[This post launched before complete because I had to go out. The final version should be up by 8:00 AM EDT, so please return or refresh this page then]
With Israel already undermining Trump’s hoped for “deal” by keeping up attacks in southern Lebanon, a big new front has opened up in the US. And it is only in part due to Israel/AIPAC string-pulling. The terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) have been a state secret. There are serious differences between what Iran and the US say some particular terms are, critically on whether Israel will withdraw from Lebanon or merely cease hostilities. You can see the list leaked by Barak Ravid in footnote 1 below, along with DropSite segment which discusses differences in what the two sides are saying about Israel withdrawal from Lebanan as well an analysis by Larry Johnson. Mind you, Larry relies on the 14 point list released by Mehr News contrasted with a version published by Bloomberg as his basis for what Iran thinks it has agreed to; I have not been treating the Mehr News version as dispositive, as in Mehr might not have had access to the most current version.
Keep in mind, as Larry and a Daniel Davis in a discussion reproduced below stress, this suggests the text is final or the US mistakenly believes it can force a late-in-game revision.
Nevertheless, the general profile of the MOU has been in view. The chattering classes were besides themselves over some of the items that seem to have made their way from the Iran media into general circulation; the US has more recently leaked what it depicts as the terms to some outlets.And mind you, these talking head explosions are nearly always over individual terms, like Iran getting some of its frozen assets back very early on or Iran supervising the Strait of Hormuz and changing fees after the first 60 days. Imagine how choleric they’d be if they had read the full 14 point list which the Iran side indicates has been largely incorporated in the MOU (this is now in the process of happening after the Administration started circulating text, as mentioned by DropSite)
Trump is hoist on his PR petard. Trump, Hegseth, Lindsey Graham and Fox mouth-breathers like Jack Keane have been insisting that Iran has no military or economy left, that the US has control of the Strait of Hormuz, that Iranians are just about to overthrow the government. Trump’s success in keeping oil prices down, both through his 39-times-and-counting “Deal is nigh” act plus Strategic Petroleum Reserve draw-downs, means that voters are not seeing much in the way of economic effects of the Strait of Hormuz closure, and the recent drop in gas prices signals conditions are improving.
So the overwhelming majority of Americans have no clue that the US cannot subdue Iran by military means and economies all around the world on existing trajectories will soon suffer a cost shock and potentially in some areas, shortages, when the oil cliff arrives. Even if most citizens want the US out due to the high cost of the conflict and lack of any national security justification, they are utterly unprepared for the extent of concessions the US has to give to extract itself from this mess. Hence the shock and anger, particularly from the pundit classes who often emotionally invested in US primacy.
So the Administration may be trying to manage expectations by lying about what the “deal” amounts to, as in either denying or not very artfully finessing points that Iranian officials depict as agreed. And that is before getting to the fact that the somewhat more US-favorable language it depicts as agreed is mere porcine maquillage.
Either Trump sticks to his guns and proceeds with the MOU to forestall the even worse pain and higher political cost of breaching the energy cliff, or he tries to renegotiate, which will push back the “opening” of the Strait of Hormuz and bake in the arrival of the energy cliff in late July to August.
In an absolutely must-watch video, Robert Pape describes how the “deal” is an absolute Iranian win, and the dynamics of the risk of hitting the oil cliff gives Iran even more leverage over the period of the negotiations. Pape is openly admiring of what the Iranians have achieved in power terms, depicting them as having upped their game and now having risen to an A- in their skill in operating, just a rung below the Kissinger level.
We will turn later to a point we omitted yesterday in our discussion of the energy cliff, which Jeff Currie uppacked very well in a new clip we have embedded below and reader vao also raised in comments. Even though, as Pape again stresses will take at least 30 to 60 days for energy shipments to start arriving out of new production in the Gulf, there is one last inventory, in the form of the oil tankers trapped in the Gulf. And vessel operators will have a somewhat lower risk tolerance in deciding to let those vessels transit out than for risking sending ships back in on a round trip. So there will be a short-term reduction in pressure on the markets during that extension of the draw-down period. But as you will see, Currie does not deem it to be terribly consequential even though it would be very helpful to Trump near term.
And an offset to that may be the way that Trump has made an issue of needing to de-mine the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran mined at all, it would be in the former main transit route, in the center of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has set up two lanes to the north of that, close to the Iran coast, so in reality there is no impediment to safe travel. The US, by hyping the idea that the Strait is hazardous ex its intervention, will create even more delay to getting shipping back to something dimly approaching the old normal. See for instance, Economic Times in What to know about the demining and escort mission that US allies want for the Strait of Hormuz:
The naval mission for the Strait of Hormuz that U.S. allies are proposing as a follow-up to a deal to end the Iran war would aim to reassure crews and shipping insurers that vessels can safely navigate the narrow waterway again, by removing any explosive mines and potentially providing military escorts.
France and Britain have been working on the plans for months. French President Emmanuel Macron floated the idea back in March when the war was raging, saying warships could escort tankers and container ships through the maritime chokepoint when the conflict dies down.
So Pape’s assumed 30 to 60 days to get the tanker pipeline refilled may wind up being even longer if ship operators hold back from sending vessels back into the Gulf for even a week, let alone a few weeks. Note that reader farmboy has also provided details on the extend of oil leases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I have seen little to indicate if those amounts are included in the EIA totals and what rights the Feds have to require any amounts outstanding to be returned
We had depicted the bargaining positions of the two sides as in different universes. Daniel Davis documents that that chasm is pretty much intact, at least if you go from many statements in the US media. So he wonders: will Trump go ahead with something like the deal as described by the Iranians, and risk widespread condemnation? Or will he try to renegotiate the understanding markedly between now and Friday, which would blow up the “deal”? Davis was strongly of the view, even before the Axios story on the infighting over it broke, that this agreement is not likely to be consummated:
I am enormously grateful to Davis for having the patience to go through a significant number of the major disconnects between what US officials are saying is in and out of the Iran “deal” versus what the Iranians have consistently presented. He also covers the disconcerting fantasies of some influential commentators such as Jesse Waters of Fox.2
The notorious fake-deal flogger and suspected Israel asset, Barak Ravid of Axios, is amplifying efforts within the Administration to derail the MOU, via his story . Note that the language that Ravid presents is at odds with positions Iran has consistently taken regarding nuclear enrichment: that it will not give that up as a sovereign right permitted under the NPT and would not have its enriched uranium leave Iran (it briefly seemed to entertain the idea of letting Russia hold it but that did not last long). There have been rumors via negotiators that Iran might be agree to downblend to the 3.67%, a civilian-use level. Note Iran had offered to do that in the pre-war talks.
I find the specificity of the language that Ravid depicts as in the MOU to be surprising. IIRC, Jeremy Scahill, who has been speaking regularly to the negotiators, had more than once depicted Iran as unwilling to make any commitments in the MOU regarding nuclear enrichment were simply to re-amplify, in the strongest manner possible, Iran’s long-standing position of not seeking to develop or possess a nuclear weapon.
