deal, at best. This deal is hardly an "at best" case.

eric76 said:

---

There are many good points in this article from the National Review:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-u-s-loses-its-war-against-iran/?lctg=606d0c187d093a292d2f1eb5

Quote:

---

The U.S. Loses Its War Against Iran

... not quite an across-the-board surrender on the part of the United States ...

... Every dollar that the Iranian regime doesn't have to spend on rebuilding a bridge or other destroyed infrastructure is money they can spend on ballistic missiles, drones, rebuilding their military, secret efforts of their nuclear weapons program, etc. We have promised to provide Iran with at least $300 billion 13 times the Iranian defense budget.

...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days." ...

"The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal." ... this deal may require the U.S. to remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. ...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc." ... this provision violates U.S. law; under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, any "agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran" must allow Congress 30 days to approve or disapprove of the deal, and under the law, "The president may not provide Iran with relief from U.S. sanctions laws during those 30 days of congressional review." ...
[url=https://www.npr.org/2026/06/08/nx-s1-5831291/three-months-into-the-war-irans-economy-struggles-to-endure][/url]
... "The Iranian regime may end up in a better financial situation than before the war started."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons." ... The Iranian regime has broken every treaty it has ever signed.

"The United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region." ...

The U.S. and Iran have agreed to "refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs." This means that the next time the regime starts slaughtering protesters in the streets, we have publicly pledged to not do anything about it. ...

Witkoff ... insisted his experience in negotiating real estate deals meant he was better prepared to negotiate with foreign leaders than "foreign policy people" and boasted of his "natural instincts."

...

when you select a Manhattan real estate guy who sees previous foreign policy experience as a liability to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs, you end up losing your shirt.

... when you have an administration thoroughly permeated by the philosophy that knowing a lot about a subject or consulting those who do know a lot is a weakness and a liability, you cannot be surprised when endeavors like a war against Iran go terribly awry and leave the United States in a weaker position than when it started.

---

I do not see how negotiating with foreign governments by the seat of your pants could possibly produce anything more than a very mediocre deal, at best. This deal is hardly an "at best" case.

---

We didn't surrender to Iran. We surrendered to Wall Street.

Probably not the best idea to run a Country based on the whims of a Ponzi scheme but that's where we are.

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

Iran has suffered billions of dollars worth of damage that needs to be repaired. We tried to keep the damages to a minimum too. We purposefully avoided striking Oil, Electric and Water Systems. So we could have done lots more.

---

Sure, but now trump gets us on the hook for what, 300billion to Iran to repair?

---

The $300B is a private-sector investment/reconstruction fund, potentially backed by Gulf states and private investors, and is not a direct appropriation from the U.S. Treasury - Reuters

YouBet said:

---

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

Iran has suffered billions of dollars worth of damage that needs to be repaired. We tried to keep the damages to a minimum too. We purposefully avoided striking Oil, Electric and Water Systems. So we could have done lots more.

---

Sure, but now trump gets us on the hook for what, 300billion to Iran to repair?

---

The $300B is a private-sector investment/reconstruction fund, potentially backed by Gulf states and private investors, and is not a direct appropriation from the U.S. Treasury - Reuters

---

So Trump promises $300 billion to Iran from other Gulf states. Are they doing this out of their goodness of their hearts? Or are they doing this knowing that the US will compensate them for what they pay out?

eric76 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

Iran has suffered billions of dollars worth of damage that needs to be repaired. We tried to keep the damages to a minimum too. We purposefully avoided striking Oil, Electric and Water Systems. So we could have done lots more.

---

Sure, but now trump gets us on the hook for what, 300billion to Iran to repair?

---

The $300B is a private-sector investment/reconstruction fund, potentially backed by Gulf states and private investors, and is not a direct appropriation from the U.S. Treasury - Reuters

---

So Trump promises $300 billion to Iran from other Gulf states. Are they doing this out of their goodness of their hearts? Or are they doing this knowing that the US will compensate them for what they pay out?

---

No idea. I was just correcting misinformation.

FWTXAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There are many good points in this article from the National Review:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-u-s-loses-its-war-against-iran/?lctg=606d0c187d093a292d2f1eb5

Quote:

---

The U.S. Loses Its War Against Iran

... not quite an across-the-board surrender on the part of the United States ...

... Every dollar that the Iranian regime doesn't have to spend on rebuilding a bridge or other destroyed infrastructure is money they can spend on ballistic missiles, drones, rebuilding their military, secret efforts of their nuclear weapons program, etc. We have promised to provide Iran with at least $300 billion 13 times the Iranian defense budget.

...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days." ...

"The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal." ... this deal may require the U.S. to remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. ...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc." ... this provision violates U.S. law; under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, any "agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran" must allow Congress 30 days to approve or disapprove of the deal, and under the law, "The president may not provide Iran with relief from U.S. sanctions laws during those 30 days of congressional review." ...
[url=https://www.npr.org/2026/06/08/nx-s1-5831291/three-months-into-the-war-irans-economy-struggles-to-endure][/url]
... "The Iranian regime may end up in a better financial situation than before the war started."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons." ... The Iranian regime has broken every treaty it has ever signed.

"The United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region." ...

The U.S. and Iran have agreed to "refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs." This means that the next time the regime starts slaughtering protesters in the streets, we have publicly pledged to not do anything about it. ...

Witkoff ... insisted his experience in negotiating real estate deals meant he was better prepared to negotiate with foreign leaders than "foreign policy people" and boasted of his "natural instincts."

...

when you select a Manhattan real estate guy who sees previous foreign policy experience as a liability to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs, you end up losing your shirt.

... when you have an administration thoroughly permeated by the philosophy that knowing a lot about a subject or consulting those who do know a lot is a weakness and a liability, you cannot be surprised when endeavors like a war against Iran go terribly awry and leave the United States in a weaker position than when it started.

---

I do not see how negotiating with foreign governments by the seat of your pants could possibly produce anything more than a very mediocre deal, at best. This deal is hardly an "at best" case.

---

We didn't surrender to Iran. We surrendered to Wall Street.

Probably not the best idea to run a Country based on the whims of a Ponzi scheme but that's where we are.

---

Hard to read those details from the national review article and not think we got hoodwinked on this deal. In what world can you annihilate the enemy and then be forced to negotiate on their terms and give them everything they could possibly want? This is all made all the more hilarious by the fact that Trump has long been on record criticizing Obama's deal with Iran, and yet what we see here is something that actually seems to be weaker than JCPOA was.

We just need a few brave reporters to troll Trump on this lame deal and maybe he'll be convinced of how bad it is and tell the Iranians to shove it and prepare their anuses for more bombing of they don't agree to negotiate on our terms.

eric76 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

I hate defending the Bidens, but at least their actions didn't start a war that killed so many lives and caused so many problems throughout the world. Theirs was SOP political grift that presidents, at least the last one and this one, sans Iran, used to line their and their family's pockets.

Both are/were wrong. We can all at least admit that, can't we?

---

It is amusing to see you continue bending over backwards to equate Trump with Biden.

First of all, Biden's actions and rhetoric at minimum helped fan the flames of the Ukraine/Russia war that's taken FAR more lives than our actions in Iran have.

Secondly, Iran's actions have cause a lot more problems around the world over the years with their terrorist proxies attacking Americans and allies. Educate yourself on how many harm Iran has inflicted before assuming they were a peaceful nation that 'MAGA' attacked and 'caused so many problems'.

---

Are you really claiming that Biden caused Russia to start a war with the Ukraine?

---

I am claiming that DC politicians, specifically Dems, benefited mightily from the war in Ukraine through grift and money laundering.

I am also claiming that Russia would very likely not have advanced on Ukraine with Trump in the White House.

Finally, I am claiming that the Dem party is neck deep in the corruption in Ukraine, specifically the Biden family. That is a very, very short putt.

eric76 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

How would you address a nuclear capable Iran?

---

We bombed Iran last year to stop their nuclear ambitions.

I have read that our intelligence agencies said that Iran was not actively building nuclear weapons.

---

But, they were actively attempting to build enough short-range ballistic missiles to overwhelm US anti-missile systems.

