Iran gets $300,000,000,000.00

QP! said:
We need to call what it is, which is not simply a 'deal' but is the 'Terms of Surrender' that Trump has committed the US to.

This cannot be called anything but a surrender deal by the US as these terms are basically the same terms Iran started at the start of this war and said they would accept to suspend the war while Trump was saying the US would only accept 'Unconditional Surrender' to end the war.
demonstrate
It is clear who won. Who got their surrender demands met.
Click to expand...
Crazy Trump has demonstrated his incompetence, by getting himself in this situation.
 
Jarod said:
Bloomberg has a copy of the MOU that says the USA must provide Iran 300 Billion.
Click to expand...

Grok:

No, the draft MOU does not say "the USA must provide Iran 300 Billion".


Exact language from the draft (point 6):​


"The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days."
Click to expand...

Key distinctions:​


  • "Undertakes... to create a plan... while ensuring financing" — This is a commitment to facilitate and help organize a development/reconstruction fund with at least $300 billion in total financing. It explicitly involves "regional partners" (Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc., who have their own interests and were targeted by Iran).
  • Not worded as "USA must provide $300 billion ." There is no mention of U.S. congressional appropriations or direct transfers in the quoted text.
  • Context from reporting: An "investment fund" or reconstruction program would be funded primarily by Gulf partners, not U.S. taxpayer dollars. Iran spins versions as "reparations." It's tied to compliance (nukes, Hormuz, behavior) and subject to a final agreement.

Jarod's summary exaggerates it into a straightforward "USA must provide" giveaway for rhetorical effect.

The actual draft is more ambiguous/diplomatic language about coordinating a big pot of money with allies — classic MOU hedging.
 
Trump has switched to the type of language he only uses when he finds people powerful and intimidating saying NOW about the Iran regime:

- "they are nice to deal with"
- "not radicalized"
- "very rational people"

This as the deal shows that the current agreed to language on Iran's nuclear material will be based on 'trusting Iran to hold to its word' as no inspection or verification protocol will be set up.
 
Last edited:
QP! said:
Trump has switched to the type of language he only uses when he finds people powerful and intimidating saying NOW about the Iran regime:

- "they are nice to deal with"
- "not radicalized"
- "very rational people"

This as the deal shows that the current agreed to language on Iran's nuclear material will be based on 'trusting Iran to hold to its word' as n inspection or verification protocol will be set up.
Click to expand...


Grok:


QP! is grasping at diplomatic pleasantries to paint Trump as "intimidated" or hypocritical while ignoring the context of a post-conflict framework deal.

Trump's language:​


Trump described current Iranian interlocutors (post-strikes that killed top leadership) as "very rational people," "nice to deal with," "strong people, smart people," "not radicalized," and "looking to help their country." He also said he "never cared about regime change" per se, noting the prior hardliners were largely eliminated.

  • This is standard Trump deal-making rhetoric — flattery, personal rapport, and framing opponents as pragmatic when it suits negotiations. He's used similar language for Kim Jong Un ("we fell in love"), Xi, Putin, and others. It's not unique to "powerful and intimidating" figures; it's his style for leverage and optics. After a short, limited war that degraded Iranian capabilities (proxies hit, military brass thinned, enrichment sites damaged), he's negotiating from strength while reopening Hormuz for global oil flows.
  • Critics (including some on the right) see it as overly rosy given the regime's history. But calling surviving second-tier leaders "smarter" and "less radicalized" than the ones just bombed is spin, not submission. Trump has repeatedly threatened to "go right back to dropping bombs" if they violate terms.

​

The "trusting Iran with no inspections" claim:​


This is overstated. The draft MOU is a short framework/ceasefire extension (not the final deal):

  • Iran commits to never acquiring/producing nuclear weapons.
  • Details on HEU stockpile (down-blending, removal, or destruction under supervision), enrichment limits, and verification are deferred to 60-day follow-on negotiations.
  • IAEA/UN involvement is referenced in reporting; earlier drafts and U.S. statements emphasize coordination with inspectors for stockpile issues. Not "zero protocol" — it's phased, with leverage retained (sanctions, military option).

