quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
It's an Agreement to agree to discuss the current Agreement further in the future.

It's worse than that because Iran's obligation to have those future discussions are conditioned on our removal of the blockade, granting sanction waivers so they can sell oil and beginning the unfreezing of Iranian assets.

Link to a source?

quote:

I do note the conspicuous absence of any vocal support of the deal from Marco Rubio. My guess is that he plans to run in 2028 and wants nothing to do with this deal other than to hang it around Vance's neck.

I'm looking forward to hearing why I'm wrong....

Overall, I'm not saying you're wrong.
But I don't think Marco Rubio has decided yet whether or not to run. He's keeping his powder dry and his options open.

The urgency was/is both political (mid-terms) and economic as crude supplies are dwindling fast, worldwide. Trump risked losing the progress made with all of the middle-east "partners" not named Iran. The Saudis are most important and Trump has a good relationship.


Who Stands To Benefit:

Tehran benefits most directly because it gets economic oxygen, oil waivers, frozen funds, sanctions relief language, and reduced US military pressure in the region.

Hezbollah and Iran-aligned actors also benefit if “all fronts, including Lebanon” locks in a ceasefire that constrains Israeli operations.

And, of course, the global economy because global shippers benefit if Hormuz reopens and war risk premiums in crude oil collapse.

The Gulf states benefit if the conflict ends because energy exports through the Strait of Hormuz will resume. A report on Tuesday said that QatarEnergy was planning to ramp up LNG production in the coming months.

Where is Leverage Lost:

The US loses some coercive leverage once the Hormuz blockade ends, oil waivers are granted, and asset-release mechanisms begin.

Israel loses freedom of action if the agreement binds the Lebanon front and limits further strikes.

Sanctions and hawks lose leverage because the draft moves quickly toward broad sanctions dismantlement.

The urgency behind the MoU and locking in peace talks for 60 days, with a formal signing event at the Bürgenstock resort in Switzerland on Friday, stems mainly from the world being headed for an energy cliff, as SPRs globally were being drained to offset the loss of Gulf production with the Hormuz chokepoint shuttered. Brent crude futures edged down overnight, trading around $79 a barrel on Wednesday morning.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geop...l-set-friday-signing

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
The text of the deal has been released....

Got a Link?

^^^ You can read it in the link I posted above.

Yell at me all you want it's a shit agreement (as reported), and I'll stand by that. It makes Obama's pallets look like chump change and is only enforceable for thirty days when we are forced to remove our military. No future president will be willing to burn the political capital Trump is when they decide to shit all over the most important provisions.

Weak.

Insult me, piss, moan, kick me off the forum. I'll still think it's a shit deal and I prefer destroying military assets and leadership until we get a better deal.

“After signing a memorandum of understanding with Iran on Sunday to wind down the war, Donald Trump claims the agreement is 'not final,' and the US may still bomb the Islamic Republic.

Speaking at the Group of Seven summit in France alongside Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, Trump told reporters that the MOU, which was signed by Trump and Vice President JD Vance, is not complete. 

'No, it's not final, it's a memorandum of understanding,' Trump said. 'If I don't like it, we will go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head.' …”

https://mol.im/a/15907309

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Iran: "All right. We'll call it a draw!"

I’m in the camp that has zero faith that Iran will ever keep its word on anything, nor will their proxies stop attacks on Israel as long as the IRGC retains power. The regime must be eradicated like the roaches they are. If the rest of the western world continues their perfidy of refusing to join the effort to remove power from the animals that are sponsors of terrorists across the Middle East, they will simply bide their time and resume operations as soon as they have the means to do so.

I didn't see in my browsing various news sites that the text has been released. But if this is the agreement, then it is either a smart step towards a final agreement or it is a dangerous delay that makes further military action politically disastrous.

Good: It gives Tehran political cover, allowing them to get to a final agreement despite domestic opposition. Money being released was theirs already, not reparations. We don't remove military assets until 30 days after the final agreement is signed (not 30 days from now).

Bad: Mid August is too late wrt midterm elections for us to resume military strikes. There is no mention of Iran's sponsorship of terrorism.

My opinion is that either there are strong, believable back room agreements with Iran which will result in a great final deal, or President Trump has put too much emphasis on avoiding killing Iranians and on building a regional coalition.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ You can read it in the link I posted above.

"But Iran’s Tasnim news agency cited an unnamed official earlier today, saying some of the MoU published by Bloomberg is inaccurate. The report did not specify the discrepancies. Bloomberg noted that some of the wording could be different between the English and Persian versions."

Until a reputable source can provide verifiably accurate details on the MoU (perhaps the Trump Administration), this is all noise, potentially intended to rile up all the Trump haters (and America haters!), so again, it might be best to keep our powder dry and patiently wait until something 'Official' is released to the public.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ You can read it in the link I posted above.

"But Iran’s Tasnim news agency cited an unnamed official earlier today, saying some of the MoU published by Bloomberg is inaccurate. The report did not specify the discrepancies. Bloomberg noted that some of the wording could be different between the English and Persian versions."

Until a reputable source can provide verifiably accurate details on the MoU (perhaps the Trump Administration), this is all noise, potentially intended to rile up all the Trump haters (and America haters!), so again, it might be best to keep our powder dry and patiently wait until something 'Official' is released to the public.

Good grief. Do you think the Iranian news agency is saying the agreement is inaccurate in that it is actually tougher on Iran than the English version suggests?

^^ And you trust Bloomberg? I’ll wait for something ‘Official’ before passing judgement.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^ And you trust Bloomberg? I’ll wait for something ‘Official’ before passing judgement.

This is where we should all be IMO. Nobody knows what's in Trump's head.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Insult me, piss, moan, kick me off the forum.

Cut this childish shit out. Cut it out. Grow up. Stop playing the victim. If you're so sure of yourself, stop beginning posts with "para may yell at me" and ridiculous shit like that. Just state your case, and stop making dire predictions as if you're being victimized. Childish

You want to talk about insults, Skins? Insulting is when you, as a long-time member, express concern that I may ban you over you expressing your opinion. THAT is insulting.

Grow up

NHRA, Geno, I'm with you and will wait until there is a definitive release from DJT. He's stated clearly what will not be acceptable re a nuclear Iran, and I'm still expecting him to deliver in the final outcome.

There has been so much speculative, inaccurate bullshit in the press since Friday I can't look at news headlines anywhere without wanting to vomit.

And yeah, Bloomburg and NY Times are the worst. All they look for is something negative to say. They might as well be (maybe are) and extension of the Iran news agency.

Best to consider anything in the press or online reporting as just fodder for clicks and eyeballs, even when it's released the negativity and incorrect posting will continue.

Expect the loudest to be the same people that spread false reports and disinformation as usual, Temu Obama will lead the charge for the left in DC which isn't bad because nobody takes him seriously.

Lets wait until it's out to see what was negotiated.... once the actual agreement is published.

Arguing over speculation, which is what's printed in the press is an exercise in futility

If that indeed is the final agreement, then we have squandered a generational opportunity both in Iran and Venezuela.

Jimmy Carter was a president with good intentions, and horrible outcomes. Trump, in many ways, is similar; he has had horrible advisors throughout both terms, but we will judge him on the outcomes. A good man, yes.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
If that indeed is the final agreement, then we have squandered a generational opportunity both in Iran and Venezuela.

Just think how much better things could be if Donald Trump listened to you.

People out there who are equating this to Obama's Iran deal are stupid, really stupid .

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Jimmy Carter was a president with good intentions, and horrible outcomes. Trump, in many ways, is similar

Thanks for the laugh, never thought I would read something this ridiculous on SF.