4 ms·
Are the terms of the deal public yet? If they're essentially a return to the status quo ante bellum, that would be a pretty embarrassing conclusion for the US (
by woodruffw 4mo ago
Are the terms of the deal public yet? If they're essentially a return to the status quo ante bellum, that would be a pretty embarrassing conclusion for the US (and would presumably further harden any belief within Iran that the only permanent regime-preserving solution involves accelerating the process of obtaining nuclear weapons).
- jeffbee 4mo agoIt's much worse than that. This gives Iran de jure control of traffic in the strait.
- toomuchtodo 4mo ago“Art of the deal.” Thousands of deaths and tens to hundreds of billions of dollars borrowed and spent to be in a worse position than before this started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2026_Iran_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2026_Iran_wa... https://iran-cost-ticker.com/ https://iran-cost-ticker.com/
- petilon 4mo agoHow so? Trump Claims Strait Will be ‘Permanently Toll Free’ Under Agreement With Iran (NYT headline).
- woodruffw 4mo agoIf I understand 'jeffbee correctly, I think they mean that Iran now has practical evidence that it can gum up the strait and therefore extract political concessions from it, even if they don't literally result in tolling. (In other words, every barrel of oil that passes through the straight will now have an $X risk surcharge on it, whether or not that surcharge ends up in Iran's coffers.)
- sanid 4mo agoIranians have said they cannot charge a "toll" according to international law, but they can charge a "fee". Charging a fee for maintanance, environment or security is fine, so it will be just a different branding to the "toll". Personally I think they should charge an environmental fee with the amount of traffic going through there. https://www.dawn.com/news/2007544/cannot-impose-tolls-on-strait-of-hormuz-under-intl-law-but-service-fees-will-be-collected-iran-fm https://www.dawn.com/news/2007544/cannot-impose-tolls-on-str...
- bulbar 4mo agoThey will never charge such a fee, they will however charge a fee and name it "environmental fee".
- dofm 4mo agoThe persistent rumour about this deal process is that Iran will charge "environmental fees".
- jeffbee 4mo agoTrump also said he would refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "right to the top" in 6 weeks and, instead, emptied it to its lowest level ever. He also said foreign investment in the United States would rise to 22 trillion dollars, but instead total foreign investment weakened to below $300 billion in 2025. Oh, and he also said tariffs were cutting the deficit by 25%, while he instead managed the deficit to a slightly higher level, even before counting the Iran War.
- cosmicgadget 4mo agoIf NYT's source is his tweet[1], he "authorize[s] the toll free opening of the strait", not claiming Iran agreed to it. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/trumptweets/comments/1u5xpoe/061426_the_iran_deal_is_complete_and_definitely/ https://old.reddit.com/r/trumptweets/comments/1u5xpoe/061426...
- 8note 4mo agoiran has defacto control over traffic in the strait. what changes?
- dofm 4mo agoA toll booth. There have been persistent rumours that Iran will be allowed to charge new "environmental fees" for access, "to protect the ecosystem of the Strait" or somesuch. (Secretary of War and former Fox News weekend anchor Pete Hegseth was on the news just this evening saying that the USA has been in control of the Strait the whole time, so I think the USA is arguing against your (correct) characterisation of the situation.)
- tharmas 4mo ago>(Secretary of War and former Fox News weekend anchor Pete Hegseth was on the news just this evening saying that the USA has been in control of the Strait the whole time, so I think the USA is arguing against your (correct) characterisation of the situation.) Essentially, the USA has indeed been the one keeping the straight closed. They wanted oil going to China stopped. That was the reason the Navy was there.
- dools 4mo agoThe commencement, duration and conclusion are all embarrassing for the US because the entire country is run by b list right wing media bros
- beefmumbai 4mo ago[flagged]
- epolanski 4mo agoThe conclusion has long been embarassing unless we live under a rock. The US president has been played like a fool by the Israelis and Iran has inflicted a humiliating defeat to the US and its allies by leveraging cheap asymmetric warfare.
- woodruffw 4mo agoI think this war's first phase was clearly in Israel's favor, insofar as Israel's strategic goal is neutralizing Iran as a peer adversary. But the latter phases have not really gone how they (= Netanyahu) want/s; the ideal end state for Israel is an enormous civilian infrastructure cost to Iran that would subtract from military budgeting, but that isn't what the deal suggests. (Intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure is, of course, a war crime.)