QP! acts like this is blind faith versus Obama's "robust" JCPOA (which had sunset clauses, Iranian obstructions, and didn't stop proxy terrorism or missile work).

This is a post-war reset with explicit U.S. threats and Gulf partner involvement.

Paper alone never enforces anything — compliance, monitoring, and consequences do.

Trump retains the option to enforce the deal if Iran does not comply..

Bottom line: QP! cherry-picks flattering words to imply weakness, while downplaying the leverage from the conflict and the conditional, reversible nature of the MOU.

Classic forum "orange man submits" narrative that skips how endless sanctions + Iranian breakout were the prior trajectory.

Deals involve talking to adversaries; outcomes depend on enforcement, not etiquette.
 
Jarod said:
Bloomberg has a copy of the MOU that says the USA must provide Iran 300 Billion.

Iran keeps the uranium. Iran promises not to develop nuclear weapons.

Long standing restrictions on their ability to sell oil lifted.

Iran charges for use of Hormuz.

All we get is their promise to not develop nuclear weapons.


Obama had their promise for a LOT less, WITH inspectors. WITHOUT KILLING SCHOOL GIRLS, without 13 American hero’s being killed.

Republicans are demanding a vote.

The NEW YORK POST!!! is attacking Trump for “love bombing” Iran!
Click to expand...
Need some clarification.

Iran’s $300 Billion Shakedown​

By David Rothkopf
Published on Apr 16, 2015

It is one thing to relieve sanctions on Iran in exchange for the country giving up its nuclear weapons program. That was the purpose of imposing the sanctions in the first place. But Barack Obama’s administration and the other parties to the interim nuclear deal with Iran now seem to be saying they are willing to release to Iran between a third and a half a trillion dollars over the next 15 years in order for Iran not to give up the program, but to freeze it.
 
Lionfish said:
Need some clarification.

Iran’s $300 Billion Shakedown​

By David Rothkopf
Published on Apr 16, 2015

It is one thing to relieve sanctions on Iran in exchange for the country giving up its nuclear weapons program. That was the purpose of imposing the sanctions in the first place. But Barack Obama’s administration and the other parties to the interim nuclear deal with Iran now seem to be saying they are willing to release to Iran between a third and a half a trillion dollars over the next 15 years in order for Iran not to give up the program, but to freeze it.
Click to expand...
Are you rinning away again?

@Jarod​


Lionfish said:
Need some clarification.

Iran’s $300 Billion Shakedown​

By David Rothkopf
Published on Apr 16, 2015

It is one thing to relieve sanctions on Iran in exchange for the country giving up its nuclear weapons program. That was the purpose of imposing the sanctions in the first place. But Barack Obama’s administration and the other parties to the interim nuclear deal with Iran now seem to be saying they are willing to release to Iran between a third and a half a trillion dollars over the next 15 years in order for Iran not to give up the program, but to freeze it.
Click to expand...
 
QP! said:
Trump has switched to the type of language he only uses when he finds people powerful and intimidating saying NOW about the Iran regime:

- "they are nice to deal with"
- "not radicalized"
- "very rational people"

This as the deal shows that the current agreed to language on Iran's nuclear material will be based on 'trusting Iran to hold to its word' as no inspection or verification protocol will be set up.
Click to expand...
Trump would scream about an open-ended deal like this if Obama made it. It is not a deal. It is a promise to talk about one.
 
Nordberg said:
Trump would scream about an open-ended deal like this if Obama made it. It is not a deal. It is a promise to talk about one.
Click to expand...
A promise to talk about one based on terms that are terrible for America and the world and strengthen Iran.

I do not see this surviving to a deal.

Trump was desperate for a birthday win and gave away the farm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top