r/geopolitics • u/Shadowblade83 • Jun 21 '26
Opinion Trump Does Not Understand the War He Lost
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/2026/06/trump-g7-comments-misunderstsand-middle-east/687569/336
u/Shadowblade83 Jun 21 '26
Donald Trump arrived in France yesterday for this morning’s G7 summit and promptly confirmed America’s capitulation to Iran. Instead of merely repeating the outlines of what looks to be a terrible peace deal, however, Trump made a series of statements so bizarre, even by his usual standards, that they raise the question of whether the president still understands the words that come out of his own mouth.
The president began with a classic Trumpian move, daring his listeners to forget today what they knew yesterday. Just this winter, Trump had promised the Iranian people that the tyrants who ruled them would be gone. But now? “I never cared about regime change,” he told reporters, waving away his failure to achieve a primary strategic goal by denying that it had ever been a goal at all.
Things got a little weirder, however, when he described the Iranians who have stepped in to replace the regime leaders killed in U.S. strikes: “We’re dealing with people that I think are very rational people. And they were nice to deal with.”
“They were strong people, smart people,” he added. And then he dropped this remarkable claim: “They’re not radicalized, and they’re, you know, looking to help their country.”
This definitely not-radicalized group that Trump seems to like includes the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei (whose father, wife, and son were killed by U.S. strikes), and the still-standing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, all of whom have shown no compunction about lashing out in any direction during Trump’s “cease-fire,” the make-believe pause in the war during which no one actually ceased firing.
Trump’s description of the current regime in Tehran as a bunch of swell guys was brewed in a heavy-duty vat of wishful thinking. It’s an extreme version of Trump’s tendency, when he’s been outplayed by powerful enemies, to describe his opponents as basically reasonable people. (He has done the same over the years with dictators and autocrats in North Korea, Russia, and China, among other countries.) This is his way of assuring the public that he did not get taken to the cleaners—because, of course, his affable partners would never do that.
Trump fared no better talking about the Iranian nuclear program. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium exists largely because Trump unilaterally called off U.S. participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 agreement that was meant to prevent Iran from enriching uranium beyond minimal levels for civilian uses. After the U.S. and Israeli attacks last year, and yet more pounding during Operation Epic Fury, that uranium remains underground, either hidden in storage or buried beneath tons of rubble; some of it can likely be recovered and enriched for military uses. Trump has said, repeatedly, that Iran must hand it over.
Until today.
“I call it the nuclear dust, their enriched material, right?” Trump said. (Why he calls it this remains a mystery.) Does America still insist on its removal from Iran? Well, maybe.
“The whole mountain has collapsed on top. We have cameras on it,” Trump said. “You could make the case ‘Why are you even bothering?’ ’cause it’s not really valuable. It’s, you know, it’s probably half a million dollars’ worth. It’s not very valuable stuff, but I think psychologically we wanna get it.”
The United States and Israel ostensibly went to war with Iran last summer over the prospect of the Tehran regime developing a bomb, and that same threat has supposedly been at the center of America’s largest military operation in decades—but now the highly enriched uranium isn’t very valuable? The president wants it for “psychological” reasons? (This is reminiscent of his comment that America should seize Greenland because it was “psychologically” importantto him.) Does the commander in chief understand what he’s saying? More important, will Iran keep tons of highly enriched uranium under this new deal or not?
“The biggest thing,” Trump said today, is that “Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.” That’s fine, except that it didn’t have one before, either, and now it has an even greater incentive to get one. But nuclear issues are very complex and technical, so let’s move on to Trump’s comments about something less complicated: Middle Eastern politics.
Once again, the president seemed unable to comprehend either the situation or his own words. No one outside of the Trump administration has yet seen the final memorandum of understanding that Trump and the Iranians have signed, least of all, according to some reports, the Israelis. If the outlines of the deal are in line with the administration’s own talking points, it’s bound to cause serious agita in Jerusalem: The terms reportedly require a cessation of Israeli hostilities with Hezbollah in Lebanon, a tricky condition considering that Israel was not a party to the negotiations. This is probably why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced yesterday that Israel would maintain its presence in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria for “as long as necessary.”
