Post New

I’ve said to let this play out. According to Lee Smith, it has, and the deal is likely to be ass just like Obama’s was.

If Lee Smith is right then JD Vance need not seek the top slot on the 2”28 ticket, either:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/t...

Less than three months ago Donald Trump was mocking the 2015 deal Barack Obama made with Iran that cleared the regime’s path to a nuclear bomb. “They sent Boeing 757s over there, loaded with cash, hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Trump, referring to the cash ransom Obama aides delivered directly to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC, to bribe the Iranians to agree to the phony deal. “That’s not going to happen with Trump.”

And yet it seems that’s exactly what’s happening with Trump. According to reports Friday, the United Arab Emirates, a key U.S. regional ally, is making $20 billion of frozen Iranian assets available to the Islamic Republic, with $3 billion of it having already been delivered to Tehran, perhaps by a Boeing 757, and maybe even on wooden pallets like those Obama stacked with cash to pay the terror state.

Smith goes on the excoriate the administration for many reasons. Hard to argue with them.

So it’s TACO Sunday!

Foreign policy experts say that the US has suffered an incredibly humiliating defeat in Iran.
But a senile sociopath who wears orange makeup and falls asleep in public everyday says the US is about to make an amazing deal for the 41st time...
For low information voters, it can be hard to know who to trust.

According to reports Friday, the United Arab Emirates,

The Emirates denied that report. After all, the Emirates have means of shipping some crude past the Strait, to the Gulf of Oman, so they can profit from the artificial shortage, so why would they want to make peace? Of course, these days, seems "Baghdad Bob" has a bounty of clients for his misinformation.

UAE denies ‘false’ reports of fund transfer to Iran

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed that these allegations are entirely false and unfounded, stressing that no frozen Iranian funds have been released, transferred, or facilitated through the UAE,” the government told CNBC in a statement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/13/uae-denies-false-r...

Steve

So it’s TACO Sunday!

Every day is TACO DAY!!

I’ve said to let this play out. According to Lee Smith, it has, and the deal is likely to be ass just like Obama’s was.

There is another possibility. That we now know the Obama deal was not ass.

One of the chief criticisms of the Obama deal was in the alternative. Critics argued that we could have gotten more. That Obama didn't bargain hard enough, and that the U.S. could have gotten a better deal. Something that gave us what we got, but with more.

We now know that's almost certainly not true. After ripping up the deal, Trump went through a period of "maximum enforcement" against Iran in his first term, dialing the sanctions up to 11. And we've just seen what happens when we go to war with Iran to "tune them up," and damage them as much as we can without a ground invasion. It didn't get us anything more than where we were in February, with what Iran has consistently been willing to agree to.

They won't give us what we want.

So it looks like Obama (and indeed all of his predecessors since Reagan) was correct, and that we can't get what we want from Iran by either threatening to attack them with a military build-up, or by actually attacking. The "better deal" that critics of the JCPOA kept claiming was left on the table - the one that not only had Iran agree to give up their nuclear enrichment and agree to limits on ballistic missiles and supporting regional proxies - wasn't on the table. It was not achievable. What was achievable was:

- Reduce the nuclear threat by trading relief from anti-nuclear sanctions for Iran not enriching past a certain point (the JCPOA);
- Maintaining hardcore anti-nuclear sanctions but Iran goes up to the line with uranium enrichment.

We now know that Trump was a fool to rip up the JCPOA. He was even more a fool not to take what was on the table back in February. There wasn't anything better to get. And if the Obama deal was the best that we can get from an agreement with Iran, rather than a ground invasion of Iran, maybe it's not so "ass" after all. Because it got Iran to keep their enrichment far far far below weapons grade material, only at the cost of releasing sanctions levied against their nuclear program - and the fact that it didn't address missiles or proxies reflected reality, not a failure of the deal.

We now know that Trump was a fool to rip up the JCPOA.

Now? I knew it the second he tore up the agreement.

In fact I knew he was a moron the first time I saw him decades ago.

I guess everyone is learning a lesson and all it cost was the lives of 13 service men and women, hundreds of billions, and increased costs across the board for just about everything. And America’s self-esteem.

ETTD.

albaby1: One of the chief criticisms of the Obama deal was in the alternative. Critics argued that we could have gotten more.

Well, according to reporting, it sounds like Pedo Don did much worse than Obama.