Do you dispute that Iran was trying to do this, or that this was a threat to US interests, or that the ballistic missile threat had an impact on Iran's nuclear threat?

AggieEP said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There are many good points in this article from the National Review:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-u-s-loses-its-war-against-iran/?lctg=606d0c187d093a292d2f1eb5

Quote:

---

The U.S. Loses Its War Against Iran

... not quite an across-the-board surrender on the part of the United States ...

... Every dollar that the Iranian regime doesn't have to spend on rebuilding a bridge or other destroyed infrastructure is money they can spend on ballistic missiles, drones, rebuilding their military, secret efforts of their nuclear weapons program, etc. We have promised to provide Iran with at least $300 billion 13 times the Iranian defense budget.

...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days." ...

"The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal." ... this deal may require the U.S. to remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. ...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc." ... this provision violates U.S. law; under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, any "agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran" must allow Congress 30 days to approve or disapprove of the deal, and under the law, "The president may not provide Iran with relief from U.S. sanctions laws during those 30 days of congressional review." ...
[url=https://www.npr.org/2026/06/08/nx-s1-5831291/three-months-into-the-war-irans-economy-struggles-to-endure][/url]
... "The Iranian regime may end up in a better financial situation than before the war started."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons." ... The Iranian regime has broken every treaty it has ever signed.

"The United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region." ...

The U.S. and Iran have agreed to "refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs." This means that the next time the regime starts slaughtering protesters in the streets, we have publicly pledged to not do anything about it. ...

Witkoff ... insisted his experience in negotiating real estate deals meant he was better prepared to negotiate with foreign leaders than "foreign policy people" and boasted of his "natural instincts."

...

when you select a Manhattan real estate guy who sees previous foreign policy experience as a liability to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs, you end up losing your shirt.

... when you have an administration thoroughly permeated by the philosophy that knowing a lot about a subject or consulting those who do know a lot is a weakness and a liability, you cannot be surprised when endeavors like a war against Iran go terribly awry and leave the United States in a weaker position than when it started.

---

I do not see how negotiating with foreign governments by the seat of your pants could possibly produce anything more than a very mediocre deal, at best. This deal is hardly an "at best" case.

---

We didn't surrender to Iran. We surrendered to Wall Street.

Probably not the best idea to run a Country based on the whims of a Ponzi scheme but that's where we are.

---

Hard to read those details from the national review article and not think we got hoodwinked on this deal. In what world can you annihilate the enemy and then be forced to negotiate on their terms and give them everything they could possibly want? This is all made all the more hilarious by the fact that Trump has long been on record criticizing Obama's deal with Iran, and yet what we see here is something that actually seems to be weaker than JCPOA was.

We just need a few brave reporters to troll Trump on this lame deal and maybe he'll be convinced of how bad it is and tell the Iranians to shove it and prepare their anuses for more bombing of they don't agree to negotiate on our terms.

---

I agree with you that the propaganda put out by Trump and admin is nowhere close to accurate. But the reason we gave up is because the economy is about to collapse and Trump would rather try to sell a losing war than watch the stock market burn down under him.

The point of this Iran excursion was foreign policy money laundering and foreign donor kickbacks. Same as ever conflict since Vietnam.

The only way you actually "win" a war in history ( if it's even possible at all) is all out ground troops. We've paid trillions of dollars for our military leaders to know that, I'm sure they do.

FWTXAg said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There are many good points in this article from the National Review:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-u-s-loses-its-war-against-iran/?lctg=606d0c187d093a292d2f1eb5

Quote:

---

The U.S. Loses Its War Against Iran

... not quite an across-the-board surrender on the part of the United States ...

... Every dollar that the Iranian regime doesn't have to spend on rebuilding a bridge or other destroyed infrastructure is money they can spend on ballistic missiles, drones, rebuilding their military, secret efforts of their nuclear weapons program, etc. We have promised to provide Iran with at least $300 billion 13 times the Iranian defense budget.

...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days." ...