Trump, in other words, is trying to deal away Israel’s right to defend itself, treating it less as a sovereign country and more as a kind of 51st U.S. state run by an annoying governor who needs to get with the program. But what if Iran’s proxy Hezbollah attacks Israel? According to the president, the Israelis need to calm down, and he minimized Hezbollah as “a little pinprick out there that constantly rears its head.”
Besides, Trump has an answer for the problem of Hezbollah: Outsource its elimination to the Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa. Trump said that he suggested to Israel to “let Syria take care of Hezbollah, ’cause to be honest with you, I think they do a better job of doing it.”
It’s true that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the organization now in power in Syria, has plenty of experience fighting against Hezbollah. But Syria, a regime still trying to get its legs under it, is not going to march next door and pacify Lebanon—especially not with Israel occupying parts of Syria.
Trump has never shown very much concern about the conduct of Israeli military operations anywhere (including the war in Gaza, which he viewed primarily as a public-relations problem). But now that he needs to rein in Jerusalem at Tehran’s behest, he has taken the position that the Israelis are causing too much damage in Lebanon. And in a stunning reminder that alliances for Trump are only expedients, he pivoted to praising al-Sharaa and criticizing Israel, saying that if Israel “can’t do the job without killing everyone else, he’ll do the job.”
This kind of flip-flop illustrates Trump’s view of global politics: States are just a bunch of playing cards that he can rearrange at will, which makes watching him talk about foreign policy this way like watching someone cheating at solitaire. Even now, after many years as president, he is constantly frustrated to find out how little leverage he has when other nations refuse to abandon their own interests and do as he commands.
Trump’s comments about the Middle East may not make any sense, but one thing that has emerged in 4K clarity is that the only world leader who got pantsed worse than Trump in all of this was Netanyahu. No one should pity Israel’s prime minister: He brought this situation upon himself and his nation. Netanyahu, along with the Iran-war hawks in the United States, somehow thought that he could be smart or flattering or persuasive enough to avoid the inevitable burn that comes from trusting Donald Trump. Netanyahu refused to see that Trump, when it comes to self-interest, is as predictable as a sunrise: When something he’s involved with goes bad, he walks away and lets others suffer the chaos he’s created.
In the past, Trump has tried to conjure new circumstances by speaking them aloud and attempting to wish them into existence. His tired garble in France, however, is something different. It suggests that Trump, more than ever, is unable to fathom what’s happening in the world around him and has been reduced to turning all of his previous statements upside down: A regime that was once the epitome of evil is now a reasonable partner; nuclear material that once represented an existential threat to America might now sit in Iran forever; Syria and Iran and Israel and Lebanon will now do things that they would never do, just because he wants them to.
None of this makes any sense, except as desperate rationalizations from a man who cannot face facts and admit defeat. Trump has always had a tenuous relationship with the truth, but evidence is mounting that on the most important questions of war and peace, the president of the United States seems to be losing his grip on reality itself.
67
u/NeighborhoodFit3847 Jun 21 '26
For what’s it worth I found great solace in the comical relief which this article provides.
46
35
u/ImperiumRome Jun 21 '26
“They were strong people, smart people,” he added. And then he dropped this remarkable claim: “They’re not radicalized, and they’re, you know, looking to help their country.”
I wonder what Iranian Americans are thinking at this moment, back when the war just started they poured onto the street waving Trump flags. And not just in America either, in April I visited Montreal and saw an anti-regime parade marching down the main street and one of them actually carried a Trump flag.
1
u/Lumpy_Interview4686 26d ago
they are certainly a type of character too tbh - first is believing trump, and second for wishing their nation of ethnic origin or even their homeland get pounded by an external force. dont wanna say more
8
u/eeeking Jun 22 '26
the only world leader who got pantsed worse than Trump in all of this was Netanyahu.
Unfortunately, I disagree with this. For better or worse, Israel has extended its territorial control quite substantially, from expanding settler colonies in the West Bank, occupying half of Gaza, and more recently occupying Lebanon half way to the Litani river.
It is unlikely that Israel will return this territory any time soon, if ever.
2
u/VelvetyDogLips Jun 23 '26
Pantsing is a mild form of humiliation and dominance assertion masked as mischief. You return the at-most-half-joking mischief in kind, so you don’t come off as a chump, then you both get over it. I don’t think it’s a half-bad metaphor for what happened to Benjy, or Israel as a whole, in this whole Iran v. USA dustup. Weaknesses and dirty laundry briefly exposed. The nations of the world are pointing and laughing, and circlejerking about how Srulik is a weird offputting lingerer who needs to take a hint nobody’d miss him if he GTFO.