- netsharc 4mo agoIsrael seems to have also lost out because any further war crimes they commit will get Trump angry, he's desperate to keep Iran from returning fire and further wrecking his midterms. But heck, if I were Iran I'd be wary after November. With Russia-style election rigging and spineless congress, Trump-Hegseth might resume the war crimes...
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- benterix 4mo ago> the US and its allies Which allies?
- epolanski 4mo agoThose in the middle east.
- compass_copium 4mo agoFrom Al Jazeera: >According to remarks carried by the Tasnim news agency, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said negotiations for a final deal will be held during a 60-day period, after verifying that the US implemented its commitments under the deal, including ending hostilities, lifting the blockade, and releasing frozen assets. So, it's an even worse position for the US than before launching the war.
- theturtletalks 4mo agoDidn’t Iran consider their previous US negotiations a sham? Why would they believe them this time? Feels like the US wants to approach them with these deals, reneg, and once Iran is like we don’t want anymore deals, then the US can point to them and be like, see they don’t want peace.
- recroad 4mo agoIran was fully abiding by the JCPOA (Obama Iran deal) until Trump pulled out in his first term. Trump hates Obama so that was entirely out of spite. What is surprising is how co-opted the Biden admin was by Israel, that they didn't even bother to even consider reentering it despite it being a Democratic party "win" when it was first announced.
- mupuff1234 4mo agoExcept Biden did try to restart the talks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations_during_the_Biden_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...
- alphabeta3r56 4mo agoWhy would Iran take that at that point? There's no trust.
- 4mo ago
- thrwaway55 4mo agoThere is no way Iran didn't gain on this, US would be lucky to hit status quo. The clown in chief is a moron and they know it and will exploit it.
- beefmumbai 4mo ago[flagged]
- thrwaway55 4mo agoButtery Males...I'm heard excuses for this guy for the epsteinth time that I struggle to think of anyone worse
- appplication 4mo agoI think if we’re honest, the most likely outcome under Kamela would be that the US would not have attacked Iran, so there would be nothing to negotiate. It’s possible Israel may have done so anyway without US support.
- Amezarak 4mo agoIran had already passed the IAEA red-line of enriching uranium to 60%. They had already accomplished virtually all the hard parts of building a bomb. https://fordow.net/blog/posts/enriched-uranium-proliferation-concern https://fordow.net/blog/posts/enriched-uranium-proliferation... Is a good explainer about uranium enrichment. > The most alarming aspect of 60% enrichment is how close it brings a country to weapons-grade material 4344. The enrichment work required to move from 60% to 90% is substantially less than the work needed to reach 60% from natural uranium 4546. This means a country with 60% enriched uranium stockpiles could potentially produce weapons-grade material in a matter of weeks or even days.
- recroad 4mo agoYou left out the part that they went past the 3.5% after Trump pulled out of the deal. While they were in it, they were complying fully as per IAEA and the US State department themselves.
- Amezarak 4mo agoI didn't leave out anything. I was making a factual statement that the Iranian nuclear program had already been "accelerated" to a point where objectively, with the engineering expertise they doubtlessly have, they could have potentially built a bomb within weeks or months, as the most difficult and time-consuming part was already done, which is why nonproliferation proponents get so upset about that level of enrichment. Whether this is Trump's or Biden's or Joe Rogan's or a space alien's fault is for other commenters to discuss. I do not find the politics interesting. Nuclear science is interesting.
- throaway23663 4mo ago[flagged]
- hnbad 4mo agoThis would be a lot more concerning if it wasn't widely known that Israel also illegally holds nuclear weapons of its own and therefore should have been sanctioned by the US for decades. Not having nukes is how Iran got here in the first place - the POTUS unilaterally withdrawing from their agreement and bombing them in the middle of negotiations. For all the portrayals of the Iranian government as "lunatics" over the years, getting to nuclear ASAP is the only logical move for a country in Iran's position - just look at how the US went back on its sabre rattling against North Korea once they demonstrated nuclear capabilities. You don't have to think the Iranian government is in any way "good" but there's literally no logical reason for them not to desperately try to get their hands on nuclear weapons at this point. They have no reason to trust the West to ever follow through on any promises again.