The specific language that Ravid (separately) depicted as in the MOU is “US and Iran pledge to resolve issue of disposal of enriched uranium stockpile.” I take that at a minimum as a commitment no one can actually make, to agree not to disagree during the detailed talks with no initial anchoring of what the resolution might be. But I also see this section as enabling the Trump fantasy, that the US will go in (now with Iran assistance as in Kazakhstan) to remove the “nuclear dust”.
From Axios in Scoop: CIA director doubts Iran’s intentions on deal, sources say:
Behind the scenes: There were a series of high-level meetings about the deal between Trump and his advisers in the lead-up to Sunday’s announcement.
- During those meetings, Trump and his team discussed intel gathered by several U.S. intelligence agencies that showed that the way Iranian officials were discussing the deal among themselves was inconsistent with what they were telling the mediators and the U.S., two sources said.
- Ratcliffe and Rubio said that based on that intel, they doubted the Iranians would agree to take the nuclear steps the U.S. was seeking, according to two sources.
- “The intelligence reflects that the Iranian intentions are not in line with their commitments under the deal,” a source said…..
- “This MOU meets all of the redlines that the administration has long articulated by ensuring that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon, they cannot keep their highly enriched uranium, and they cannot hold the world’s energy supply hostage,” the official said, adding that Trump would only agree to a “good” final agreement….
Between the lines: The full text of the 14-point initial deal has yet to be published, but a source familiar with the text contended that the Iranians will get more than they give under the MOU — unless they agree to sign a nuclear deal that meets the U.S. objectives.
The flip side is this unseemly tale could have been leaked to accelerate the overdue defenestration of Hegseth and Ratcliffe. The Mirror retells an account from the Israel press in Trump eyes firing Pete Hegseth and CIA chief John Ratcliffe over Iran deal clash (hat tip Ann):
President Donald Trump is allegedly considering firing those staffers who opposed his signing a deal with Iran that would negate their ability to make nuclear weapons.
Sources close to the administration told Israel Hayom that some officials who could face the president’s wrath include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. “he debate has been settled. Anyone who opposed it could pay a personal price,” the source said
In addition to dissent in the US, Israel is still predictably trying to wreck the deal by attacking in Lebanon. In footnote 1, we describe how Iran has made clear that this is a non-starter as far as negotiations are concerned. From the summary at the top of Aljazeera’s live feed:
Iran has accused Israel of violating the truce in Lebanon 84 times since it reached the agreement with the US and warns of a “harsh response” if attacks continue.
One of the entire in the body has Israel whinging that it can’t withdraw from Lebanon. Seriously? How long does it take to drive or even walk to the border?
Israel experiences ‘crisis of trust’ with US over Lebanon deal
A senior Israeli official has acknowledged “a crisis of trust” as the US refuses to brief Israel on the details of the Iran deal out of fear it might leak its contents and launch a media campaign against it, a local news report says.
Israel’s Channel 13 reported the Israeli army fears Friday’s US-Iran talks in Switzerland may reveal that the agreement stipulates an immediate and full withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon – all the way to the international border, not only its “Yellow Line”.
Another recap from the same Channel 13 story, from Middle East Observer on Twitter:
⚡️ Channel 13, citing military sources: The Israeli army fears that the United States will impose an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon on Friday.
– We have accepted the reality that the United States determines what happens with Iran, but we seek to be influential regarding the situation in Lebanon.The army is not prepared to carry out such a withdrawal at this time, the news report said, as frustration and uncertainty prevail within its ranks as it awaits final instructions from political leaders.
Trump still believes that having temper tantrums is effective. From Ahmad Samadi on Twitter:
Translated from Persian
🔴🔴Important// Donald Trump: If I don’t like the memorandum of understanding with Iran, I’ll drop a bomb right on their heads.
The US President, on the sidelines of the G7 summit, regarding the memorandum of understanding with the Islamic Republic, said:This is a memorandum of understanding. And if I don’t like it, we’ll fire back at them again and drop bombs on their heads.
He added: If I’m not satisfied with it, if their behavior isn’t appropriate, we’ll go back and drop a bomb right in the middle of their heads. Got it?Because they’ve been misbehaving for 47 years. Right?
Now to more on the oil cliff. This Bloomberg interview with Jeff Currie is another must watch:
Currie discusses the uncertainty among shippers, which will persist after the MOU is signed. He describes the issue we highlighted above, that there is oil now in tankers in the Gulf that will get on the market quickly but that is only ten days of supply. He also says the inventory situation is even worse than it appears, because traders, consumers and businesses have held back from buying since they expect lower oil prices.
And an item that should be funny if it were not sad:
New: US intel agencies have recently assessed that Iran can effectively turn the Strait of Hormuz on & off — at will — going forward, meaning it has acquired a powerful new ability to hurt the global economy as a result of Trump/Israel starting the war, sources tell me &…
— Zachary Cohen (@ZcohenCNN) June 16, 2026
How long has this state of affairs been obvious? The spooks have worked this out only now?
And some intended dark humor:
The collective response today from Democratworld to the Iran/Trump peace honestly pretty well sums up why this disastrous war was allowed to happen in the first place.
— Branko Marcetic (@BMarchetich) June 16, 2026
Nobody in the world but Donald Trump who managed to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb it never wanted. He is the world's hero.
— Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺 (@ejmalrai) June 17, 2026
Done for today! See you tomorrow!
_____
1 Via DDGeopolitics:
·
🇺🇸🇮🇷 BREAKING!! Israeli Channel 12’s Barak Ravid says that he has obtained the key points of the MoU between the US and Iran:
— Iran, the US and their allies will cease hostilities, including in Lebanon
— Iran reiterates its commitment not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons
— US and Iran pledge to resolve issue of disposal of enriched uranium stockpile
— US and Iran to discuss enrichment issue and Iran’s nuclear needs
— Iran will maintain status quo on its nuclear program as long as negotiations continue
— The US will lift the naval blockade, not impose new sanctions, and will not increase forces in the region during the negotiations.
— Iran will make the necessary arrangements to ensure safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, free of charge, for 60 days.
— US pledges to make frozen Iranian assets available for use with implementation of MoU
— If a final agreement is reached, the US will withdraw its forces within 30 days and lift all sanctions on Iran.
— Any final agreement will include a plan to establish a $300 billion fund for Iran’s reconstruction.
— US to give Iran temporary sanctions waivers to sell oil during negotiations
— Negotiations will be held between Iran and Oman with the participation of Gulf policy to define “arrangements regarding shipping and maritime services”
The DropSite segment:
Near the top, Jeremy Scahill via a lightly edited machine-generate transcript:
This is not verified. This is what U.S. officials are pushing right now as the text regarding Lebanon, that it says
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon signing this memorandum of understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.
