“Bad deal” is a gross understatement. Trump is doing more than surrendering. Trump is making Iran the regional hegemon, while effectively preventing any expansion of the Abraham Accords (if not killing them outright). Iran will be infused with cash to restart its nuclear program and fund the ring of fire. Iran has learned that threatening to close or closing the Strait of Hormuz is the ultimate “trump” card. Trump’s deal is so bad it makes Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement look like diplomatic brilliance.
The $25B refers to Iran's frozen assets, not necessarily the amount that will be unlocked.
This deal is also a disaster for President Trump: the anti-Israel groups in the US won't forgive him for going to war with Iran and he will lose support from pro Israel groups. The neutral isolationists won't accept that he went to war and came back with nothing to show.
Trump seems to gain nothing, not even the illusion of victory and he has his legacy to think of, more than the midterm elections the party in power usually loses anyhow.
Trump as with everything is a coward. Not actually able to do the hard work. When things didn't pan out immediately he decides to leave everything and everyone in the lurch. That anyone trusts the mullahs/IRGC at their word is a sign of sheer unmitigated imbecility. Creating an agreement where the US agrees to withdraw our forces from international waters? Seriously? Allowing the mullahs to hold the world hostage and this is ok with Trump? Providing sanction relief so they can terrorize the world? We just found out the IRGC is trying to kill Ivanka and he is ok with paying ransom instead of blowing them to kingdom come? What a fucking loser.
If all of this reporting is accurate, we are witnessing a democracy’s strength - responsiveness to the perceived will of the people - turned into a weakness where the adversary is a dictatorship.
Giving the fractured nature of U.S. politics, had President Trump given a speech explaining the existential threat a nuclear/ballistic missile rich Iran the West and delivered it with Rooseveltian or Churchillian eloquence, half the electorate would have still opposed the war just because Trump and not their preferred candidate occupied the White House.
The NY Times columnist Tom Friedman expressed this view in a perhaps unguarded moment when he admitted to being conflicted: he wanted Iran defeated but not if it meant Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu would benefit politically.
In all this, the U.S. allies and world media have played a very negative role. Iran’s attack on neutrals is a violation of international law as is its effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And this closure was portrayed as something the Iranians never thought of or even contemplated but for the war.
Yet, not only has there been any wall to wall outrage followed with demands that Iran stop its aggression. We witness the opposite: the “expansion” of the war is laid at the US’s feet and Iran somehow becomes the victim.
And as the war itself was oversold in terms of its anticipated duration, Trump is now slowly losing his supporters. In that regard, the proposed 60 day ceasefire offer must be read in terms of the upcoming midterm elections.
That’s two months of allowing Iran to regroup, while the U.S. twiddles its thumbs. Any agreement will nominally end by September which will make the whole issue politically toxic. The next relevant date for action will then shift to after the November elections, by which time more blood and treasure risk being expended than would otherwise have been necessary.
The Iranian regime, on the other hand, murders its opponents and cuts them off from internet access. It can afford to hunker down and wait because, as in all dictatorships, the leaders simply aren’t affected in their daily existence as the people. All that embezzled monies is embezzled for a purpose, after all.
The only certainty is that, should a ceasefire along the reported terms be achieved, the Iranian regime will tout its “victory” to one and all, our regional allies will worry about our trustworthiness and, back home, Trump will be pilloried for wasting our military to achieve - what will be described as - a result that makes Obama’s JCPOA an act of incredible statesmanship and acumen. At which point, the finger pointing within the Administration and the pro-Hamas wing of the Democratic Party and its media acolytes might begin … and guess who will be the No. 1 target of that campaign?
To understand where things might actually be going is to listen to Secretary Rubio. Some journalists should ask him to compare the original war aims (nuclear, ballistic missiles etc) to the proposed agreement. Only time will tell
This was like a boxing match in the 9th round of a 10 round championship fight. Iran bloodied and one eye bludgeoned shut, the U.S. dancing and peppering the opponent at will with the Pakistani cornerman literally holding the U.S. ( and Israel, our cornerman) back with a neck hold after jumping into the ring. The Chinese referee declaring the fight a draw after shooting the 2 other judges.
It is beyond me how this sickening display of cowardice after starting a just war to neuter this regime has turned into possibly the greatest strategic defeat in the history of the United States by a blustering braggart who is folding like a wet noodle. His legacy and Presidency is done. Wondering how much the Tucker Carlson et.al. whisperer J.D. Vance had to do with this while SOS Rubio was globetrotting trying to plug the cascade of errors of this hopeless tsunami Trump has created.
I and so many others now enter the large embarrassed crowd of unblinded loyalists who overlooked the many many flaws and threw our support behind who we thought would ultimately do the right thing, until he didn’t.
If that's Trumps idea of the Art of the Deal it's no wonder he has declared Bankruptcy more than once. This Iranian deal would be the epitome of Bankrupt ideas and lost opportunities with Israel paying for the consequences of a self-serving American President infatuated with his own propaganda.
There is a limit always on what force can accomplish and there comes a moment where you have to cut a deal. Given that the Democratic Party opposed this war for political points from the beginning and his own party barely supports him, Trump has two hands tied behind his back. Unlike what his critics claim he is not a dictator but is answerable to Congress. So the question is not what is the maximal possible but what Trump can realistically accomplish given his limits on the use of force.
No one here, including Amit Segal and the “reports” he quotes has direct knowledge of the agreement not least because it hasn’t been signed. So the only way to judge the potential future is to look at the past. And Trump managed that point as well as possible in the case of Hamas.
In the run up to the ceasefire with Hamas there were similar reports of imminent disaster and terrible terms. Yet here we are all the hostages are home, the IDF has a firm grip on 60% of Gaza and the Hamas threat is contained and slowly but surely being throttled. Far from perfect, but not bad.
The key point in that agreement was relief is contingent: first on releasing the hostages and then on disarmament. Since Hsmas is not disarming the Idf is staying put with continued pressure.
Similarly my guess is contingency will be a key part of this deal as well, despite Trump having even less room for maneuver. Keep that criterion in mind when the post deal spin begins. The agreement will be fine as long as there is contingent relief. If not, it’s a bad deal.
I am sorry to have to agree to all the comments. If this remains the status quo I am deeply troubled and utterly disappointed. Too much trust in a human being which I thought will have the guts to go through with all he promised to the end.
“Bad deal” is a gross understatement. Trump is doing more than surrendering. Trump is making Iran the regional hegemon, while effectively preventing any expansion of the Abraham Accords (if not killing them outright). Iran will be infused with cash to restart its nuclear program and fund the ring of fire. Iran has learned that threatening to close or closing the Strait of Hormuz is the ultimate “trump” card. Trump’s deal is so bad it makes Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement look like diplomatic brilliance.
The $25B refers to Iran's frozen assets, not necessarily the amount that will be unlocked.
This deal is also a disaster for President Trump: the anti-Israel groups in the US won't forgive him for going to war with Iran and he will lose support from pro Israel groups. The neutral isolationists won't accept that he went to war and came back with nothing to show.
Trump seems to gain nothing, not even the illusion of victory and he has his legacy to think of, more than the midterm elections the party in power usually loses anyhow.
Trump as with everything is a coward. Not actually able to do the hard work. When things didn't pan out immediately he decides to leave everything and everyone in the lurch. That anyone trusts the mullahs/IRGC at their word is a sign of sheer unmitigated imbecility. Creating an agreement where the US agrees to withdraw our forces from international waters? Seriously? Allowing the mullahs to hold the world hostage and this is ok with Trump? Providing sanction relief so they can terrorize the world? We just found out the IRGC is trying to kill Ivanka and he is ok with paying ransom instead of blowing them to kingdom come? What a fucking loser.
If all of this reporting is accurate, we are witnessing a democracy’s strength - responsiveness to the perceived will of the people - turned into a weakness where the adversary is a dictatorship.
Giving the fractured nature of U.S. politics, had President Trump given a speech explaining the existential threat a nuclear/ballistic missile rich Iran the West and delivered it with Rooseveltian or Churchillian eloquence, half the electorate would have still opposed the war just because Trump and not their preferred candidate occupied the White House.
The NY Times columnist Tom Friedman expressed this view in a perhaps unguarded moment when he admitted to being conflicted: he wanted Iran defeated but not if it meant Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu would benefit politically.
In all this, the U.S. allies and world media have played a very negative role. Iran’s attack on neutrals is a violation of international law as is its effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And this closure was portrayed as something the Iranians never thought of or even contemplated but for the war.
Yet, not only has there been any wall to wall outrage followed with demands that Iran stop its aggression. We witness the opposite: the “expansion” of the war is laid at the US’s feet and Iran somehow becomes the victim.
And as the war itself was oversold in terms of its anticipated duration, Trump is now slowly losing his supporters. In that regard, the proposed 60 day ceasefire offer must be read in terms of the upcoming midterm elections.
That’s two months of allowing Iran to regroup, while the U.S. twiddles its thumbs. Any agreement will nominally end by September which will make the whole issue politically toxic. The next relevant date for action will then shift to after the November elections, by which time more blood and treasure risk being expended than would otherwise have been necessary.
The Iranian regime, on the other hand, murders its opponents and cuts them off from internet access. It can afford to hunker down and wait because, as in all dictatorships, the leaders simply aren’t affected in their daily existence as the people. All that embezzled monies is embezzled for a purpose, after all.
The only certainty is that, should a ceasefire along the reported terms be achieved, the Iranian regime will tout its “victory” to one and all, our regional allies will worry about our trustworthiness and, back home, Trump will be pilloried for wasting our military to achieve - what will be described as - a result that makes Obama’s JCPOA an act of incredible statesmanship and acumen. At which point, the finger pointing within the Administration and the pro-Hamas wing of the Democratic Party and its media acolytes might begin … and guess who will be the No. 1 target of that campaign?
To understand where things might actually be going is to listen to Secretary Rubio. Some journalists should ask him to compare the original war aims (nuclear, ballistic missiles etc) to the proposed agreement. Only time will tell
This was like a boxing match in the 9th round of a 10 round championship fight. Iran bloodied and one eye bludgeoned shut, the U.S. dancing and peppering the opponent at will with the Pakistani cornerman literally holding the U.S. ( and Israel, our cornerman) back with a neck hold after jumping into the ring. The Chinese referee declaring the fight a draw after shooting the 2 other judges.
It is beyond me how this sickening display of cowardice after starting a just war to neuter this regime has turned into possibly the greatest strategic defeat in the history of the United States by a blustering braggart who is folding like a wet noodle. His legacy and Presidency is done. Wondering how much the Tucker Carlson et.al. whisperer J.D. Vance had to do with this while SOS Rubio was globetrotting trying to plug the cascade of errors of this hopeless tsunami Trump has created.
I and so many others now enter the large embarrassed crowd of unblinded loyalists who overlooked the many many flaws and threw our support behind who we thought would ultimately do the right thing, until he didn’t.
If that's Trumps idea of the Art of the Deal it's no wonder he has declared Bankruptcy more than once. This Iranian deal would be the epitome of Bankrupt ideas and lost opportunities with Israel paying for the consequences of a self-serving American President infatuated with his own propaganda.
Sure looks like we’re giving up to me, but what do I know? 🤷♂️
There is a limit always on what force can accomplish and there comes a moment where you have to cut a deal. Given that the Democratic Party opposed this war for political points from the beginning and his own party barely supports him, Trump has two hands tied behind his back. Unlike what his critics claim he is not a dictator but is answerable to Congress. So the question is not what is the maximal possible but what Trump can realistically accomplish given his limits on the use of force.
No one here, including Amit Segal and the “reports” he quotes has direct knowledge of the agreement not least because it hasn’t been signed. So the only way to judge the potential future is to look at the past. And Trump managed that point as well as possible in the case of Hamas.
In the run up to the ceasefire with Hamas there were similar reports of imminent disaster and terrible terms. Yet here we are all the hostages are home, the IDF has a firm grip on 60% of Gaza and the Hamas threat is contained and slowly but surely being throttled. Far from perfect, but not bad.
The key point in that agreement was relief is contingent: first on releasing the hostages and then on disarmament. Since Hsmas is not disarming the Idf is staying put with continued pressure.
Similarly my guess is contingency will be a key part of this deal as well, despite Trump having even less room for maneuver. Keep that criterion in mind when the post deal spin begins. The agreement will be fine as long as there is contingent relief. If not, it’s a bad deal.
I am sorry to have to agree to all the comments. If this remains the status quo I am deeply troubled and utterly disappointed. Too much trust in a human being which I thought will have the guts to go through with all he promised to the end.
Why did Russians evacuated personel from Iran?