- gyanchawdhary 4mo ago[flagged]
- cosmicgadget 4mo agoMaybe in the post-Putin power vacuum they'll have another option.
- foogazi 4mo agoWhy is Iran getting any money out of this ? How do they still have any cards ?
- dofm 4mo agoThey have had cards since they demonstrated, in mid March, that they would blockade the Strait, could destroy the Kuwaiti oil economy with very cheap drones, and were prepared to do the same to more US allies. The USA functionally lost this war on the 20th of March when the threat to Kuwait was demonstrated. Everything that has happened since was just delaying the inevitable. It was a mistake.
- bulbar 4mo agoTo the contrary, the war has proven to Iran how critical their nuclear program is to the regime's, and maybe Iran's, survival. US wouldn't go into such a war against Russia, because of their nuclear program. They wouldn't have attacked Iran if they already had a standing nuclear program with strategic nuclear weaponary. What are their options now? Strategically focus on rebuilding their defense capabilities with most likely the same result in 10-25 years or strategically focus on nuclear weapons so that adversaries won't rage war against them like that again in 10-25 years?
- gyanchawdhary 4mo agoYou are theoretically right to assume this but practically this will never happen (i.e iran's nuclear ambitions) .. let me explain As Putin once quipped, "having the desire to do something is very different from having the ability to do something" .. Iran can desire as much as they like to "want" and "have" a nuclear program .. but the objective truth is that US just crushed the intellectual and philosophical source of this desire by eliminating their rolodex of ayatollahs ... whether you agree or not with this approach is a different matter but US has been successful in scrubbing the source of that desire so aggressively that the new hopefuls are simply exhausted to play the nuclear long game .. Now at a personal note, I live between Dubai and London (previously Hamburg) and all these places have a significant Iranian diaspore and not a single one of those people in my circle is against what the US did and is doing in Iran .. What hilarious though is that some HN folks have such vitriolic hate for Trump (based on the comments of the OP's post) that they'd rather see Iran have a nuclear capability than admitting that the defanging of Iran's nuclear program has been a good thing for the world ...
- dofm 4mo agoDepends who you ask, I think. It looks like it is more an MoU than a deal, and I think that allows Trump the cover to drip feed out how humiliating it is, because this isn't the kind of band-aid you rip off all at once. If I were a betting man I would bet that between now and Friday there will be too much news coverage of just how humiliating this is for the USA, how bad a deal it is, and how much of failure it is, and Trump himself will pull out of the deal. This has, allegedly, happened at least once. But Iran now seem to be a bit better schooled in how to actually get him to agree, so perhaps they will be persuaded to smile a shit-eating grin while he takes a victory lap, and simply keep the most humiliating details of it under wraps until he signs. How long it is before Trump claims to renegotiate it, who knows. Just the other day Trump said he might not renew USMCA — his own prior great achievement of loudly renegotiating NAFTA to be not significantly worse.
- no-name-here 4mo agoI can see the logic in what you’re saying, but Iran state media is reporting the deal includes “The US and its allies delivering reconstruction plans for Iran worth at least $300bn” (in addition to the $25B) but I don’t understand their use of the word “plan”? https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj0grpyg4v1t?post=asset%3A179344af-d486-4e3a-8416-2b02fb06d89f#post https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj0grpyg4v1t?post=asset%3A1793...
- dofm 4mo agoThat has been kicking around in the deal discussions since the end of May, yeah. Nothing much about this MoU seems to have really changed since then: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/emerging-us-iran-mou-said-to-reference-possible-300b-postwar-investment-fund-to-aid-tehrans-reconstruction/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/emerging-us-ira... https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/iran-could-receive-300-billion-173844967.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/iran-could-rece... Two diplomats briefed on the latest draft called it “an international ‘investment fund,’ which the United States would help facilitate in the event of a final deal,” and plans for which would be discussed during the initial 60-day negotiations period that the memorandum would kick off, the report says. It appears to concern the authorisation of a sort of Marshall Plan inward investment fund that may end up holding that sort of amount of cash that the US effectively agrees to facilitate and allow. But I guess a key thing is that it involves is the USA agreeing not to seize it. It would also implicitly allow businesses to do the reconstruction work without being sanctioned.