The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this article and the remaining articles.Now, Mohammad Ali Shabani from Amwaj News, who was a guest on this show last week, said that he had been shown by sources a paragraph of that same paragraph that had different phrasing that said that Iran and the U.S., quote,
…and their allies in the current war declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or military operation against each other and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and
and this is what is the big change
ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.
If that’s what the text says, then Iran would be arguing that occupation forces, Israeli occupation forces, simply remaining in Lebanon is a violation of the memorandum of understanding.
Mind you, a bit earlier, Scahill had expressed doubts that Iran had gotten the US to give language that would commit it to getting Israel to pull out of Southern Lebanon.
Later, from Sharif Abdel Khouddous:
We had the foreign minister today say, as Jeremy said, you know, there’s two parts of this memorandum.
One side is America and Israel, and the other side is that Iran and Hezbollah.
And then he said, this is perhaps the most important issue in the memorandum.
And I’m quoting here. He says, any military attack by the Zionist regime on Lebanon from now on and the continued occupation of Lebanese territories from now on will be considered a violation of the memorandum of understanding in our view.
So Iran is making it crystal clear that they are not allowing the U.S. or Israel to de-link these two things.
And from Larry Johnson in The US and Iran Versions of the MOU Show Major Areas of Disagreement:
If the respective US and Iranian reports are true, then there are significant differences still separating the two sides. Bloomberg’s reporting (based on drafts it reviewed) and Iranian versions (primarily from state-affiliated Mehr News and officials) of the proposed 14-point US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) show significant overlap on core elements but notable differences in emphasis, specifics, and interpretation — especially on financial relief, Hormuz management, and future negotiations….
Despite the insistence by both the US and Iran that the MOU will be signed on Friday, there are clear differences between the Iranian and US versions that, if not resolved, I believe will torpedo the signing ceremony. There are seven major areas of disagreement observable in the public versions:
Preconditions for entering negotiations:
Iranian version explicitly states that final negotiations will not begin until some oil sanctions are suspended, part of the frozen assets are released, and the naval blockade is lifted — making US action a precondition for Iran coming to the table.
US/Bloomberg: Broader potential (nuclear + other issues like regional behavior). The US version conditions Iranian benefits on Iranian performance.
Frozen assets:
Bloomberg/US-leaning drafts: Emphasize phased, performance-based relief (e.g., oil sales waivers first, then broader access tied to nuclear compliance). Reconstruction fund (~$300B) is conditional on a final deal. A senior US official told reporters the deal was strictly “pay for performance” — no funds released without Iranian compliance first.
Iranian versions (e.g., Mehr): Highlight more immediate/concrete gains, such as release of $24–25 billion in frozen assets during the 60 days, half upfront or quicker oil sanctions waivers, and stronger commitments to reconstruction funding. Iran’s Mehr News version specifies $12 billion of Iran’s frozen funds to be released beforenegotiations begin, with another $12 billion released during the 60-day final negotiation window — $24 billion total.
Scope of final negotiations:
Iran’s version limits the final talks strictly to nuclear and economic/sanctions issues — explicitly excluding Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional proxies (Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.). This is in direct conflict with Trump’s stated position that missiles and proxies must be on the table.
Sanctions relief scope:
Iran’s version calls for the lifting of oil and petrochemical sanctions and a US commitment to withdraw forces from areas surrounding Iran and impose no new sanctions or force deployments during negotiations.
The Bloomberg version does not include explicit sanctions relief commitments upfront.
Iran’s nuclear commitments:
Iran’s version has Iran reaffirming its NPT commitment not to produce nuclear weapons.
The US position, as stated by Trump to the New York Times, is that Iran must be permanently blocked from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon, which implies far more intrusive verification and limits on enrichment than a simple NPT reaffirmation.
UN Security Council ratification:
Iran’s version calls for any final agreement to be approved through a UN Security Council resolution — a significant demand that would give China and Russia a formal role in guaranteeing and potentially enforcing the deal, which the U.S. has not acknowledged.
Strait of Hormuz:
Bloomberg/US view: Full reopening to pre-war commercial traffic without tolls, safe passage, and return to normal flows (potentially within ~30 days).
Iranian view: Reopening yes, but under Iranian (and Omani) sovereignty/management. Iran may impose “service fees” (not called “tolls”) for security/environmental reasons; separate rules for military vs. civilian vessels.
2 If you have more tolerance for pain, this discussion on CNN is a doozie:
3 From Jeff Currie below:
From a lightly edited machine transcript:
Okay, so let’s say they agree to bring the ships back in. Then you have to go find the ships and the ships are all out of place right now. It’s going to take, you know, a bare minimum 6 to 8 weeks just to get the ships back after you’ve de-mined it.
Then you’ve got to they’ve got to feel really comfortable that there’s not going to be another outbreak and you got your ship trappped in there. And so that means you’ve got to have some time behind this and be comfortable that that it’s a sustainable deal.
So I think there’s there’s a lot of question marks that remain open here which means in the interim you’re still drawing inventories, markets are getting tighter and creating the potential for substantially more upside [for oil prices].
Note that elsewhere in this talk, Currie mentions #1 tanker company Mitsui, which has indicated it will be cautious about sending ships into the Gulf, as has #4 container company Maersk (I have not been able to find quickly where its tanker operation, with is a separate business, ranks).
However, in his talk below, Sal Mercogliano shows a vessel tracker (starting at 5:15) with lots of tankers lining up to get into the Gulf. He also mentions that current rates are ginormous. So it seems that some operators will move with alacrity while others are in “Show me” mode.
Has anyone seen this data? It looks like China didn’t lose any oil through this process. The claim seem to be that there was demand destruction via their electrification work that they put in order. I would think it’s a game changer if true for Asia oil markets:
https://xcancel.com/NuryVittachi/status/2066729183292821714
The data is based on shipments from Kepler, which seem to be pretty reliable. I’m not an expert however and would love the communities thoughts if this could be true and what it means for the oil situation going forward. At the very least the world’s manufacturing base isn’t hitting tank bottoms soon.
Asia has been and still is in a very severe crunch, and has been widely reported to be suffering more than the US. The US has also been exporting oil heavily to satisfy demand from abroad. So I don’t see evidence that China using reserves rather than importing has provides much relief.
See this June 16 report, Hormuz reopening may bring relief to Asia, not recovery, for detail. From the top of the article:
https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/opinion/hormuz-reopening-may-bring-relief-to-asia-not-recovery-4040319
In addition, there may have been less China demand than generally acknowledged, not from Strait of Hormuz but internal dynamics. The segment title is click-bait-y but the content is solid:
What’s the situation in Thailand regarding fuel availability and price?
There is no way that huge numbers of people/businesses decided to just park their diesel trucks and start driving their EV trucks.