"The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal." ... this deal may require the U.S. to remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. ...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc." ... this provision violates U.S. law; under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, any "agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran" must allow Congress 30 days to approve or disapprove of the deal, and under the law, "The president may not provide Iran with relief from U.S. sanctions laws during those 30 days of congressional review." ...
[url=https://www.npr.org/2026/06/08/nx-s1-5831291/three-months-into-the-war-irans-economy-struggles-to-endure][/url]
... "The Iranian regime may end up in a better financial situation than before the war started."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons." ... The Iranian regime has broken every treaty it has ever signed.

"The United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region." ...

The U.S. and Iran have agreed to "refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs." This means that the next time the regime starts slaughtering protesters in the streets, we have publicly pledged to not do anything about it. ...

Witkoff ... insisted his experience in negotiating real estate deals meant he was better prepared to negotiate with foreign leaders than "foreign policy people" and boasted of his "natural instincts."

...

when you select a Manhattan real estate guy who sees previous foreign policy experience as a liability to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs, you end up losing your shirt.

... when you have an administration thoroughly permeated by the philosophy that knowing a lot about a subject or consulting those who do know a lot is a weakness and a liability, you cannot be surprised when endeavors like a war against Iran go terribly awry and leave the United States in a weaker position than when it started.

---

I do not see how negotiating with foreign governments by the seat of your pants could possibly produce anything more than a very mediocre deal, at best. This deal is hardly an "at best" case.

---

We didn't surrender to Iran. We surrendered to Wall Street.

Probably not the best idea to run a Country based on the whims of a Ponzi scheme but that's where we are.

---

Hard to read those details from the national review article and not think we got hoodwinked on this deal. In what world can you annihilate the enemy and then be forced to negotiate on their terms and give them everything they could possibly want? This is all made all the more hilarious by the fact that Trump has long been on record criticizing Obama's deal with Iran, and yet what we see here is something that actually seems to be weaker than JCPOA was.

We just need a few brave reporters to troll Trump on this lame deal and maybe he'll be convinced of how bad it is and tell the Iranians to shove it and prepare their anuses for more bombing of they don't agree to negotiate on our terms.

---

I agree with you that the propaganda put out by Trump and admin is nowhere close to accurate. But the reason we gave up is because the economy is about to collapse and Trump would rather try to sell a losing war than watch the stock market burn down under him.

The point of this Iran excursion was foreign policy money laundering and foreign donor kickbacks. Same as ever conflixt since Vietnam.

---

The point of this war was the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles on US interests, specifically our Navy.

2040huck said:

---

What new advantage have we gained?

---

"The Deal" is not all that this was about
- Destroying their Army, Navy and Air Forcie
- Destroying most of their missle capabilities as well as hammering their ability to make more
- Crashing their economy to the point it will take $500 billion to rebuild
- Killing the top 4 layers of their leaders
- Blowing up their short term nuclear capabilities
- Getting pipelines built so the SOH isn't a world wide choke point

BusterAg said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There are many good points in this article from the National Review:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-u-s-loses-its-war-against-iran/?lctg=606d0c187d093a292d2f1eb5

Quote:

---

The U.S. Loses Its War Against Iran

... not quite an across-the-board surrender on the part of the United States ...

... Every dollar that the Iranian regime doesn't have to spend on rebuilding a bridge or other destroyed infrastructure is money they can spend on ballistic missiles, drones, rebuilding their military, secret efforts of their nuclear weapons program, etc. We have promised to provide Iran with at least $300 billion 13 times the Iranian defense budget.

...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days." ...

"The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal." ... this deal may require the U.S. to remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. ...

"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc." ... this provision violates U.S. law; under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, any "agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran" must allow Congress 30 days to approve or disapprove of the deal, and under the law, "The president may not provide Iran with relief from U.S. sanctions laws during those 30 days of congressional review." ...
[url=https://www.npr.org/2026/06/08/nx-s1-5831291/three-months-into-the-war-irans-economy-struggles-to-endure][/url]
... "The Iranian regime may end up in a better financial situation than before the war started."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons." ... The Iranian regime has broken every treaty it has ever signed.

"The United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region." ...

The U.S. and Iran have agreed to "refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs." This means that the next time the regime starts slaughtering protesters in the streets, we have publicly pledged to not do anything about it. ...

Witkoff ... insisted his experience in negotiating real estate deals meant he was better prepared to negotiate with foreign leaders than "foreign policy people" and boasted of his "natural instincts."

...

when you select a Manhattan real estate guy who sees previous foreign policy experience as a liability to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs, you end up losing your shirt.

... when you have an administration thoroughly permeated by the philosophy that knowing a lot about a subject or consulting those who do know a lot is a weakness and a liability, you cannot be surprised when endeavors like a war against Iran go terribly awry and leave the United States in a weaker position than when it started.

---

I do not see how negotiating with foreign governments by the seat of your pants could possibly produce anything more than a very mediocre deal, at best. This deal is hardly an "at best" case.

---

We didn't surrender to Iran. We surrendered to Wall Street.

Probably not the best idea to run a Country based on the whims of a Ponzi scheme but that's where we are.

---

Hard to read those details from the national review article and not think we got hoodwinked on this deal. In what world can you annihilate the enemy and then be forced to negotiate on their terms and give them everything they could possibly want? This is all made all the more hilarious by the fact that Trump has long been on record criticizing Obama's deal with Iran, and yet what we see here is something that actually seems to be weaker than JCPOA was.

We just need a few brave reporters to troll Trump on this lame deal and maybe he'll be convinced of how bad it is and tell the Iranians to shove it and prepare their anuses for more bombing of they don't agree to negotiate on our terms.

---

I agree with you that the propaganda put out by Trump and admin is nowhere close to accurate. But the reason we gave up is because the economy is about to collapse and Trump would rather try to sell a losing war than watch the stock market burn down under him.

The point of this Iran excursion was foreign policy money laundering and foreign donor kickbacks. Same as ever conflixt since Vietnam.

---

The point of this war was the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles on US interests, specifically our Navy.

---

The day our corrupt government is looking out for the American people's interest over its own beuracratic interests will be the day hell is frozen over.

Science Denier said:

---

2040huck said:

---

What new advantage have we gained?

---

"The Deal" is not all that this was about
- Destroying their Army, Navy and Air Forcie
- Destroying most of their missle capabilities as well as hammering their ability to make more
- Crashing their economy to the point it will take $500 billion to rebuild
- Killing the top 4 layers of their leaders
- Blowing up their short term nuclear capabilities
- Getting pipelines built so the SOH isn't a world wide choke point

---

Then why make a deal at all if all went as planned? Shouldn't we just tell Iran to pound sand and deal with the cost of rebuilding on their own?

Why remove sanctions?
Why help them rebuild?
Why promise not to put more military assets in the AOR?

Do you really believe that since we achieved all your stated objectives it's ok to take it up the rear on the deal to end the war?

I might remind you that winning the peace has historically been more impactful than winning the war.

AggieEP said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

2040huck said:

---

What new advantage have we gained?

---

"The Deal" is not all that this was about
- Destroying their Army, Navy and Air Forcie
- Destroying most of their missle capabilities as well as hammering their ability to make more
- Crashing their economy to the point it will take $500 billion to rebuild
- Killing the top 4 layers of their leaders
- Blowing up their short term nuclear capabilities
- Getting pipelines built so the SOH isn't a world wide choke point

---

Then why make a deal at all if all went as planned?

Why remove sanctions? Has not occurred.
Why help them rebuild? Hast not occurred.
Why promise not to put more military assets in the AOR? Not what the MOU says.

Your argument is really that since we achieved all (your stated objectives) objectives it's ok to take it up the rear on the deal to end the war?

I might remind you that winning the peace has historically been more impactful than winning the war. Stay tuned.

---

Sanctions have not been lifted and its been made clear over and over and over again that any relief sanction wise, money wise or military assets in the area will only occur based on their compliance to the terms outlined by Science Denier.

Particularly on the military assets, its just an agreement to draw down to pre-conflict posturing which makes sense if they are "behaving".

People also need to understand a "deal" has NOT been made. An outline / framework for constructing a deal was tenuously agreed to. A fact people like to forget and what makes the early reporting of the14-point "deal" still reek of Iranian propaganda.