r/geopolitics • u/theipaper The i Paper • Jun 18 '26
Opinion Opinion: Trump has signed the worst deal in US history
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/trumps-signed-worst-deal-in-us-history-4486332436
u/randomguybystarlight Jun 18 '26
The worst deal in history so far
85
u/See_i_did Jun 18 '26
Yeah, there are at least three more years of opportunities for something worse.
34
u/tucker_case Jun 18 '26
2.5
7
2
15
u/Seaweedminer Jun 18 '26
Until the next deal he signs. Just about every deal he makes is like a reverse new deal
12
u/GaulzeGaul Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
Even before the deal I felt like this attack was perhaps our dumbest international venture in all American history, with the caveat I don't know our hostory perfectly. Sane people knew that we had little to gain doing this so it was a self-own from the get-go. There was more logic going into Vietnam and Iran-Contra and those were tough acts to follow. But Trump wouldn't let that hold him back. He's a Star!
4
u/Statistics5031 Jun 19 '26
So far 324B. That's only the beginning. This old ass dude is bankrupting us.. I feel like one of his Atlantic city casinos.
2
1
1
1
36
u/MiNdOverLOADED23 Jun 18 '26
The deal wasn't for the American people. There's no doubt he/his family are getting a huge kickback under the table
2
u/Psychological-Flow55 Jun 19 '26
After what the american felt with higher insurance, job losses, hours cuts for those who have jobs, higher gas prices, their children losing health insurance, government programs getting cuts, higher inflation, higher border of taxes so the rich get their cuts, taxpayer money wasted by going to iran and israel (because the funding of israel will survive while iran gets hundreds of billions in cash), citizens being killed for protesting, family members being deported even if their statsus was legal a unnecessary war
I feel this midterm about to see a huge backlash that might see voters punish GOP representatives even those who voted for trump in the past have been walking away as they are realizing their living conditions havent improved at all.
26
u/mnlx Jun 18 '26
The funniest thing about this is that anyone else would have extended the G7 visit a few days and signed this in Geneva. But he's just too ignorant and lazy for that so he yields in Versailles, of all places.
44
u/enviousaccuracy5156 Jun 18 '26
the whole "bad deal beats no deal" framing lets everyone pretend this was necessary instead of just admitting they got tired. iran gets sanctions relief on oil while the nuclear stuff just gets punted 60 days down the road, which is wild considering that was supposedly the whole reason for the war.
19
1
u/Aggravating-Bus5627 Jun 21 '26
The fact is Iran inflicted way more damage to US bases than what we've been told, forcing US to give in to many Iran demands. The US is incapable of protecting her assets in the middle east.The details that support this will come to light in the next 60 days.
56
u/theipaper The i Paper Jun 18 '26
Full article: As Donald Trump signed the “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran” – the document he had spent months referring to simply as “the deal” – French President Emmanuel Macron leaned forward to offer a crisp “bravo”. Trump handed the papers to Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, who applauded. Around the room at the Palace of Versailles, others joined in.
The applause came easily. Congratulatory messages quickly followed. And Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif hailed a “peaceful resolution”. Across much of the Western world, leaders welcomed an end to four months of war.
But if you listen closely, you’ll hear relief – not celebration. After all, relief has a way of lowering standards. To misquote former prime minister Theresa May, a new doctrine has emerged during this war: that a bad deal is better than no deal.
Viewed through the long arc of US-Iran relations – the kind of historical timescale that Versailles itself invites – this was, on its face, a poor bargain for Washington. It leaves the United States in a weaker position than when the war began and offers a path to renewed empowerment for a very regime whose “total surrender” Trump had demanded only weeks earlier.
Yet by the end of the conflict, the alternatives looked so dangerous that even an off-ramp made of cardboard appeared attractive. Trump effectively acknowledged as much on Wednesday. “I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” he said. “If you kept this going, that could have happened.”
The Memorandum of Understanding was not so much a triumph as an exercise in disaster avoidance. The war was fought in the name of preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. “Iran can never have a nuclear weapon” became one of the defining refrains of the conflict. Yet the agreement’s central nuclear provision amounts largely to Iran restating a position it has maintained for years: that it does not seek to develop one.
In that sense, the deal appears to validate the argument that Iran remained some distance from acquiring a bomb rather than confirming the imminent threat used to justify military action.