This from Rory Johnston on a recent Macrovoices – The only thing that makes sense is that China has vast reserves stored underground which cannot be verified from satellite photos (unlike tanks where the top of the tank floats on the oil and you can measure the shadows to compute how full it is). China just slowed their imports while drawing from their (hidden) reserves to avoid the high prices, planning to refill at lower prices once the crisis ended.
‘The naval mission for the Strait of Hormuz that U.S. allies are proposing as a follow-up to a deal to end the Iran war would aim to reassure crews and shipping insurers that vessels can safely navigate the narrow waterway again, by removing any explosive mines and potentially providing military escorts.’
This is just western powers trying to put lipstick on the pig of western surrender. Showing the world that they have Navy ships there which means that they hold the battleground aka they are the winners. They don’t know the region, they don’t know the hazards and they probably don’t know the currents. It would be more logical to have Iranian speedboats escort those ships out to ensure their safety – and charge them a service charge for their troubles. :)
Black Mountain Analysis just published an article that goes in depth on the topic of undersea explosions and how ships are damaged or destroyed by these (article segways from Ukrainian maritime drones to this subject).
It might be handy to bookmark the page for referrence in the coming weeks should
Israelsomeone decide to try and sink another ship.and murder the crew.Oops… accidents happen.
The Black Mountain Analysis article was very good. Russia certainly has become far more cautious in the Black Sea. Water borne drones are likely the primary reason the US Navy has remained 1000km away from the Iranian coast. After all, the Shahed air drones changed the dynamics in Ukraine and were an indigenous Iranian development.
This is the type of thing that it seems Iran could allow to help Trump sell the complete capitulation (which Iran would like) to his domestic audience without costing them too much.
Found here (published yesterday):
https://www.tabnak.ir/
According to the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, the final agreement will be approved through a binding resolution of the United Nations Security Council
The full text of this memorandum – which is claimed to be the final version – has been provided to Tabnak and is as follows…
Dunno if this counts as “horse’s mouth” but it appears credible and a wee bit different than other accounts I’ve read.
Done for today! If you arrived before the time of this comment, please refresh this page and re-skim.
‘🇺🇸🇮🇷 BREAKING!! Israeli Channel 12’s Barak Ravid says that he has obtained the key points of the MoU between the US and Iran:’
Sounds like Barak Ravid got those points from Netanyahu’s office. I note that the second, third, fourth and fifth points are all about Iran’s nuclear program. But it has been stated that the program will not be really negotiated for several weeks into the process. These are then really Israeli concerns. If Barak Ravid is not an Israeli spook, then he is a high paid member of Israel’s hasbara program.
No, Israel had NOT been given a copy of the MOU and was very pissed.
Please do not speculate like this. It undermines the site.
I didn’t mean to imply that Israel had been given a copy of the MoU. What I was implying is that these made up points came out of Netanyahu’s office to get Israel’s worries noted, hence all those nuclear points coming first. I should have made my point clearer.
You are denying what you CLEARLY WROTE?!?!
“Barak Ravid says that he has obtained the key points of the MOU…
Sounds like Barak Ravid got those points from Netanyahu’s office.”
This is NOT a good look.
I always take a quote from what I am commenting on to put it into context for other readers, whether I agree with it or not. Have been doing this for many years now. It is certain that Barak Ravid gets his marching orders from Tel Aviv and does not make them up himself.
Sorry, can you not read what you read? Is this Covid Brain?
You specifically said. “Ravid got those points from Netanyahu’s office”
“…those points” can ONLY refer to “the key points of the MOU”
….which Israel was screaming like crazy it had NOT GOTTEN.
Why are you so determined to defend a misleading and erroneous speculation?
You should know by now we don’t play favorites. We expect all readers to hold up our high standards for accuracy and critical thinking.
Look, the way that I think that it played out is this. So Ravid gets a call from Israel saying ‘Hey Barak. Got another job for you. We can’t get a look in on the MoU and Mossad is drawing a blank. Put out an article through Axios listing what you think the points are but put emphasis on the nuclear program to get people talking about it as nobody is at the moment. Thanks.
Yes, the above is speculation on my part but I do not think it to far from the truth. And I base it on the conclusion that Ravid is an Israeli asset and that the nuclear program is an Israeli obsession.
My read is that Rev writes it’s a possibility Netanyahu is feeding fake MOU points to Ravid. Not that Israel received the actual MOU.
Ravid is much too dependent on the Trump Administration access to do that. That would absolutely engage them and result in him being put in the penalty box for a while, if not permanently. That is a long-standing practice among those who play the access journalism game, to freeze out once pet scriveners when they get out of line.
The Trump Admin is famously vicious with the press and thus even more likely to be vindictive than corporations or governments generally are.
The DropSite clip at the end says that the Administration had started feeding what it depicted as MOU points to the press.
I hate to have to come down on you like this but this is wild-assed speculation with NO evidentiary foundation and contrary to Ravid’s interests and well established information patron-favored journo practice. I find this particularly disturbing since I am already having to ride herd on fake news, like claims of Pezezhkian resigning. I cannot have the comment section adding to that.
I saw your earlier comments as focused solely on the idea that Rev was trying to allege that Israel had received the MOU. Which I thought was not an accurate read of Rev’s comment. As the disagreement in this thread seemed to escalate quickly, I thought I could lower the temperature by clarifying with my read on Rev’s comments. I should have resisted the temptation to “help”. My apologies.
He was not specifically alleging that but for Israel/Netanyahu to have it to pass on, they could only get if from the US or Iran. It would be a huge protocol breach for the negotiators to pass it to Israel.
So he WAS arguing for that, if not explicitly. And he should have backed down when I pointed out that was the implication of his invention.
Larry Johnson, yesterday on Nima’s show, said that he thinks it inconceivable that the Israelis don’t know everything about that MOU and that their not knowing what is in it is just posturing on their part.
Starts around the 6:15 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mPS8rP_Oxc&t=1444s
1. I hate to tell you but Johnson was rounded on for his claims about Iran getting a nuclear device, or threatening to. Diplomacy and international negotiations are not his terrain.
2. Given the confusion about what is in the text per Daniel Davis working back from what he can see and Jeremy Scahill (who does talk a lot to the negotiators and even a decent number of Iran officials), unless Israel is officially in the loop, it cannot be sure of what it is getting.
And IMHO it is a big message to Israel for them NOT to be in the official loop and to have to push their contacts for informational scraps and then try to see if they converge.
3. Given how controversial the MOU is, Team Trump was making an attempt to limit information flows….apparently at least until late Monday/early Tues, when enough people had seen some version of the Iran 14 points that they started feeding info to the press.
First of all, thanks for all of the hard work you have been putting into these daily reports. The commentariat is not wrong in its’ assessment that it is consistently the best analysis of the conflict on the interwebs.