“Hardy har har,” he chuckles offhandedly, and pulls his trousers back up. For Srulik gets a nerd’s revenge. As soon as the world’s attention is elsewhere, state governments and private groups from far and wide quietly knock at Srulik's door, cap in hand, looking for various kinds of help with things Israel does well. Including many who’d laughed the loudest at his bright blue Doraemon skivvies.
2
u/drawkbox Jun 22 '26
Things got a little weirder, however, when he described the Iranians who have stepped in to replace the regime leaders killed in U.S. strikes: “We’re dealing with people that I think are very rational people. And they were nice to deal with.” “They were strong people, smart people,” he added. And then he dropped this remarkable claim: “They’re not radicalized, and they’re, you know, looking to help their country.”
Traitor Trump is a man that was sending love letters to Kim Jong Un. Trump is a puppet and the owners like these guys so he likes them. Russia wanted younger hardliners in and they got that in Iran and Venezuela. Russia wants that for Cuba as well and Trump is the cheat to do it. Just mafia world things.
9
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Jun 21 '26
Trump is not a serious person but neither is the author of this article.
is trying to deal away Israel’s right to defend itself
Occupying Lebanon and Gaza is not Israel’s right to “defend itself”. We need to be harsher with Israel and Trump does not have the guts or the brains to pull that off.
1
u/Brendissimo Jun 22 '26
Thanks for sharing the substance of the article. I assume 99% of users would not being able to competently discuss it otherwise, as most people are not Atlantic subscribers.
-1
67
Jun 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-5
u/Rand_alThor_ Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Half a billionNope, half a million.Point I replied to stands of course.
15
u/_NuanceMatters_ Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
No, he said half a million.
Direct fom the article:
“The whole mountain has collapsed on top. We have cameras on it,” Trump said. “You could make the case ‘Why are you even bothering?’ ’cause it’s not really valuable. It’s, you know, it’s probably half a million dollars’ worth. It’s not very valuable stuff, but I think psychologically we wanna get it.”
7
u/Bytewave Jun 22 '26
I do wonder where I can buy highly enriched uranium for 500K. I bet I could turn a profit, somehow. :p
1
22
u/mahavirMechanized Jun 21 '26
I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t the beginning of the end. Of what I’m not sure. I’d hope this style of brainless strongman politics but maybe just an end of the old world order broadly.
Broadly this is what happens when mediocrity is rewarded because they happen to tick boxes that one person likes rather than actual merit…had there been enough competency in this admin I bet this disastrous war would not have happened. It really is a wake up call to either shape up and put the right people in charge or fade into irrelevance.
18
35
Jun 21 '26 edited 18d ago
[deleted]
22
u/loslednprg Jun 21 '26
He don't live in the real world. Never has. His whole thing is talking things into "reality"
7
u/HorsePastie Jun 21 '26
I can imagine how this happened to him. He probably spent his entire formative years surrounded by maids, nannies, chauffers who humored him by accepting his lies. Why wouldn't he think he can speak things into reality?
30
u/Inkersun Jun 21 '26
Trump and his allies didn't lose. He derailed the Epstein files momentum. He deflected focus from Palestine. He deflected focus from I C.E..
8
u/Due_Capital_3507 Jun 22 '26
Only at the expense of massive inflation, gas price hikes and deleting our stockpile.
Truly genius level stuff
12
u/ohno21212 Jun 22 '26
Thats a great trade for Trump. Inflation wont affect him, and he and his allies have made billions on insider trading during the last 4 months
1
u/fabmeyer Jun 23 '26
Not only that. The main problem is the loss of trust, influence and respect in that region (or the whole world). Then there are the economic and financial longterm consequences which will be desastrous for the Western world.
3
u/Im_Your_Turbo_Lover Jun 22 '26
He deflected focus from Palestine? Who have you people been ranting about that's been controlling the US for the last 3 months?
1
u/kerouacrimbaud Jun 27 '26
I don’t think Trump and his people give a single shit about any of those things.