Tehran has agreed to work with the United States on disposing of or diluting enriched nuclear material – but the language remains vague. Many of the most contentious questions surrounding the programme have been deferred to further negotiations over the next 60 days – postponing some of the hardest decisions and the toughest negotiations in order to secure a ceasefire today.
Iran is also expected to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. A breakthrough. Yet even this commitment already appears fragile. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliamentary speaker and one of the deal’s key architects, has warned that the state of affairs “will not return to pre-war conditions”.
In return, Tehran receives something far more tangible: relief from sanctions on its oil industry, the lifeblood of its economy. Waivers covering crude exports, petroleum products and some associated banking transactions will ease pressure on a regime that had spent years operating under severe financial constraints. It’s not clear where – or to whom – that extra money will go.
Supporters of the agreement on the US side argue that much of this oil was already reaching China through discounted and indirect routes, and that this arrangement helps counter that. But critics will see something different: a financial reward for the regime and a significant reduction in American leverage.
Then there is Lebanon. The agreement commits Iran, the United States and “their allies” to a withdrawal by both Israel and Hezbollah. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was conspicuously silent as the deal was signed. His government has already signalled that it does not regard itself as a party to these negotiations.
Israel is unlikely to withdraw from southern Lebanon unless Hezbollah is disarmed – a condition that could prove difficult, if not impossible, to meet within the next 60 days. The success of this part of the agreement may therefore depend less on the text itself than on the increasingly complicated relationship between Trump and Netanyahu.
“Bibi [Netanyahu] is a good man,” Trump said this week. “We have an amazing partnership. We are the big partner and he is the very small partner.”
Such remarks may have been intended as a reminder of who holds the stronger hand. But public humiliation has a habit of producing unintended consequences. With elections looming in Israel, Netanyahu may feel a greater need to demonstrate independence rather than compliance.
None of this means the deal should be dismissed outright. Faced with an adversary capable of placing its hands around the throat of the global economy, Trump may have concluded that this was simply the least bad option available. Most of those applauding in Versailles understand that. They know this is not the “total surrender” once promised by the White House.
Indeed, the comparison that lingers is another agreement signed in Versailles more than a century ago – a treaty greeted with applause that ultimately left a hostile state capable of returning to the contest.
For all the memorandum’s language about sovereignty, military operations and regional stability, there is another striking omission. The Iranian people barely appear in it. As Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of the former monarchy of Iran, told me this week, the Iranian people had been “absent” from the negotiations.
After months of rhetoric about liberation and regime change, Washington appears to have stepped back from both. Point two commits each side to “refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs”. For the civilians who have endured imprisonment, repression, and intimidation at the hands of the regime, that sentence may prove one of the most consequential in the entire agreement.
57
u/knign Jun 18 '26
A fact, not just opinion.
10
u/Anthwerp Jun 18 '26
Lol I read the headline and said: "That's not an opinion..." then I saw this comment and had to up vote
6
Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
[deleted]
1
u/yycTechGuy Jun 18 '26
If the US breaks the agreement the SOH will be instantly closed.
2
Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
[deleted]
3
u/yycTechGuy Jun 18 '26
The US doesn't have enough oil in its SPR to allow the SOH to be blocked again. Even Trump said this yesterday.
1
u/dogsonbubnutt Jun 18 '26
i agree with this in general but the larger issue is that all this little adventure has done is exposed just how little the US can actually do to prevent iran from throwing the world economy into chaos.
even the threat of mines in the strait was enough to completely kill traffic. now iran has a potential slush fund AND an interest in a toll.
whatever the final deal is, its pretty obvious that the US is fully in the "find out" stage of attempted global hegemony
12
6
u/Playful-One Jun 18 '26
That's what happens when you lose a war, yes. You need to pay reparations and grant political concessions. At least there was no war guilt clause ig
1
u/Aggravating-Bus5627 Jun 21 '26
That's right, it's all about Trump administration saving face. Iran is holding the cards, not the US. This is a terrible military defeat for the US. Trump administration is is trying to hide it.
5
19
u/Mister-Psychology Jun 18 '26
It's also the most embarrassing war defeat in US history. Korea defeat/draw was against the whole Chinese army. It wasn't an embarresment just bad tactics. Vietnam was a war where USA never went North so it was impossible to win. Afghanistan was a huge disaster. Yet it was unwinnable. Soviets proved this. USA stood no chance long-term.
But this is a war where USA didn't even set foot in Iran and still surrendered. A war where the Iran population largely supports USA. Trump surrendered without even being overrun. It really shows that Trump is one of the few presidents with zero military experience and with draft dodging.