But, to your point, Johnson’s strength is not in diplomacy, but he does have a lot of experience in spying and black ops. For example: Pakistan has been prolific in its’ offering of nukes to various parties for years now, so it would not be hard to believe that a selective leak (whether true or not) to Johnson that Pakistan has offered them nukes to get under Trump’s skin would be a useful gambit. One which Johnson, himself, might have come up with in his previous career in Central America.
If prevention of nuclear proliferation to Iran is what keeps Trump up at night, if that is what he is going to make the red line of his Iran policy, why not give him some sleepless nights? Information warfare is a thing.
Similarly, it is difficult to believe that Kushner and whats-his-name, the real estate agent, aren’t Israeli operatives. They would be at the center of all negotiations and it cannot be said with confidence that they would not automatically give the MOU framework to Bibi even before Trump ever saw it. Israel doesn’t have to be officially included in the loop if they are effectively already in the loop.
Just saying, the thing is a really big onion, and while Scahill is a great journalist he, like Johnson, may not have access to all the layers in play.
Good day! Just a tiny edit note: The awful CNN segment is embedded where the Jeff Currie Bloomberg interview is supposed to be. Thanks for all your great work through this period — and for your attention to these matters. ;)
I do not know how you are getting that result. I see the Jeff Currie interview under footnote 3 which says, “From Jeff Currie below”.
I am getting an error message from YouTube for the CNN interview under footnote 2, so let me run that down.
The correct video is currently appearing for me in the footnotes, but not in the main body of the post, thanks.
Oh I see now. Fixed in the post. Sorry for having been dense. The error message on the CNN segment in the footnotes led me to stop there and not scroll up further in the post.
The vid on YT :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1AB4ohgIms
Keep seeing reports that ‘half the funds have already been committed’ for a $300 billion dollar package to Iran – https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/exclusive-iran-deal-includes-300-175751530.html
But supposedly these are commitments from foreign corporations –
“The new fund is a private investment vehicle, not a reconstruction or reparations programme and will not include any government money or grants, the source said, adding that companies based in the U.S., the Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America and Africa have agreed to commit financing.”
I really don’t think allowing companies to come in and profit was what Iran had in mind. More likely Iran expects those who broke their infrastructure – US and Israel – to open up their wallets to fix the damage so that Iran can improve it’s own financial position. This report sounds like just another “Bored of Peace” type grift that will not pan out and instead be a deal breaker. Hard to see any “deal” making it through the weekend.
If you think those commitments mean anything, I have a bridge to sell you. These are just polite handwaves.
But yes, I should have mentioned that Iran was stoopidly setting themselves up for Ukraine Reconstruction Fund 2.0, where the managers would skim tons off the top and the investors would be out to loot. So thanks for bringing that up.
Tony Blair? / ;)
YS: If you think those commitments mean anything, I have a bridge to sell you.
Indeed.The latest (as of when I last looked)….
Donald Trump says US will not invest in $300bn fund for Iran
US president’s pushback on reports of provision in peace deal comes after fierce bipartisan backlash
https://archive.ph/YvkPi
https://www.ft.com/content/c6dbc33e-f12c-4608-bdf2-c8c4b1cdc211
‘…When US vice-president JD Vance was asked on Monday if a proposal for a $300bn fund was “true or false”, he said: “That’s the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition so long as they honour their end of the obligations. We absolutely are open to the Gulf Coast countries investing in the reconstruction in Iran, but only if Iran ends their nuclear programme, ends their enriched stockpile of material…”’
‘Members of Trump’s own party have expressed deep scepticism about the deal, including the reported $300bn fund. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a vocal supporter of the war, has sharply criticised the establishment of a reconstruction fund.
“The idea of a $300bn reconstruction fund, given who is in charge of Iran, seems to be tone deaf,” (Lindsay Graham) noted on social media. “It would be akin to a Marshall Plan for Germany with the Nazis still in charge.”
Blah, blah, blah.
“That’s the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition so long as they honour their end of the obligations.”
One has to wonder at what point the GCC countries will rebel at the idea of being the piggy bank of first resort every time the Trump Administration wants a few bucks. I think it far more likely that they petition the Feds to form a reconstruction fund for themselves. After all, they were not the ones that started the war, much less the ones that lost it.
The Epstein coalition, rather than building resorts in Albania and Gaza, may have to dig down into their own pockets for a change to reimburse everyone involved. It couldn’t happen to a better bunch of people. A wild thought, but imagine Miriam Adelson having to contribute to a fund managed by Iran to rebuild Gaza?
Well, as Aurelien pointed out, an MOU between two countries cannot commit a third country to do anything.
As I understand it, it doesn’t even really commit the two countries to do anything. It’s basically just an agreed-on agenda for what the parties are going to talk about and how they’re going to do it. Maybe a few preconditions tossed in, just for grins and giggles.
I may be (and often am) wrong, but “MOU” is essentially French for “shape of the table and who sits where.” ;-)
“the Gulf Coast coalition”
Just as a side note: Journalist and geopolitical analyst Patrick Henningsen on Nima Alkorshid’s Dialogue Works yesterday mocked Vice-President JD Vance’s repeated references to “the Gulf Coast coalition”:
““The new fund is a private investment vehicle, not a reconstruction or reparations programme and will not include any government money or grants, the source said, adding that companies based in the U.S., the Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America and Africa have agreed to commit financing.””
Doesn’t that pretty well de facto remove all practical sanctions on Iran (Russia and China are not included, but they trade with Iran now, anyway)? Or am I missing something obvious?
I can’t help but repeat that Israel is in for a whole world of trouble going forward…
Actually, as I think about this, if this goes ahead I think the US will be forced to try to go to war with Iran again (and lose miserably) or to diplomatically recognize Iran shortly, if for no other reason than to have some means of influencing a China/Russia/Iran block. It may not have mattered before, but if Iran is truly getting half a trillion dollars soon to build its economy, and if it can choose to shut down the world economy at will, I don’t think that the US has too many options.
I am just speculating in areas I know nothing about (diplomacy and IR), but if I am correct, then this really reinforces the part about Israel being completely screwed going forward–the west and the GCC absolutely cannot simply choose to ignore Asia because Israel wants to throw a tantrum, especially when the West’s own populations are generally pretty strongly anti-Israel now.
Score a major final victory for Sinwar?
I expect the MOU to be extended through November. I think this whole thing is a can-kicking exercise to postpone the oil cliff through the midterms while allowing the US to rearm. Whether they are able to avoid an oil price shock is currently being debated by people with more knowledge than me.
I agree. I will speculate that Trump’s inner circle has come to the conclusion that they can’t avoid the oil shock. Talk of throwing Hegseth and Ratcliffe overboard seems like looking for scapegoats.
Paradox, that’s an interesting line of thought about going back to war with Iran or recognizing them, maybe too binary, but will depend on whether we continue to politically embrace the zionists or not. I expect the Ds to monkey wrench when they can, and they will be ecstatic if supporting the Zionist state is at odds with an evolving throw Bibi under the bus Trump administration position.