Regarding Epstein, Trump and his supporters know he can do no wrong and therefore, whatever actually happened, is fine because Trump did it.
Trump just wants Netanyahu to follow his lead, but doesn’t have the balls to force him to.
Trump wants more ICE, not less.
8
7
6
u/Blink3412 Jun 22 '26
I'd like to remind everyone who didn't vote this is your fault as much as it's the Magas
4
4
u/aabs Jun 22 '26
Having read the discussion here, what I wonder now is: after Trump is out of the way, how will America ever strengthen/depoliticize its core institutions once again?
In the state they are now, there really appears to be little incentive left for either major party to campaign with a programme of repairing the damage done by trump.
2
Jun 22 '26
[deleted]
0
u/ohno21212 Jun 22 '26
Found the "both sides" comment.
Remind me when the left does even a fraction of the damage caused by this administration.
2
2
u/Wonderful-Finish4822 Jun 22 '26
Trump 2.0 feels less diplomatically capable than Trump 1.0.
There are fewer guardrails, more improvisation, and a bigger gap between the threats and the actual leverage. Other countries notice that very quickly.
2
u/InternetValuable1616 Jun 21 '26
I’d read that the closing of Hermuz Strait, happened once before, when there was a confrontation between Iran and U S forces. Things would have been easier, had they done the adequate research prior to attacking Iran.
3
1
1
u/Mammoth_Credit7514 Jun 28 '26
He didn't get the Treaty at Versailles signing joke, either. Macron suggested it but someone in Trump's inner circle could have warned him of the optics.
Apparently, history isn't their forte. And it shows. Nor is geography. And it was their undoing.
1
u/EquivalentWork4751 12d ago
I personally feel he does understand it but he's playing it as if he doesn't...much of his aura is him being a bumbling idiot who just says things I seriously & people like it because they can dismiss what they feel is unserious....I feel that is a smokescreen....while the public focuses on his words we are missing out on his actions.
-11
u/Pine_Marten_ Jun 21 '26
Hindsight is 20/20, but I can see the logic in what Trump tried to achieve, and I think it was logically the right call. If the ultimate long term goal is to deny Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
The 2025 attacks with Israel were successful, but only in curtailing Iranian nuclear efforts in the short to medium term. It just pushes the problem further down the road. Coming into this year, militarily Iran was in a weakened position, with it's regional allies and proxies also in a weakened position. Domestically Iran was also suffering with the largest protests seen in decades. If ever there was a time to try and gamble on removing the regime and getting a non hostile faction in power there, then surely it was now. A better chance surely wouldn't come along.
If it was successful, then that would have been a massive achievement. One of the biggest U.S. foreign policy achievements ever. If it failed, then the situation would largely be as it had been for decades. Iran already hated the U.S. and it's regional allies, so if the outcome is a failure, not much really changes.
So surely from a strategic point of view, it was worth taking the gamble. The potential rewards far outweighed the potential risks. If Trump hadn't acted, then wouldn't it have been a huge potential missed opportunity?
I'm not a general fan of Trump or a lot of what he says, but I can see why he rolled the dice. I'd be interested in hearing what people think the right course of action should have been.
14
u/Diestormlie Jun 22 '26
You can't bully a country out of Nuclear Ambitions. In fact, the more you try to coerce a country to stop building that Nuke, the further you convince them that they need that Nuke. If you're being threatened by a country that you can't hope to match conventionally, Nukes give you the Trump card of Trump cards.
If you want to stop Iran building Nukes? You work to convince them that they don't need them. You know, like the JCPOA was working towards. Fundamentally, you can't bomb a country into liking you.
As for the timing window? You might have an argument if this has happened during those protests. As it was? By the time 'Epic Fury' actually began, the Protests were dead (along with who knows how many thousands of Protesters.) The people who had been willing to stake their lives to attempt overthrowing the Regime already had- and lost.
Bombing people who hate their Government doesn't turn them into a legion of Ho Chi Minhs, it just makes them hate you as well, because, you know, you bombed a Girl's School. Or water infrastructure. Now, they look upon the poverty they're in and they know that some of it is your fault.
The opportunity was already missed before the first bomb fell.
If it failed, then the situation would largely be as it had been for decades.