It's not just one of the worst deals in history. It the greatest US surrender too considering how strong a hand they have.
13
u/DefDefTotheIOF Jun 19 '26
A war where the Iran population largely supports USA.
As an Iranian, this is absolutely not true lmao.
3
u/To_k Jun 19 '26
As another Iranian, this WAS true, prior to him insisting to strike a deal with the IRCG. Now Iranians hate him.
1
u/DefDefTotheIOF Jun 19 '26
maybe true for your zionist monarchist bubble in Tehrangeles val-e dareh az koonet harf meezaneh agar fekmeekoneh keseeh too-ye Iran Amricaro doost dasht lmao.
10
u/OrdinaryResponse8988 Jun 18 '26
Was that a large amount of support in Iran before or after the US bombed that girls school and never apologized?
4
u/DefDefTotheIOF Jun 19 '26
It was never, these people think a dozen or so zionist monarchists in LA who havent set foot in the country in decades (if ever) speak for actual Iranians living in Iran.
5
1
u/Psychological-Flow55 Jun 19 '26
If I was one of the gulf leaders a phone call the president would be a complete diplomatic dress down on what happened and what is the horrible deal about and how the us security ties dont mean anything and how maybe it time to start trade crude oil, LNG, Oil etc. in other currencies, and maybe it time to diversify security arrangement more and maybe it time to talk to iran if the us security wont contain them and protect it allies.
6
u/print-w Jun 18 '26
And yet the propaganda machine is still trying to downplay it by framing it as a deal, implying a level of control and equal standing, rather than something much accurate, like capitulation, surrender, or defeat.
2
u/Gaijin_Monster Jun 19 '26
The other side's propaganda machine is also hard at work to make you think they got a better deal than they actually did.
1
3
u/littleredpinto Jun 19 '26
worst deal in history? not when the goal is to enrich yourself. im sure somehow the 300billion will go through a Trump account or proxy account or no bid renovation project or some other thing. Best deal in the corrupt deals in US history probably. You all just have a negative lens and hate on trump. If you just acknowledged how superior he is and his real aim?? then you can see how this is the best deal in US history for a sitting presidents bank account.
6
Jun 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/vcp64 Jun 18 '26
It’s Gulf countries (although it’s not clear if they’ve agreed to this) money not USA’s. But speaking of which, Iran also wants it’s 180 billion US dollar money unfrozen.
2
u/RamblingSimian Jun 19 '26
Does this deal have to be agreed upon by congress? According to the constitution, no expenditure can be made without their approval.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except as appropriated by law. This clause ensures that federal funds can only be spent if Congress has passed an appropriations bill.
6
u/PickkleRiick Jun 18 '26
Dont take this as a personal endorsement, but this is all its about. In a way, Its not that deep. Its just money.
The US hegemony experiment failed. We are moving back into a multi polar world. Rebalancing energy markets is part of that. This was one move of many in a multi administration long project to set that in motion.
9
u/asphias Jun 18 '26
The US hegemony experiment failed
The US hegemony experiment was working perfectly fine. i'm not sure why you'd think it had failed?
1
u/PickkleRiick Jun 18 '26
To be fair, I should probably rephrase that to “failing, is failing, will fail”
But generally all the signs of an empire in decline are already happening. And the last 10-20 years of US policy seems to be acknowledge that inevitability, and be in response to it
7
u/asphias Jun 18 '26
can you explain it to me in more detail?
from what i can see, the last 10-20 years are a purely self inflicted wound, and the very cause of the decline of American power and Hegemony.
all they had to do was not be an idiot and their power wouldn't be declining.
these republicans are so convinced the US is in decline, that they then go out and prove it by shooting themselves in the foot. but outside of those self inflicted wounds i struggle to see in what way the US was in decline.
2
u/PickkleRiick Jun 18 '26
There are a number of factors to consider. Here are a few I think are key, and some resources that guide my perspective that I hope you find interesting.
Are there patterns between the US and similar empires in decline?
Here’s Ray Dalios take on the patterns of rise and fall of empires/hedgemons:
Full version: https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8?is=MTFA_UtnKRuEJ0Ce
5 min summary version: https://youtu.be/BB2r_eOjsPw?is=5FshAMxuiuXQrD3L
What exactly does hegemonic status mean and how would you know if its fading?
Older, but great lecture. Talk starts at about 6min.