I am guessing that considering the push back from both parties and the public at large, Trump will do his best to obscure any reparations to Iran by relabeling and laundering through third parties. Just like the toll is now a fee..
He cannot get $300 billion or even $25 billion ex an appropriation, which is na ga happen.
I have said repeatedly that I think the $300 billion is a marker for how much damage Iran has suffered, which the US has accepted. If Iran does not get its funds, that can be a target for the total amount of its share of its fees, after expenses, for taking very very good care of the Strait of Hormuz.
“Israel – to open up their wallets”
Hahaha…funniest line of the year!
https://youtu.be/bhRdoBYlgVU?si=_cGGYKzanDxpoE_v
The CNN round table participants appear to have been weaned on important journalistic investigations such as the “Authentic Philly Cheesesteak Controversy” while in Journalism School.
It is mind boggling that people actually watch that crap! But it does explain the vehement comments exhorting our military to go in and finish the job of crushing Iran that proliferate in “The Wall Street Journal” and “The New York Times”.
I am a member of the first generation that grew up with television. The damage TV did to us and to subsequent generations is palpable. And print medium raced to lower standards in order to keep pace with TV.
The Jeff Currie vid linked above goes to that hideous CNN “roundtable”.💩
The vid desired I suspect is this one:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2026-06-16/currie-hormuz-flows-may-not-normalize-until-year-s-end-video
I do not see how it is possible for you to be producing that result. This is the screenshot. I played both and both play correctly locally:
I suggest closing your window and opening the page in a new window.
Thanks again for your war posts.
an aside: the US MSM may be trying to portrait the Iranian govt as untrustworthy and unwilling to fairly negotiate.
I think the Iranian govt learned lessons from the Minsk Agreement. / my 2 cents
https://josricardomartins.substack.com/p/angela-merkels-revelation-the-minsk
Let’s see. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz. Agreed? Yes. Agreed. Does that look as decisive to you as it does to me? No response? I take that to be a yes. The MOU is about the details …not insignificant but details? Agreed? You hesitate. I take that to be a yes. Let’s wait and see what is presented for signature.
When do you suppose the “final battle” ( next round) will begin?
As Aurelian noted yesterday the MOU is a framework for negotiating it agrees on nothing other than what the negotiating positions are. It is not legally binding, or enforceable. It is not a deal even if Trump says it is a deal (the 40th time). And of course the months of negotiating will be filled with Trumpian whiplash and Israeli and US perfidy – does the Deep State agree with the negotiations? They have nine ways to Sunday to mess things up.
So I expect round 2 soon and hope I am wrong. Not for empire, but for the millions who are going to die from hunger. Note, its not just an oil cliff – we already went over the fertilizer cliff. And the helium cliff? Coming up! And so on.
Well, at least the helium cliff won’t lead to a massive drop.
— sorry, I couldn’t resist.
I think they will do everything they can to freeze the conflict until after the midterms. The US needs time to refit and rearm and they want to keep oil prices as low as possible through the midterms.
Plus, it is too hot to fight during the summer. I expect it to flare back up in late November.
Don’t ask me why but today I realized that I had seen an example of Trump having his stand-off with the Iranian government to see who would blink first in popular culture-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X9NFwJmg2Q (55 secs)
He has agreed to term of the MoU but every instinct in him is screaming to renege on it. But he knows that he really can’t as the economy is approaching that waterfall. There would be a lot of screaming going on in the Oval Office I bet.
After the Paris Peace Accords, Nixon a couple of times tried some chest thumping and threats of reescalation to get the obvious winners not to claim the fruits. But everybody knew the threats were empty and they had no impact.
Will Mossad activate its many Iranian Terrorist Cells in The USA before ‘The Signing’ on Friday ?
Is anyone running a book on this ?
What odds are being offered ?
I won’t give or take any odds, but I think it is worth noting that a year ago, Israel was huffing and puffing that it could destroy Iran and perhaps run the entire ME without any help (I don’t remember the exact ME propaganda and am too lazy to look it up). A few months ago Israel seemed to believe that it could destroy and dismember Iran with US help. Now Israel is basically indignant that it can’t even stay in southern Lebanon–and btw, Israel’s army is taking a pounding there, and the IDF itself was saying that its situation was untenable even before the MOU was released.
I mean, the trend is hardly encouraging from their POV.
Oh–and most indications are that its cells in Iran have largely been burned/rolled up.
And yet when one looks at the Israeli media, there are still people there talking about how they’ll have to go to war and beat Turkey next. Meanwhile, the haredim are still striking against being conscripted in the IDF.
On the evidence, Israel in 2026 has parted company with reality even more radically than Hitler’s Germany did.
Better to be worrying about Mossad’s terrorist cells inside Iran in my opinion, with the internet being unblocked.
What a shambles. Under normal circumstances, you would say that the two sides are weeks away from an agreed text: it’s difficult to be sure, because some of the extracts read like actual text, others like summaries or jottings. It’s worth making a couple of points, though.
Firstly, Israel was not involved in whatever talks there may have been, and will not be a party to the MoU. For them to be angry about not being consulted is normal. However, this means that the MoU cannot commit Israel to anything. Thus, the Scahill version of the undertaking:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon signing this memorandum of understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon”
is strictly speaking meaningless (as is the Shabani version) since it implies either that Hezbollah and Israel will sign the MoU, or that they are not bound by it. It’s possible that there’s a reference here to a parallel text (note the word “declaration”) to be issued at the same time as the MoU.
Second, the nuclear issue appears to have been fudged, because Ravid’s quoted formulation “pledge to resolve issue of disposal of enriched uranium stockpile” is essentially a commitment to talks, and nothing more. Likewise, whatever Trump thinks, you can’t put something forbidding Iran to ever have nuclear weapons in an MoU, which is a statement of common understanding, not an executive document. I suspect the US will actually accept the Iranian formulation, and disguise it as a victory.,
Third, the Iranian reference to the UNSC is probably intended to politically embarrass the US, rather than achieve anything concrete. The SC doesn’t “ratify” anything, and even then an MoU is in effect just a non-binding statement, and can’t magically be converted into a binding one. The US, of course, would be agreeing to a motion that it would be bound by, so I wouldn’t expect very much. The most likely formula would be something along the lines of “notes with approval the MoU and earnestly calls upon the signatories to abide by its terms, and all other interested parties to refrain from action likely to jeopardise its implementation.”
I worked in USAF weapon system acquisitions, I was in the program management office. Much of my job was acquiring the resources and tech data to establish depot repair facilities, the depot was in the same major organization as I but geographically and sub command not located with me.
It was as contentious as this. We often would develop memorandum of agreement to frame what I was going to do and what the depot repair planners needed to do to set up the repair capacities. We used MOA because agreement was stronger than “understanding” (DoD folklore). Then we would confer to jointly develop plans, programs and budgets (budget came from my unit, made me depot ambassador).