The Pedo Don deal lifts all sanctions on Iran, pays $300B for reconstruction, another $24B for good measure, we don't get the nuclear materials, and Israel pulls out of Lebanon which they say they won't do.

The man is a real dealmaker.

So much winning.

The Pedo Don deal lifts all sanctions on Iran, pays $300B for reconstruction, another $24B for good measure, we don't get the nuclear materials, and Israel pulls out of Lebanon which they say they won't do.

iirc, that was the list Iran asked for. The US regime denied it. The US nutter right would not like giving a nickel to Iran. "Bibi" would not like a "deal" that either left the existing regime in place, or crimp their war in Lebanon.

Mossad might grease the Iranian officials, just out of spite, because they don't like the deal. Israel knows the US would probably not do anything to them, if they did kill the Iranian team, in Switzerland.

Steve

Well, according to reporting, it sounds like Pedo Don did much worse than Obama.

The Pedo Don deal lifts all sanctions on Iran, pays $300B for reconstruction, another $24B for good measure, we don't get the nuclear materials, and Israel pulls out of Lebanon which they say they won't do.

I mean, that seems a little unlikely - and I haven't seen any reports that include those details.

What we do know is that the deal involves the U.S. ending the blockade and withdrawing our naval forces, Iran allowing shipping to traverse the strait, and the parties agreeing to start a 60-day negotiation on nukes. There are other claimed terms, like Iran receiving some frozen assets either as a precondition to negotiation (Iran's claim) or only after they've met milestones (U.S.'s claim). But I've not seen anything like reconstruction funds being on the table.

But even that memorandum of understanding means that the U.S. completely lost the war. In late February, Iran was engaged in nuclear talks. We stopped the talks and went to war with them in an effort to force them to do more than what they were doing in those talks. We completely failed. Iran was able to use their geographic and military advantages over the Strait to force the U.S. to withdraw, and they conceded nothing more than....to agree to nuclear talks. Exactly where we were in February. Iran got the U.S. to stop attacking it, and gave up absolutely nothing to get it.

It looks like we achieved not a single war aim. Iran hasn't agreed to give up their nuclear program, they haven't agreed to give up their uranium, and it looks they haven't agreed to even put their ballistic program or support of regional proxies on the table (though we don't yet know that for sure, none of the reporting says that the 60-day talks will encompass anything other than nuclear issues, and the Israeli opposition is livid about that).

I mean, I'm reluctant to hammer that point, because avoiding a global recession requires Trump's base to be willing to go along with the idea that this is something other than a catastrophic loss. We need conservatives to preach to Trump's base that this is a stone cold win. Come on Lindsey...find your inner Pangloss, and let's hear how Trump has convinced you that this is the best of all possible deals!

Iran got the U.S. to stop attacking it, and gave up absolutely nothing to get it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jun/14...

Iran claims to control Strait of Hormuz, including being able to charge fees to use it. The fees may be shared with Oman.

But on Iran’s Mehr state news, it was reported that the MoU calls for the reopening of the strait with 30 days under “Iranian arrangements”.

If true, then Iran won.

-------------------------------------------------------
Copilot Search (Branding)

Strait of Hormuz Transit Fees with Oman

Iran and Oman have agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz under new conditions, including transit fees for vessels using the waterway (Yahoo+1). The Strait, a critical global oil and gas chokepoint handling about one-fifth of world seaborne oil and LNG, will remain open but with a jointly set fee regime.

Nature of the Fees

Service-based charges: Iran and Oman will charge for maritime services provided, such as navigation assistance, search and rescue, security, and environmental response (Indian Defence Research Wing).

Variable rates: Fees will depend on vessel type, cargo, and operational characteristics. For example, a VLCC supertanker would not be taxed the same as an LNG carrier (Europe Says).

Payment methods: Reports indicate the new Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) may accept crypto assets and yuan-denominated instruments, alongside traditional payment methods (Crypto Briefing).

Reported rates: Early estimates suggest around $1 per barrel of oil or roughly $2 million per vessel (Crypto Briefing).

Implementation and Authority

A new Persian Gulf Strait Authority has been created to manage shipping approvals and collect fees (Crypto Briefing).

Oman shares stewardship of the strait and has reaffirmed opposition to tolls, pledging to uphold freedom of navigation and compliance with international law (Gulf News+1).

The Omani ambassador in Washington has told U.S. officials there are no plans to impose tolls (Yahoo+1).