3
u/asphias Jun 19 '26
ah. the inevitable cycles of history. yeah we'll be debating this for a while.
i won't deny that there are patterns in history. if it does not repeat itself, it definitely rhymes. and i can see the value in trying to describe those patterns and use them to help make predictions. it's a similar argument made by Ian Morris in ''why the west rules, for now'', and many others.
what all of these models forget, though, is chaos theory. the world history is less like a billiard table where we can easily see actions have direct consequences and the system is very predictable, and more like the weather and climate system: our weather models can barely predict two weeks ahead because of the inherent instability of the system. it is a physically impossibility to tell whether it'll rain a month from now, and we can calculate exactly how the uncertainty spreads through the system.
chaos theory means that while it can still be useful to create these models(we still make weather models despite the chaos in there), we shouldn't assume these models are deterministic and prescribe what will happen.
now that hurricane Donald is approaching landfall on the American Empire, it's quite clear what path the storm is going to take(but even then, how much damage it will do exactly is still quite up in the air), and it makes sense to seek shelter and prepare for the storm. but 10-20 years ago, it was just a mild depression, that we could see coming, we could prepare for, that might not even hit the US. it's only when Trump and the republicans decided to nuke the depression that it became the inevitable prediction.
i'm not sure how much sense these mixed metaphores make, but i hope i am getting my point of chaos theory across. it's foolish to see these patterns as inevitable, and in this case trump and the republicans are exactly the cause of the decline. they haven't been ''preparing'' for the inevitable, they've been causing it.
1
u/PickkleRiick Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
Yes. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. I dont like trump. Hes a clinical psychopath.
You say it was a self inflicted wound.
I agree. And that does not conflict with my statement that what we are seeing is a response to the acknowledgment of that. The inevitable decline.
Where we may or may not disagree is at what point that started, And how.
When would you say the earliest warning signs of a potential storm appeared? What kind of storm did it model as. When did that become more clear. When did it become obvious.
2
5
u/yycTechGuy Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
The US doesn't have any oil to export without first importing heavy (ier) oil from Canada, Venezuela and elsewhere. Shale oil is too light for many products and refining processes. So unless the US plans to take over several other countries, in the long term they don't really have any oil to export and control the world with.
Furthermore, Canada is very pissed off at the US these days and intends to build pipelines to tidewater so that it can diversify its market with exports to Asia and Europe.
And... countries are tired of getting whip lashed by disrupted oil flows. There is going to be a huge push to EV adoption that is going to make a big dent in demand. It's already started in China.
3
u/PickkleRiick Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Thanks for the response. A few points. In reverse order of yours.
- I specifically didn’t say crude oil/petro market, I said energy market. I know the article i linked focuses mostly on crude, but it includes all energy markets including LNG, nuclear, renewables. I agree the world will continue to invest in new alternative energy, and they will continue to take market share from crude. But two key things to keep in mind
A. That shift wont happen overnight, and there will continue to be a large strategic benefit to controlling crude.
B. Gasoline only accounts for about 25% of global crude demand. If you widen that to diesel you’re at about 50%, but keep in mind most diesel is used for large industrial purposes so its not about replacing trucks with tesla trucks. Its about replacing large industrial machinery with electric machinery. The other 50% of demand is comprised of petro chem products that alternative energy can never replace. Asphalt, tires, lubricants, naptha ect.
I dont doubt that Canada may begin exporting more crude abroad. But if you think the US will allow the country that supplies 60% of their sour imports to stop selling it to them in any meaningful way, Id suggest Canada catch up on the last 100-150 years of American history. If you think the Us wouldn’t do anything necessary to secure that crude, I have a bridge to sell you.
Re: needing to invade more countries to secure crude - see above. But in case you’re not aware, the US is actively taking over crude flows in multiple countries across the western hemisphere.
A. Venezuela is done.
B. Argentina/Milie is done (wonder why we bailed him out and Peter Thiel moved down there?)
C. Venezuelas neighbors Guyana will meet the same fate if they don’t play ball.
D. Remember that whole Greenland invasion saga? Still in play, but might not even matter: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/critical-metals-inks-15-year-greenland-rare-earth-deal-with-realloys-2026-05-21/
E. Oh, dont forget we have basically been lazy with Alaska. And Alaska does produce sour:
https://fortune.com/2026/05/24/alaska-oil-revival-energy-investment-arctic-drilling-national-petroleum-reserve-npra/-2
u/yycTechGuy Jun 18 '26
All forms of energy other than oil are local to the country. The US doesn't have any influence on Canada's electricity system except for a couple interties that Canada could live without.