If this Friday goes according to my experience there remains a huge amount of “clarifying”, finger pointing and angst from both sides.
I learned diplomacy is hard!
“Firstly, Israel was not involved in whatever talks there may have been, and will not be a party to the MoU. For them to be angry about not being consulted is normal. However, this means that the MoU cannot commit Israel to anything. Thus, the Scahill version of the undertaking:”
If Rubio was to be be believed (insofar as one can believe anything he says) when he said that the US went into Iran because Israel was going to do it anyway and we had a responsibility to support them, then that makes Israel a de-facto co-belligerent. Trump has said that Israel owes its’ existence to the US, presumably because Israel could not have mounted an attack on Iran by itself and hoped to have survived the consequences. It is amusing to see Israel treated by Iran as a proxy in much the same way that the US has described Hezbollah for years.
The two countries are practically indivisible when it comes to this war, and Iran knows it. It doesn’t really matter whether Israel agrees to anything because Trump has the power to defang Israel at will by ceasing military, intelligence, political and fiscal support. They are not sovereign in that sense, so what they think does not matter.
Hezbollah doesn’t need to sign anything. Under existing international law, occupying powers only “right” is to leave while those who are occupied have the inherent right to military self defense. Iran demanding that Israel leave Lebanon is the right of any state observant of the UN charter.
As you say, an MOU is not legally binding, but then even a final treaty won’t be seen as being binding by the notoriously agreement incapable parties of Israel and the US anyway. It is instructive, however, to see how Iran is building its’ case for an ultimate UN resolution. Recognition of the results of Operation Epic Fail at the UN will have its’ uses in the future.
Even though Israel has its own objectives, i regard it as a US proxy, just as Iraq was a US proxy against Iran during the 1980’s long war on Iran…
Being a US Proxy means being an instrument of US Corporate-government foreign policy aims…
“Firstly, Israel was not involved in whatever talks there may have been, and will not be a party to the MoU. For them to be angry about not being consulted is normal. However, this means that the MoU cannot commit Israel to anything.”
Not being a party, even though highly involved, is a way to dance around the issue of what exactly are their borders.
It occurs to me that the Iranian reference to the UNSC preempts any talk of Trump’s Board of Peace from taking the role.
I glanced at the headlines on several dead tree outlets yesterday morning and they were all along the lines of “Peace in our Time” and “The War is over”.
I haven’t seen headlines like that since the last time the US Marine’s restored Democracy to Haiti.
The USG is so dysfunctional I doubt that it can get things together enough to sign this deal, let alone implement it.
I do hope the Izzies will release what Epstein material they have, it would be vastly amusing even though I doubt they have vids of Trump bonking an underage goat.
Nitpicky I know but Haiti became free and democratic in 1804. The US has done everything they can to undermine, reverse and punish them since then. Nothing grates the colonial mindset like slaves winning their own freedom.
Kudos if you’re pointing out the silliness of those headlines.
I took that line to be sarcasm (we all know what ‘US Marines restoring democracy’ means). I think your second interpretation is the correct one.
Lukas Ekwueme
@ekwufinance
2h
Exxon: You can debate whether that’s going to hit those really low
levels in 2 weeks or 3 weeks. But once you get to that point, then you’ll see price shoot up.
No doubt a lot of foul panic sweating in Tel Aviv, Washington and New York, and there’s some deep soul satisfaction at the thought of that.
Trump seems to want his protege in Syria to take on Hezbollah – and reports from Vanessa Beeley in Lebanon indicate that Syrian Takfiri (jihadist) forces (with some Turks) are massing on Lebanon’s northern border (she says 70,000) and some more of Jolani’s troops in the mountains adjacent to Beirut (Interview on UK Column). Shia Iraqui’s have said they will strike Syria if Jolani intervenes in Lebanon. Perhaps this is what Trump has been talking to Netanyahu about – ‘you pull out and let the Syrians deal with Hezbollah’.
Not quite sure what this means–Trump is telling Syria to invade Lebanon?
No. This is an old story, and I made a comment on it over in Links today. It has nothing to do with Israel (or the US for that matter.) Don’t forget that for many Syrians Lebanon (or at least parts of it) should be part of Syria, and that Syria basically controlled the country from the Civil War until 2005, when it was forced to withdraw its troops. The real danger is that we are seeing the start of an Iranian/Syrian struggle for control and influence in Lebanon, with the Saudis at last getting back into the game, and the US rapidly fading.
1. Thank you, as always.
But not to be dense:
2. How does Syria “take on” Hezbollah without violating Lebanon’s borders?
3. “The real danger is that we are seeing the start of an Iranian/Syrian struggle for control and influence in Lebanon, with the Saudis at last getting back into the game, and the US rapidly fading.”
I don’t pretend to know the politics in the region, but if your analysis is correct, what role does Russia play? Is it more or less content just to sit this one out?
By demanding bigger bribes for the weapons transported from Iran to Lebanon trough Syria.
Russia’s role is that it prefers to have bases in the region, and accordingly will play it cool with everybody, occasionally firing at or offering safety to one group or the other as the local power politics require. Russians know well enough that both Syria and Lebanon are basically just volatile collections of tribes and clans with constantly shifting alignments and loyalties. So, generally avoid picking sides and wait for a side to pick you and then make it beneficial for them to stick with you – while you prepare a plan B, a plan C and a plan D.
Thanks. I’m curious how Erdogan will act/not act as this thing progresses.
It can’t. It appears as though there have been some cross-border clashes already. The Syrians (some of them anyway) have been working hard to establish provocations and prepare the ground. At this juncture, I don’t think the new government in Damascus would allow anything that looked like an invasion, but they would have nothing against a climate of instability that forced the local Shia and Christian populations to flee the frontier area. In the end, though, just having thousands of heavy-armed Jihadists on the frontier counts for something in the game of bluff and intimidation. In addition, Islamic Jihad and other groups already have a presence in the Palestinian camps, which is another headache for the Lebanese, and one could imagine some of the jihadis infiltrating there.
It’s always important to distinguish between local actors with power because they have their hooks into the political system (the Iranians, the Saudis again now, the Syrians) and from the more distant players (the Russians, the US, to some extent France) who have influence on the formal political process, but don’t have organised client groups, and above all don’t live in the region, and whose involvement tends to fluctuate with political fashion. The US will always be there, in their mammoth new fortress-Embassy, but their position will be weaker than it was, simply because the Iranians have given them a good kicking, and everybody knows it. One of the most ridiculous by-products of this stupid war is that the Iranian position in Lebanon will now be much stronger than it was a year ago.
If the US influence in Lebanon is “rapidly fading” then it follows that a faction of the Deep State arguing for this small country’s importance has lost. I say this having been to the low mountains a bit north of Beirut 14 months ago. Looking down, towards the Mediterranean, was the very large, not yet completed USA Embassy complex. I was reliably told that it will be the second largest USA Embassy in the world. This for a tiny, politically and militarily insignificant “country”. Why?