International Reaction

U.S. opposition: President Donald Trump and U.S. officials have rejected the idea of fees, calling the strait an “international waterway” and warning that any toll system would make diplomatic agreements with Iran unviable (Europe Says).

Japan’s stance: Japan has stated it did not pay a fee after a recent crude tanker transit (Yahoo).

Market impact: The fees could add to shipping costs, potentially pressuring Asian refining margins and influencing route choices, with some shippers considering alternatives like the Cape of Good Hope (Europe Says).

Key Points for Shippers

Compliance required: Vessels must be prepared to pay fees in the agreed currency or accepted payment methods.

Route planning: Variable rates mean cost models must account for vessel and cargo type.

Political risk: The arrangement is politically sensitive, with U.S. and European opposition, and could affect insurance and insurance premiums.

In summary, the Strait of Hormuz will reopen with joint Iranian–Omani service fees tied to maritime services, not a fixed toll, but the variable and potentially crypto-based charges will add a new cost layer for global energy trade (Yahoo+3).

There is another possibility. That we now know the Obama deal was not ass.

Except that it was.

Total.
Ass.

Except that it was. Total. Ass. ~Dope1

"Also, I converted to Catholicism last month... and Pope Leo's understanding of the bible is total ass!" ~Dope1

Except that it was.
Total.
Ass.

That’s so easy to say … on a message board. Harder is to convince people you know what that means. Here’s how to do that:

State “why” is it ass. Explain which parts of it are deficient, and (more importantly) how those could be corrected. Not by some glib “Just get rid of the mullahs” or other simplistic slogan, but a real world solution to whatever the shortcomings are.

Be sure to include the steps necessary to achieve the sought after remedy. You might say, for instance “Drop a nuke on Tehran”, but then you would also have to justify the solution in light of what it might engender, for instance, instantly destroying all exports from Iran, whether legitimized or not, the reduction in world wide oil supply, and of course the complete condemnation of every other country on the planet, particular in Arab countries which might legitimately cut of all oil exports to us in the form a.a new embargo.

That’s just one example, obviously, and an extreme one, and I am sure that since you are so dogmatic in your opinion of the Obama (and now Trump) agreement you have thought this through an a have some real world solutions as to what might be changed and how that may be accomplished.

You do, don’t you?

We now know that Trump was a fool to rip up the JCPOA.

Trump is constrained by his narcissistic personality. His motivation re the JCPOA was all about jealousy of Obama and a desire to best his perceived enemy. In his mind it is all important to be the 'winner'. He can never admit he was wrong, or that he is not the brilliant genius his narcissism leads him to believe he is.

What is astonishing to me is how so many people still believe Trump is a great President.

Fail.

I've explained for 10 years why Obama's deal was ass. That this board chooses to pretend it wasn't and is driving a narrative that Iran is a superpower is a function of the democrat zeitgeist. You people want it to be true for domestic political gain. That means white washing the history of the JCPOA and sticking it up on a pedestal.

The truth is that the pallets of cash - that Obama and the predecessor of this board denied were ever flown to Iran - went straight to the IRGC and funded things like October 7th. And that the Iranians cheated on the nuke deal the entire time. I've shown evidence, intel reports, name it.

It's all ignored because the narrative is what you people need for domestic political purposes. I can't imagine an intellectual exercise I would respect less.

And that the Iranians cheated on the nuke deal the entire time. I've shown evidence, intel reports, name it.

What is the difference between the JCPOA and this "deal"? It is still based on trusting the Iranian regime. Is it "perfect" because Trump pastes his name on it? It is "useful", because it gives the extreme right an excuse to toss Vance overboard?

And, if Vance is tossed overboard, will the next GOP regime abrogate this "deal" the way Trump abrogated the JCPOA?

Steve

And, if Vance is tossed overboard, will the next GOP regime abrogate this "deal" the way Trump abrogated the JCPOA?

Trump has certainly greased the skids upon which the sled of US credibility is sliding faster and faster toward the cliff.

At this point, it’s doubtful that the sled even has a functioning handbrake.

What is the difference between the JCPOA and this "deal"?

We don't know yet. Lee Smith had some details but you provided a link that may refute his article.

I've explained for 10 years why Obama's deal was ass.

But you haven't. As we've pointed out to you.

The Obama deal solved the problem it was intended to solve within the greatest extent possible. You (and others) criticized that deal because it didn't include missiles. Or didn't include prohibitions on supporting terror proxies. Or involved Iran getting financial relief. The criticism was that Obama didn't get everything that the Iranians would have agreed to.

But now we know that's false. It was always false, but now we know it. There was no way to use better bargaining - or even threats of military action - to get any of those things included in a deal. We just went to actual war with Iran, and they still were unwilling to include ballistic missiles or proxy support as part of a deal. It was never possible. And of course, this deal includes unfreezing assets and sanctions relief - because, again, it is false that Iran would enter into a deal where they limited their nuclear program without getting asset or sanctions relief.

So it turns out that Obama was correct. There were only three alternatives:

1) A deal - which would involve trading asset unfreezing and sanctions relief for Iran accepting limits on their nuclear program; or
2) No deal - we maintain sanctions, but those sanctions are not able to prevent Iran from getting as close to a nuke as they want (or obtaining it); or
3) Invade Iran like we did Iraq.

When you say the Obama deal was "ass," you're wrong. The Mark Dubowitz/Donald Trump line was always, "If we negotiated harder we could have gotten everything we wanted" - but that wasn't true.

It is easy to point to things that the JCPOA didn't provide for that we would have wanted it to contain. But those omissions don't make the deal "ass" unless we could have gotten them in a different deal. We couldn't have.

The alternative was not "better deal" - it was no deal. And we saw what "no deal" got us - Iran enriched right up to the point of getting a nuke, and sanctions couldn't stop it. And outcome so intolerable that Trump himself, Mr. "No Foreign Wars," felt we actually had to go to war to stop it. Are you arguing that Iran having a nuke but being subject to sanctions would be better than the JCPOA?

We don't know yet. Lee Smith had some details but you provided a link that may refute his article.

I assume both sides are painting it as a "win" for them.

Will we ever know the full content, or will there be "secret" annexes? It will be interesting if Congress demands to exercise it's "advice and consent" role.

Steve

And outcome so intolerable that Trump himself, Mr. "No Foreign Wars," felt we actually had to go to war to stop it.

We don't know if that was Trump's core reason, or a convenient excuse that would be acceptable to the mob.

Steve

We don't know if that was Trump's core reason, or a convenient excuse that would be acceptable to the mob.

I don't think it was his core reason - I'm just taking the reason that Trump gave and Dope1 has accepted in past discussions.

I've said what I think the real core reason is. He thought he could get a history-making win at low cost. Venezuela 2.0. He was convinced that his wishcasting was true - that after a few weeks of bombing, Iran would be taken over by a different coterie of leaders that would be willing to bend the knee to the U.S. in exchange for riches and/or not being targeted by bombers. When that turned out not to be the case, he had no idea what to do next, flailed around for a while, and then ultimately capitulated to the reality that the U.S. could not achieve any of its war aims without a big ground invasion. Which he couldn't deliver, or even threaten, because of the way he started the war.

I've explained for 10 years why Obama's deal was ass. That this board chooses to pretend it wasn't and is driving a narrative that Iran is a superpower

I read your posts, although I admit I might miss a few here and there, and I also have to admit to not memorizing them (shame on me) so I’ll ask again, could you summarize for me why the Obama deal was such a fail, given that we have now bombed the shit out of Iran, killed their leadership, destroyed their Navy, and seem to have arrived at an even worse deal?

You don’t have to do paragraphs and paragraphs, heaven knows, but 9 or fewer sentences would be nice, given that you used 9 sentences to tell us that you weren’t going to tell us because you already told us.

So quick summary: which parts (or all) of the earlier agreements were “ass” and how could they have been better, given that they weren’t, they aren’t in Version 2.0, and seem even more remote in any possible Version 3.0?

Thanks.

The truth is that pallets of cash 0 that Obama and the predecessor of this board denied were ever flown to Iran

Point of order. Obama never denied this. He denied that they were “ransom”, but said on several occasions that the transfer had taken place.

and that Iranians cheated on the nuke deal the entire time

Do you have any proof of this? I ask because the international inspection teams which included experts from the US did not find such cheating, nor has an conclusive proof ever been offered by anyone, including and particularly those on the Right who allege this.

Thanks. Again.

Tie Breaker ---- not sure if Obama lost 13 Americans - plus other human beings that aren't Americans.

This plus UFC in front of White House......

Indeed, we're a Judeo Christian country for sure.

not sure if Obama lost 13 Americans

They were lost in the Shrubbery.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.