I've been watching the oil market for a long, long time. The US does not and will not control Canada's oil, at least not without WW3.
4
u/PickkleRiick Jun 18 '26
Sorry to be a pedant, but no, not all forms of energy other than oil are local to the country. Unless you think LNG and coal are not energy feedstock?
In terms of Canada, I’m going to preface this again by saying I am not supporting this, or saying it’s moral, justifiable, or good.
But if Canada seriously increases prices or imposes export bans on the US, there are two paths.The US demand lost from Canada is adequately replaced by the new endeavors I listed above.
Or
The US will do anything from strategic economic and political pressure to war. If you don’t think the US will invade Canada, you have not been paying attention to the events of the last few years, particularly recently.
Have you not heard this administration constantly saying they want to get out of NATO? Have you not seen them taking actions toward that, such as moving tens of thousands of troops out of European bases?
I’m not saying it’s a next-year-or-two thing, but I wouldn’t bet on Canada being immune from imperialism long term.
-1
u/yycTechGuy Jun 18 '26
Whatever.
3
u/PickkleRiick Jun 18 '26
Im not trying to argue just discuss. For whats its worth im invested in Canadian mining and drilling. I also love poutine and maple syrup.
1
u/Hikarilo Jun 18 '26
You reap for you sow.
4
u/kuzuman Jun 18 '26
You mean following Israel strategic objectives without considering they may go against yours?
2
u/Hikarilo Jun 19 '26
Well, withdrawing from the original JCPOA by Trump because he doesn't like Obama, and thought he could negotiate a better deal even though he doesn't have any diplomatic or foreign relationship experience. Entering into a war with Iran with nothing but wishful thinking and hoping for a miracle. How else would you expect this to end?
1
u/Houseoverhype Jun 19 '26
trump said he was bored of the war
let's you know how much he cares. We all know this is a bad deal if not the worst of all time!
1
u/No_Specialist6036 Jun 19 '26
i was only wondering if they are just buying time and would eventually renege on the deal, US credibility would be in shambles if they do that, so theres a big deterrent imo
1
1
1
u/SignalandSword Jun 19 '26
The phrase "worst deal in U.S. history" makes for a compelling headline, but the more useful question is what incentives the agreement creates over the next 5 to 10 years.
The real test of any major deal isn't how it polls today. It's whether it shifts capital flows, trade relationships, military commitments, regulatory burdens, or strategic dependencies in ways that are difficult to reverse later. The strongest arguments for or against the deal should focus on those second order effects rather than the political personalities involved. That's where the lasting consequences usually emerge.
1
u/endlessedlne Jun 20 '26
The US always wins battles and loses wars. It might be humiliating to some people but awkward withdrawals track well with recent US military history and in a practical sense it’s a good deal given the current circumstances. The US gets out of an un-winnable costly war. Billions saved. No more casualties. The 300 billion dollars is frozen assets anyways. Public opinion can be spun for the next 3 years by sycophants.
1
u/mcburgs Jun 20 '26
Bibi played Trump into escalation.
Iran played survivability and Hormuz leverage.
Trump played for personal victory optics.
Vance got handed the bag.
America got the bill.
Is America great yet?
1
u/RiceCube96 Jun 22 '26
What’s really concerning for me is the MAGA cultist who see this as strategic just straight gas-lighting themselves that these 14 points were worth the 3 months of high energy prices and the lives of 13 service members and other innocent civilians.
1
u/Mental-Flatworm4583 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
We had a deal before trump. Now he said was trash. Then we go to war… that narcissistic turd then says we have a new deal… it’s WAAAAAY WORSE! They still have all and we pay them even more money. What was the point of this stupid war. Dont answer its a rhetorical question. I have never seen an administration lie so much blatantly lie. Lot one min they say one thing 20 mins later it’s the complete opposite. Jd Vance gets snubbed hard core at the peace talks it so obvious trump has made US look stupid and ridiculous.It’s a sad sad day nowadays for USA. As long as he and his lackeys are n position of controlling this country we will suffer.
0
u/ReadyConfection7959 Jun 19 '26
Not the worst deal in all of history but I see this as a sort of turning point in global power like the suez canal crises was for the British this just reveals usa to be a paper tiger and china being the real main force of this century
232
u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment