Trump’s Proposed “Deal” with Iran Gets a D-Minus
President Trump has told the nation that a peace agreement was at hand – and that America comes out the winner. He grades himself with an A-plus. At this juncture, I give the reported deal a D-minus – and could sink to an “F” depending on the final agreement.
So far, no agreement has been forthcoming. What we have is a potential Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). That is not an agreement. MOUs are signed by the billions in government and in business. In the vast majority of cases, they lead to nothing.
(During my business dealings in China, I signed scores of MOUs. Many were ceremonial – promising to like one another. Some involved projects that never came to pass. Perhaps I am jaded – no pun intended – but I do not put a lot of credibility behind MOUs. But I digress.)
With that in mind, we can at least examine the terms of the proposed MOU’s since they could lead to an actual agreement. Public reports answer a number of questions – but many more remain.
In terms of the objectives laid out by Trump in attacking Iran, it seems a clear win for Trump –assuming the reports are correct. According to reports, Iran will:
- Totally abandon its nuclear weapons program.
- Give up all its enriched nuclear material. How and when will be determined in the future negotiations. (That does not sound like a deal).
- Allow international monitors access to ensure compliance. (Iranian official has disagreed).
- Cease funding terrorist groups. Presumably, that means Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc. (Is that trustworthy, even if they say so?)
- Reopen the Strait of Hormuz as an international waterway with no control or tolls imposed by Iran. (That appears to remain a point of contention).
- Possible limits on intercontinental ballistic missile development.
Of particular interest are the concessions to be made by the United States. This includes:
- Lifting the blockade.
- Allowing Iran to freely sell oil on the open market. (Does this include sales to Russia, China, North Korea and other American adversaries?)
- Lifting of some sanctions.
- Possible release of $25 billion in Iranian frozen assets – but only to purchase humanitarian goods for the people of Iran. (Iranian officials say they can use money as they please).
- Retaining current Iranian leadership. (Puts any agreement into question).
None of these concessions are consistent with an American victory. In fact, many see such an agreement as a win for Iran.
Then there are issues that should be – but as far as we know are not – part of any proposed agreement. Such as:
- Disbanding of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
- Release of political prisoners.
- Ending domestic oppression of the population.
- Ending of hostilities with Israel.
The difference between the Obama agreement and the Trump proposals are significant – despite self-serving claims to the contrary. The Obama agreement was not a forever ban on nuclear weapons. It had a sunset provision after 15 years – which is only three years from now. The Obama agreement intentionally did not address the issue of sponsoring international terrorism. It intentionally deferred that issue to another time – which never came, of course. The Obama agreement did not address development of ICBMs.
Trump made the correct decision when he cancelled the Obama agreement. The current resolution is now on Trump. What will Trump finally agree to – or more accurately, what will the Iranians agree to? And so far, I do not like what I hear.
When the United States and Israel launched a major defensive military action against Iran’s decades of terrorist attacks on the United States, Israel, Europe and other Muslim states, Trump said he was determined to take care of the problem once and for all – and that is what it looked like he was going to do..
There can be no refutation that the United States and Israel were very successful in crushing the Iranian Military and the Iranian Republican Guard. As a result, the Iranian Navy and Air Force were, for all intents and purposes, destroyed. The majority of the country’s missiles were taken out of commission. The nation’s air defense system was taken down. The top leaders were killed. It looked like a quick and certain victory was in the offing. But Iran still retains miliary capability, especially in terms of drone warfare.
So, what happened?
Things started to change when the Iranians closed the Strait of Hormuz and created a global oil shortage. Why Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the leaders of Europe and the Middle East acquiesced is an unanswered question. Why did not American forces take control of Kharg Island to cut off exportation of Iran’s oil? Some argue it would require boots on the ground. Probably. But that does not seem to be sufficient reason to back down on the cusp ofa decisive victory.
Trump’s response was a blockade and a cease fire. The former was predicted to bring Iran to its knees. It did not. The latter had the smell of the old endless diplomacy that only produced broken agreements and prolonged hostilities. Without a regime change that changes Iran’s rogue policies, no deal can be trusted. The only discernible benefit from a ceasefire has been to allow Iran to regroup, reorganize, re-arm and eventually repeat its old terrorist policies.
For some reason, Trump turned from total victory (unconditional surrender) to some sort of prolonged and fruitless diplomatic compromise. He morphed from a hawk to a dove – starting to sound more like a lot of his predecessors.
What we hear about the specifics of an Iranian agreement suggests some far less than victory. In many ways, Trump has undermined his own winning strategy. Based on what is known, no agreement is going to be the victory Trump promised.
So, there ‘tis.
I am not sure what MOU you are looking at since it’s 14 points and you have 11. Plus, you take one point on Nuclear and expand it to three points. Here’s the real thing which changed slightly from first “leaked” versions.
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/18/nx-s1-5863027/us-iran-trump-memorandum-of-understanding-full-text
The timeline for a final agreement is 60 days, extendable to infinity by agreements of parties; Israel and Lebanon are not mou or final agreement signers. But the mou ends the Israeli war on Lebanon which Israel and Lebanon have already broken. Israel will cede all Lebanon lands taken back to Lebanon. There will be fifteen signers for final agreement, no Israel, no Lebanon. Weird.