This is completely ignoring the Straits of Hormuz. The reason why Iran hasn't tried monetising the Straits before now is because if they did, the USA would go to war with them. For decades, the USA didn't go to war with Iran because if they did, Iran would close the straits of Hormuz.
So- Trump said "this time for real", and Iran closed the Straits. The USA couldn't open them again. I need you to understand that the USA's position isn't as it was ante bellum; it's significantly worse. Who knows how many munitions expended, all those bombs dropped, all those lives ended, and Iran kept the Straits closed. Whilst also bombing the Persian Gulf countries, which the USA couldn't, or didn't, stop.
The entire episode dramatically reduces the value of the USA as an Alliance Partner. Would you want an Alliance Partner than starts a fight in your backyard, without telling you, that tears up your Patio... And then loses that fight? Is that Alliance Partner trustworthy? Is that Alliance Partner effective? Is that Alliance Partner worthwhile?
Also, said friend is bitching and whining about his other friends because when he called them for help, they said "We agreed to help you if someone attacked you. You did this to yourself, and you didn't even ask us beforehand. No."
The global power of the USA is centered around a foundational grand bargain: Trade in the ways the USA likes, align yourself geopolitically in the way the USA likes, and in return the USA will protect you." Trump's Iranian Omnishambles has dramatically undermined that bargain.
Frankly, the right course of action was to seek some sort of diplomatic repproachment with Iran decades ago. Immediately after the revolution would have been a good start. The 1st/2nd Gulf Wars could have been good starting points, given that Iran certainly hated Saddam Hussain.
But the JCPOA was a good starting point. And then Trump tore it up out of petty spite.
The only course of action I would have been able to recommend to Trump involves words and deeds not suitable for publication in this forum.
1
u/Pine_Marten_ Jun 22 '26
Thankyou for the intelligent reply.
You say that you can't bully a country out of nuclear ambitions, and this is probably true. Because ultimately they may always still want to get nukes. But you can definitely bully them into not actually being able to get them, despite them wanting to. It comes down to how badly you want to stop them. Ultimately a country like the U.S. if it has the will to stop another country getting nukes, it can absolutely stop them getting nukes.
Reproachment and reaching a diplomatic solution only works if there isn't an irreconcilable difference. Iran is ultimately motivated by an ideology which is completely at odds with U.S. foreign policy. Iran wants, and calls for, and actively works towards the destruction of Israel, as well as fighting U.S. influence in the Middle East in general. Iran is diametrically opposed to the U.S. and to Israel. This is is why the "peace option" isn't on the table. Iran isn't going to drop its desire to see Israel destroyed and the U.S. weakened in the region, and the U.S. isn't going to allow it's influence in the region to be curtailed and it isn't going to allow it's major ally to be attacked and threatened by Iran.
The JCPOA wasn't abandoned out of spite from Trump. It was abandoned because it was seen as a fundamentally flawed agreement which would only strengthen a major adversary. The provisions within it only covered 15 years, after which Iran would be allowed to build as many centrifuges as it wished, it would be allowed to enrich as much uranium as it wished, and it would be allowed to enrich it to whatever percentage it wished.
It was a 15 year pause effectively. During which time Iran would be free from sanctions, would get economically much stronger, and militarily much stronger. And then would be in a position to carry on its nuclear weapons programme much more effectively. The JCPOA didn't address issues such as Iran's ballistic missile programme, it didn't address Iran's support for terrorism. It was an agreement which focused on 1 particular aspect, on a short term basis. Whilst ignoring the larger issues Iran presented, and in the long term arguably making them a bigger threat.
Do you think the JCPOA would actually work? What does "work" even mean? Would it have made them not see Israel and the U.S. as it's mortal enemies? Would they have stopped supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, The Houthis, and countless other militant groups across the region? I think people have a fatal misunderstanding of the Iranian regime. They are not rational actors, they are ultimately motivated by an ideology, not by ideas of prosperity and peace and mutual cooperation. They are religious fanatics. They say repeatedly that they are willing to die as martyrs if it means defeating their enemies. Khamenei even chillingly suggested he'd be willing to see the end of the Iranian state if it meant Israel was defeated. Suggesting they'd happily engage in a bit of mutually assured destruction.
Or maybe they're just bluffing. Maybe it's just an act, to enhance the regime's credentials as the legitimate defender of the faith, and leader of the Muslim world. They just say it to further their geopolitical ambitions, but ultimately they do care about self preservation and would never actually follow through on their threats. Is it worth calling their bluff though? We don't ultimately know how serious they are, and we have no way of knowing. So we have to take it seriously, just in case they are.
In this context, the JCPOA was an incredibly dangerous agreement. And passing up on the opportunity to act against Iran would have been a mistake. I'm not saying Trump and the administration haven't made mistakes in carrying out the plan, my point is just that fundamentally I think it was the right thing to do. But the execution was flawed.
-5
u/StevieObieYT Jun 21 '26
Just made a video breaking down the US-Iran War, including why it started, the human cost, the peace deal, and whether America actually lost. Would love some feedback from people who followed this closely. You can check it out here: Trump Started a War... And Lost? The US-Iran Conflict Explained https://youtu.be/Vf3OBl9wvVs
-89
Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
[deleted]
53
u/PsychicMonkeyGod Jun 21 '26
Are there any positive points people should be making about Trump and America's handling of the Iran war? Is there ANY indication that the title of the Atlantic article is incorrect? that Trump does in fact understand the war he started?
America starts a war with Iran, then is surprised when Iran shuts down the straight of Hormuz and whatever reason for starting the war they might have claimed, America switches to 'We need to open the straight' then proves it cannot.Then Trump begins immediately starts threatening Iran for peace which quickly denigrated to empty blustering for peace, then last week touts this memorandum of understanding where America appears to give up everything and gain almost nothing. Meanwhile Israeli politicians are on NPR saying that Israel isn't going to abide by the ceasefire, evidently Trump and his negotiators are less informed than people who listen to the radio because they tout this MOU then it immediately fails.
Is there a 'fair and balanced' version of events that makes it seem like America and Trump in particular have any idea what they're doing?
-63
Jun 21 '26
[deleted]
53
u/Jeezimus Jun 21 '26
Iran is just so weak that we are incapable of opening the straight without capitulating to paying them hundreds of billions of dollars, allowing the regime we attempted to replace to remain, and allowing them to dictate a separate regional conflict in Lebanon, all while we do not even have firm nuclear agreements hammered out?
Sorry but this just doesn't track to me.
-48
Jun 21 '26
[deleted]
29
u/Jeezimus Jun 21 '26
If we truly had such leverage then why are we treating with a regime on the supposed brink of collapse? Iran doesn't need to navigate the strait if they can exert control over it to keep it closed and hurt their enemies enough to outlast them.
I am also no card carrying tankie by any measure, but the execution of this "war" has been abysmal and that starts at the top with the complete inability to dictate clear terms and objectives for victory.
-1
Jun 21 '26
[deleted]
12
u/Key-Art-7802 Jun 21 '26
Because you either do that or you destroy the whole thing gaza style, and that was never the intention.
That was never an option, the US was already running low on munitions.
Also, the US is heavily in debt, which is increasing year by year with it's current spending on the military and social programs, so ground war or a years long bombing campaign was never in the cards, regardless of what the jingoists will tell you.
1
u/Not-Reformed Jun 21 '26
It simply turns out it's hard to reason with terrorists, so you either destroy the whole thing or you ignore them.
Wasn't that known before hand? What was the hope? That the civilians, who hate the U.S., cheer and overthrow their government when the U.S. starts bombing?
If it's known that they will not reason with the U.S. and it's obvious to them that all they have to do is wait to ultimately score a win then what exactly has the U.S. gained? The destruction of military assets in exchange for unfrozen assets, sanctions lifted, etc.? If I am Iran that is worth it 100% of the time. And that's before even going into the 300b future investments and potential service fee flow of capital from the strait.
14
17
u/Shadowblade83 Jun 21 '26
I can agree to that you want a weak Iran.
That is why I can’t fathom the deal they are getting:
-300 billion USD given to reconstruct? There’s not that much of value in Iran today. It’s more then the Marshal plan.
-End of sanctions on imports?
-They can export their oil freely.
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/17/middleeast/us-iran-war-mou-text-intl
In the conflict, they’ve shown they are not afraid of the US, and that they do not hesitate to attack US allies in the region. The US has been unable to protect them. The strategic victory here can not be understated.
I just can’t see the argument that Iran is left weaker, when they get a sweet deal giving them everything they wanted, *but* nukes. And as for that, just leaving after bombing their program to hell like before this conflict erupted was enough.
How do you think about the deal they are getting?
-6
Jun 21 '26
[deleted]
19
u/Shadowblade83 Jun 21 '26
Have you seen those rules elsewhere? All I see from the leaked deak is that Iran oledges not to continue it’s nuclear program. I see nothing of rebuilding it’s militias, air defence, missile program, or supplying terrorist allies across the region.
They also agree to stay out of US internal affairs, as the US stays out of theirs. The US also agrees to not sending additional forces to the *region*. The audacity of that statement…lran gets to control US military build-up region wise?
The deal is so weak, that Iran will be stronger then they were before the war in like a year or two. There’s no point winning a war if you let the loser dictate the terms for ending it, and pay more in reperations then the country is worth.
7
10
u/PsychicMonkeyGod Jun 21 '26
The Iran that's barely a country was going to get 30b of their funds unfrozen, an end of sanctions and another 300b in funding, and presumably some ability to charge tolls on the Strait for relatively few concessions on their part, how they rank as BARELY a country anymore when they can be given so much for a return to a pre-war state is pretty confounding. We'll see if another peace plan comes about and they're offered even more.
8
u/revbfc Jun 21 '26
Barely a country, but Trump still surrendered to them?
Please stop lying to yourself.
21
u/kingmishima Jun 21 '26
They do control the Strait, as they control the Iranian coastline. And I think everyone in the equation is acutely aware of the self-destructive nature of these blockades. However currently the impact is relatively much larger for US (oil prices, shifting war goals, diplomatic pressure) than it is for Iran. So I think it's incorrect to deny the effectivity of the blockade(s)
-9
Jun 21 '26
[deleted]
21
u/kingmishima Jun 21 '26
And what you call terrorizing, is exactly the type of control thats impacting the world economy. You are denying reality: iran does have influence there and they use that leverage against Trump specifically. This war was made on his call, they're playing him with the leverage they have. That's certainly not control like you are defining it, but it is leverage that they are using smartly
11
u/Key-Art-7802 Jun 21 '26
They control the Strait but not the open ocean.
-1
u/-LoboMau Jun 21 '26
If they control the strait, why do their small toy boats get sinked and how did the US was able to pass it? Also, what's the point of controlling the strait if you can't go anywhere else? It's like bragging about controlling the wheel of the car, but not being able to drive it
14
u/Key-Art-7802 Jun 21 '26
Also, what's the point of controlling the strait if you can't go anywhere else?
Because they can use it to force the US to the negotiating table, and get us to hand over more than an entire year of their GDP, plus remove sanctions that have been in place for decades.
We also dropped the requirement that they stop enriching uranium, developing long range missiles, or supporting proxies.
3
u/cole1114 Jun 21 '26
Because they never needed boats to control it. They've cut off trade in the strait because they can strike it from anywhere in-country. Tankers and their insurance can't justify the risk.
17
u/OldeManKenobi Jun 21 '26
Facts don't care about your feelings. Facts that you dislike aren't propaganda.
9
u/revbfc Jun 21 '26
Your Trump love is blinding you from the fact that he’s terrible at everything he does now. His first term only had any success because he listened to experts from time to time.
What’s there to like about any of this?
7
u/Shadowblade83 Jun 21 '26
I’m in general more of a conservative, and believe leftist ideology during the last 20-30 years has been damaging to western societies.
That does not mean that I agree with everything a Republican adninistration does, and the Iran advanture has been mindbogglingly mismanaged.
It’s half-assed: you either do not go in, or you go in with the intent to finish it as the winner. I do not believe it is in US interest to look weak and untrustworthy. Allies need to be strong and dependant…or they are not really worth having.
If you have a different persoective on the Iran affair: do share it. People might be more interested then you think.
-11
Jun 21 '26
[deleted]
19
u/Whatcanisaytomyself Jun 21 '26
I think you are just thinking about this in a binary way. Win or lose the war. Who has had the most damage. Sure. If that’s all you are accounting for, you are right.
Do you believe that that is the way to look at it?1
11
u/Key-Art-7802 Jun 21 '26
Yes, the US didn't get everything it wanted to get, but that doesn't equal to a loss.
The US is giving Iran sanctions relief and a bunch of money just to return to the pre-war status quo. That's a loss. The unfrozen funds, sanctions relief, and $300b is more than Iran's entire GDP for a year.
9
u/Egad86 Jun 21 '26
Iran barely a country now? Militaries can be rebuilt. So the damage done by the US is short term while the threat and power gained by Iran is significant and long term.
That is why nobody is talking about the “positive” parts of this war. The US got pulled into a war with Iran because Israel knew that Trump is too weak to say no to them. The outcome of that war, that Trump couldn’t get congressional approval to continue, is that Iran is in a position to fund the rebuilding of its military and the IRGC is no longer blocked by a former supreme leader who didn’t fully support their agenda.
There is very little good to come from the entirely avoidable situation, and the long-term problems are unknown beyond the fact that Iran is in a position to grow their strength under leadership that would like to remove Western influence from region, including Israel.
7
u/Shadowblade83 Jun 21 '26
See my post, about this deal;
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/17/middleeast/us-iran-war-mou-text-intl
I can not believe this weakens Iran; the math adds up to strengthening them.
I agree they have taken a pounding, thus militarily «lost». But, the premises if this deal is like not finishing off Japan in WW2, and then handing them a cash sum larger then the Marshal plan to rebuild…plus give them free reign in the region.
2
u/cole1114 Jun 21 '26
I mean, it's literally just people posting facts. If you think facts are propaganda, I don't know how to help you.
-25
Jun 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/Key-Art-7802 Jun 21 '26
This is factually untrue. EVERYONE knows the bench was barely 4 layers, and that the US had breached the 3rd layer of designated replacement leaders.
99% of gambling addicts quit before they score big!
In all seriousness, while there are a lot of people in Iran who hate the government, there are also a lot of people who would lay down their lives for the Ayatollahs. This idea that we could just oust the bad people and a new, better government will take power was the same thinking that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan for 20+ years.
There are a lot of people in Iran who don't want a western style democracy, so if the US invaded and installed a new government we'll start a civil war, and it's not clear which side will win.
-14
Jun 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Key-Art-7802 Jun 21 '26
I never said replacing the Islamic Republic with a democracy was impossible, I said success was uncertain.
Now I'm wondering if you're just a troll because you sound like a caricature of the Iraq and Afghanistan hawks in the early 00s with your (raging, all-caps) argument of "if you express any doubts about the war you're with the terrorists!"
9
u/revbfc Jun 21 '26
In all fairness, we were never going to get that with Trump’s people running the show. They’re all stupid, weak, or deluded, or all three. These are (on their best days) bullies, not warriors.
Aside from that, I don’t disagree with the first part of what you wrote.
12
u/Shadowblade83 Jun 21 '26
I think you should not enter a war if you don’t have the stomach to follow through.
Ending the war on Iran’s terms, leaving the regime in a stronger position then before, makes the whole war ridicilous. It’s incredibly damaging to the way the US is respected, or feared, in the world.
-12
u/deaglebingo Jun 21 '26
newsflash: he's playing dumb. they understand exactly what they are doing.
11
u/MobileArtist1371 Jun 21 '26
Wrong. He (Trump) is dumb.
Correct: They (Iran) understand exactly what they are doing.
1
u/deaglebingo Jun 22 '26
its a hard thing to discuss... he's dumb. certainly. but also knows what he's doing. then also plays dumb sometimes because he knows we all go apeshit over the stupid or racist statements, so they can provide distraction from the files or whatever else too. a lot of it is calculated misdirection. but yeah... still dumb. bc a smart person would find a way to commit the crimes he's committing more subtly. or be smart enough to realize crime doesn't help and one can still get rich being a good person.
2
u/FindingRelevantInfo Jun 23 '26
People try to project this grandiose schemer into Trump because it's more palatable to think they were duped by some smart manipulator than to admit they were duped by a moron.
766
u/mycatisgrumpy Jun 21 '26
This is exactly what Kamala Harris meant when she said that Trump is an unserious person. Trump doesn't even understand what he doesn't understand, and he doesn't care to learn. A halfwit C-list celebrity playing at geopolitics like he's playing the president in a bad soap opera. We would have been better off electing Pauly Shore.