US - Iran Peace agreement Part 2

[JadeHare]

Doesn’t really look like anyone believes that Donald is going to come out of his stupid war with any kind of better deal.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/26/trump-us-iran-capitulation/

When they lose a war and have to give concessions maybe.

The problem appears to be we have 2 sides with top down systems. Both with a dear leader at the top.

And as we know, in such a system, the job of all those below dear leader has one function, to report to dear leader whatever it is dear leader wants to hear. To not do so means that said underling is terminated. One way or another.

On one of these side, the dear leader is AWOL. We do not know if he is alive or dead. If alive, it is complicated by the dear leader being a Pope level holy man. We do not know what he says, if alive.

On the other side we have Trump, who rules by TRUTH and Fox news interviews.

No matter what the MOU says, the MOU that Trump formulated, it is the job of the underlings to report to Trump what Trump has told them he want's to hear.

That is the way I see it.

As an example of the Trump top down system, the DC reflecting pool. His project to "fix it" fails. Dear leader claims sabotage. Lo and behold, arrests are made of alleged sabatuers.

Although they could at least admit to having them, that would be a start.

Surely this nuclear weapon argument is a bit off too? If Iran had a nuclear weapon and used it on Israel then it would take out Lebanon, which they are doing their upmost to protect from the ever expanding Israel.

Makes no sense.

In a way everyone thinking you have them could be as much of a deterrent as actually having them.

Though to be clear, I do agree that they have them in all probability.

Maybe it would be worth it to the IRGC? What would be more important to them - protecting Lebanon or destroying Israel once and for all.

Is "dear leader" part of the Mumsnet thing like "DH" and "DD" and "DS"?

This is what the internet gave me:

a nuclear strike by Iran on Israel would catastrophically affect Lebanon, even though Lebanon is not the primary target. Due to the extreme proximity and prevailing weather patterns, Lebanon would face devastating environmental, human, and geopolitical fallout. 1, 2]
1. Radioactive Fallout and Environmental Damage
Because Israel is a small, narrow country, radioactive fallout from a nuclear detonation would drift with the prevailing eastward and northeastward winds. This drifting radiation and toxic debris would quickly enter Lebanese territory. 1, 2]
2. Humanitarian and Refugee Crisis
The strike would cause tens of thousands of casualties and overwhelm medical services within the blast radius. Because a nuclear weapon cannot distinguish borders, the surrounding region would face a massive refugee crisis. Hundreds of thousands of displaced Israelis and Palestinians would likely flee north toward Lebanon or seek international aid, placing an unprecedented strain on the already fragile Lebanese infrastructure and economy. 1, 2, 3, 4]
3. Geopolitical and Retaliatory Consequences
Israel maintains a diversified nuclear triad (land, sea, and air-based). If Iran launched a nuclear attack, it is highly likely that Israel would execute a massive nuclear second strike. The broader regional war triggered by such an exchange—as well as the inevitable involvement of global powers and the United States—would leave no country in the Levant untouched. In addition, the Arms Control Association notes that Israeli defensive responses have historically had destabilizing and widespread effects across the wider Middle East.1, 2, 3]

3 sites

Who knows. I’m not in it.

Neither am I - just wondering aloud.

CNN just now. Sanction waiver for Iran to sell oil.

"The Trump administration is temporarily lifting sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil, following through on one of the key commitments made in its extended ceasefire agreement.
The 60-day waiver issued Monday came on the heels of negotiations in Switzerland over the weekend between the US and Iran, which US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent characterized as “productive talks.”"

That is article 10 of the MOU.

10. The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MoU until the termination of sanctions, the US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.

And article 10 is listed in article 13 as a prerequisite for the talks to advance.

13. After signing this MoU and subject to the beginning of the implementation of Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MoU and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.

So that is a positive sign.

Earlier Vance talked about unfreezing funds. CNN feed again, 3 hours ago. Although it was spun in terms of being good for the US agricultural sector. Fair enough, he has to sell it to MAGA as a win. (Obama done similar with JCPOA)

"Vice President JD Vance described an initiative for unfreezing Iranian assets that would grant the US approval over what Tehran can purchase using the money.
He said the plan, conceived by President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would require the money be spent on American agricultural products.
“We wanted to make sure that we set up a process where if we ever unfreeze Iranian assets, we can ensure that money, that Iranian money, goes to help the people of Iran and not to fund terrorism,” he said.
The plan, devised in coordination with Qatar, would direct the funds toward “American soy, American corn and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people,” he said."

That is article 11 of the MOU, and that is also an article 13 prerequisite.

11. The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MoU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, either retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.

Another positive sign.

The nuke stuff that Vance talked about. That is for dear leader. That comes after article 13. But it is good to see Trumps team are working on article 13. They just have to keep throwing bones at dear leader on nuke stuff. Likely to try to keep him from tapping on his phone.

BBC

JD Vance says Iran has agreed to allow nuclear inspectors back into the country - a key demand of the international community - with discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) happening "as soon as today".

Iran replies

Iran didn't accept any new commitments regarding its nuclear programme during talks with the US at the weekend, the Iranian foreign ministry has said.

Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei told the IRNA news agency that Tehran did not negotiate on this matter during the discussions in Switzerland.

He added that Iran's interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency would carry on according to current procedures, subject to Iranian parliamentary approval and the decisions of the Supreme National Security Council.

JD Vance said earlier that Iran had agreed to invite IAEA inspectors back into the country.

Of course. As I said above' that was Vance throwing a bone to his dear leader.

Nuke stuff is article 8 of the MOU. And article 8 is not part of article 13.

Thankfully it appears the moderators are keeping things on track. Most people involved seem to be trying to stick to the agreed agenda, but uncle flat earther is sat in the corner, throwing every logical fallacy he can into the works.

How do you know that was Vance throwing a bone to what you have taken to calling his "dear leader"? You talk as if you know stuff but you don't know anything more than the rest of us, presumably.

Possibly less since you have more restricted internet, according to you.

This is getting silly now. Are we going to have to preface every post with, “In my opinion….”.

Obviously it’s just an opinion. Red tag has theirs and you have yours.

And for what it’s worthI agree with Red. Vance has had to do quite a bit of wriggling thanks to Trumps latest rants, which are in no way helping the talks along. And I have access to all of the internet.

Aw always so quick to rush to defend him, how sweet.

I'm sure he can answer for himself, or ignore the question if he prefers.

No. I am not. Didn’t even know Red was a man. How did you?

Or are you a mod?

Vance has to be diplomatic yes. But equally it's not as though the IRGC are completely trustworthy in what they say is it?

Or are we just believing what the Iranian foreign ministry says without question while automatically disbelieving everything the US side say?

A bit of balance and questioning is healthy because lets face it, both sides have lied on occasion it's not a given that the IRGC are telling the truth.

Is this a moment like in The Traitors?

Because he very openly said he was a man on a different thread. He travels outside of this board sometimes, as do I.

Yes, balance is good. I agree. That’s why people like to present both sides. You say Hezbollah broke the ceasefire agreement in March, I pushed back. Both sides is good for discussion. Poo poohing one person’s ideas does not allow discussion. Just puts people off.

Sounds a bit like you're poo pooing my idea that Red can defend his own posts occasionally.