It will open Hormuz which was closed by Iran due to war and we could not keep it open. There will be no charges for 60 days, an ominous foreshadowing of potential future tolls.
We will retreat and remove all forces from the area.
On the nuclear programs, so far, the agreement is the same or highly similar to the JCPOA. There is no timeline; it is just absolute. On the nuclear materials, how they get rid tbd 60 days. Also, in 60 days, a deal on what nuclear materials they can make and when.
There is nothing in the mou about Iran’s funding and support for proxy terrorists. You’re wrong on that.
We give Iran immediate ability to sell oil. We will set up, with unnamed “partners” a $300B+ slush fund for Iran’s development and economic needs. We will terminate all sanctions. We will grant Iran access to all frozen funds.
The ironic part is the last mou point: “The final Deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.” IOW the deal is contingent on the endorsement of five permanent members: China, France, Russia, UK and US. Also in the vote are nonpermanent members Denmark, Greece, Pakistan, Panama, Somalia, Bahrain, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Latvia, and Liberia. Takes nine to win, but any of the permanent members can veto. That’s just funny thinking Trump is leaning on the UN when he stiffs em on dues.
Basically, Trump is up against “no new wars,” Obama’s JCPOA, Obama’s millions in hard cash for hostages, the midterms, low polls, uneven economy, a deportation war, vanity projects, establishing legacy, and increasing civil strife and discontent. Worse yet, he is up against his own goals, most of which he is failing to achieve. Regime change, good luck schmoozing that one given its worse than previous regime. Getting the people to rise up, they didn’t. Extending democracy, Larry’s fav, nope. Ending the bomb, probably, but not better than Obama. Ending terrorism; not even discussed. The 60-day clock will end before the midterms and his chances of success are slim in that timeframe or ever. He is already equal to Obama on the nuclear production. Larry lies that the JCPOA sun-setted bomb production in 10-15 years. That was nuclear materials production capped at 300kg of 3.67% enrichment. Larry knowingly lies on that.
It looks like he’s in a box even losing to himself, but I would never deny Trump’s ability to pull victory from the flames.
Iran as a nation and a government needs to be extinguished. Trump is just doing what he has to in order to keep his voter base. He is aware of it. You do not help going negative on the only option for not letting a democracy self implode with communism. Pull your head out of your @ss and get on board or just go to a country that appreciates r tards . If you want to talk s h i t about trump, I will make you a target and you will f e e l it.
Joe Gilbertson: you printing violent threats now? Pretty sure your site announcing targets and feeling it. Don’t you stand for anything Joe? Where’s the line?
AIA: I was not negative: I was honest. Those are the facts.
And I closed with: “It looks like he’s in a box even losing to himself, but I would never deny Trump’s ability to pull victory from the flames.” Never deny Trump’s ability to pull victory from the flames.” Victory seems downright positive.
Larry, I have to laugh (at you) when reading this tome. When the war started you were gung ho-the war was literally the best thing to happen since sliced bread was invented, it was so worthwhile and was something that should have been done years before. At that time I told you that you were an idiot (a common refrain from me, but time always proves me correct). We have the dumbest president in history, who has retained the most inexperienced cabinet ever, so how could we expect a good outcome with a war in the Middle East? You, being an ignoramus, thought we would succeed. Being a student of history, and having seen the outcomes of our two previous forays into that section of the world, I knew that given the caliber of the current regime we would fail. So now we are facing a situation far worse than we had prior to the start of the war, with a far worse deal than Obama gave us (the one your president removed us from due to his hatred of all things Obama), so the question I have to ask-when will you admit you are a demented ignorant fool who should never give advice to the American public and quietly retire to the tennis courts to live out your very unsuccessful life?
Mike f as in fag you and Dunger want Trump to fail. You fools are part of the hate America regime. So STFU.
Paul-I don’t want trump to fail, I would be ecstatic if he would be successful. However, he was a failure in virtually every business venture he started prior to entering politics, and his life running this country has been no different. He is a petty, ignorant, weak individual who had no business being elected president of our once great country. I am genuinely upset that he has made us the laughing stock of the world, and merely point out his constant failures since the writers of the windbag post are always trying to tell their readers to ‘look over there’ when the real story is what is happening in the WH…
Mike f … WOW! Even for you that is a lot of childish ignorant low-class insults. But it is your hallmark. LOL. You really seem to be incapable of having and intelligent dialogue. Maybe you have anger management issues … or Tourette’s. Syndrome. Some folks develop angry irrational rages when dementia starts to set in.. But what ever it is, you appear to have issues. I think I should limit my responses to you … and let you deal with your problem without getting you overheated.
Larry, Exactly what did I say that you disagree with? As per usual, bring the ignoramus that you are, you merely call me out with insults, but never refuting my facts (it is rather difficult to refute facts isn’t it?). Try again, but bring the loser you’ve always been, I don’t foresee any changes…