Spying.
I wonder how frequent Trump’s confabulations are?
I encountered this once, the principal looked absolutely normal, there was noting in his speech or demeanor that gave a clue that he was non compos mentis initially.
We went over several points in excruciating detail, I was almost ready to scream when the principal said “OK, that’s settled, we will do X”.
Less than five minutes later it was “How soon can we implement Y”.
No change in voice or demeanor, a 180 degree change in what was agreed on as a course of action.
Every one else at the table was nodding their heads and it was “Yes Boss, we will get right on it”.
Perfectly normal, nothing to see here.
Yes had that exact experience.
“why were you working on that?”
“It’s what you told me to work on one week ago.’
Had to go documented assignments.
0718 PDT
‘I’m the boss’, Trump says at G7, as he warms to Ukraine’s war aims
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/g7-leaders-tackle-reliance-china-critical-minerals-2026-06-17/
‘Deal not final’: Trump changes tune on Iran, threatens to ‘drop bombs’, go back to shooting again
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/trump-changes-tune-iran-deal-not-final-dropping-bombs-shooting-tehran-doesnt-behave-war-g7-meet-france-101781696130479.html
I might be the last person who watches TV-text news. I don’t know how is it called in English, in Spanish we say teletexto. Well the Spanish state-funded channels teletext hich tends to be very MSM-like has headlines saying that “The US Has Been Defeated by Iran” and similar things. Today for the first time there is an entry on the energy cliff. It takes time to notice the new geopolitical and economic realities.
I’ll add a bit to the teletexto headline:
The US Has Been Defeated by Iran….Thanks to Isr And The Lobby.
Do you mean news on a TV channel’s website? I don’t know if there is a specific English word for that like teletexto, but maybe we should adopt that.
Not the website but an add on in each channel that can be accessed when you are watching it by pressing the “Text” button in the TV remote control. It takes you to a host of text pages (a few hundreds), all written in courier, which usually contain news and other info of interest. You can navigate the teletext with the coloured buttons in the remote (red, green, yellow and blue).
Well now I’m just jealous.
In Germany it’s called ARD/ZDF (Tele- or sometimes Video-) Text. Long ago these small bits of information were technically sneaked¹ into the broadcast of TV-Programs. Now a relic, probably the undisputed (even by AI) domain of unpaid interns.
I often take a look at it on days, when I pause² the Internet. Contrary to the normal news (Tagesschau…) I can stand this mere text, studded with spelling errors and harebrained propaganda lies.
¹ One might draw a parallel to SMS
² My Super-Power
I’d guess it’s confabulation. But it’s possible that he’s in such a dilemma that he says whatever just to make it go away for a while. A stall, in other words.
Also, Trump’s entire career shows that he regards his compliance with his own deals as strictly optional.
Tracy Shuchart (𝒞𝒽𝒾 )
@chigrl
·
43m
DANGER DANGER!
Cushing crude storage just hit 20.034M …critical levels
https://x.com/Rory_Johnston/status/2067256444013920684
With a chart for perspective.
I confess, I’m surprised to see him the chart that this is simply the lowest level since 2014 and that we’ve come very close to this level a few times since then. Off the top of my head I don’t know why it was so low in 2014.
I’ve been under the impression that this extraordinary low was unprecedented or close to it.
I had wanted to work in the very important tweet you provided yesterday on the bear trap into today’s post but did not have a good spot for it. I notice Currie said VaR is super low because hardly anyone is trading! But does that = fewer contract settlements and thus less demand at Cushing for oil?
maybe because the oil isn’t there,virtually gone. so what do the shorts who have priced delivery do? roll out to the next expiry, they have 3 days to do that. that’ s the bear trap. so who buys the shorts out of their position, we might not know until FND on the 25th. COT comes out tomorrow so we’ll get a peek at relevant numbers. here’s the beginning of the cliff and that underground storage doesn’t do well if it stays at these levels for long. out today working on a Rainmaker project. Much appreciate your insights, experience, and intelligence, thank you!
yesterday July WTI spiked to 80 at about the time the AIE released its report on Cushing stocks at “tank bottom” and after digging a little a VaR of 90 popped up, roll baby roll
WTI fair value calculated at 101
JSG
@UndervaluedOnG
·
20h
Using EIA data thru 6/17/26, WTI fair value calculated at 101, or $24 undervalued from current market price. Historically, this would be a trading opportunity to go long crude. Current comm. petroleum stocks ex. other oils at 1-year low. Still 36MM bbls above May ’22 min
More circus clown shows from the Idiot Emperor and the Kakistocrat Krew. (I’m gonna name my new band that)
He now says he’s gonna start dropping bombs again. Wait til this afternoon, maybe a different story, who knows?
All the drama for naught? As pointed out, the so-called MoU is not legally binding. Congress won’t ratify any binding agreement. Even if it did, would the US abide by its own agreement? If history is any indicator, the answer is no.
Meanwhile, oil futures are down, S&P 500 still at near-record levels. Kick the can down the road a bit more.
“Opening” the Strait of Hormuz: While it is clear that Iran is intent on controlling the Strait of Hormuz, it is not at all clear they are serious about managing the Strait as a reliable commercial passage for shipping, or whether they want to use control of the Strait for leverage in the negotiations with Trump. One would assume the latter on basic realpolitik principles. If the Straight is going to be open today/closed tomorrow when Israel bombs Beirut again, then there is no way anyone is going to send a VLCC on a six week journey to be turned away by the Iranians in response to the Israeli’s most recent provocation. Second, if Trump is continuing to threaten to re-start bombing during the negotiations, that is another reason to avoid it like a curse even if Iran is serious about reliable and safe commercial shipping. Its hard to understand the optimism in the energy markets right now.
That is a good point. If they get their Gulf neighbors onside, I think they would want reliable commercial passage so as to give them more fees. But now they want power. They need to cement their win over the US and Israel.
Yes, eventually they would want to be a steady and reliable partner in trade with the Gulf, BUT at this time, they are surrounded by American and Israeli military forces, and all they have is a non-binding MOU which makes a lot of pretty promises that no expects either the Americans, let alone the Israeli’s, to follow. They have no option except hardball if they want to survive. There needs to be a final peace agreement and an American withdrawal before they can worry about reliable shipping, and there probably needs to be an international treaty governing passage through the Strait that is approved by the neighboring states, if not the UN.
Something like the Montreux Convention controlling ship traffic through the Bosporus?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
Iran could still charge “fees” and, if they’re smart share them with other Gulf States.
0835 PDT
US-Iran deal said set to halt regional hostilities, including in Lebanon, lift blockade
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-iran-deal-said-set-to-halt-regional-hostilities-including-in-lebanon-lift-blockade/
Israeli settlers destroy Finland-funded schools in West Bank
https://yle.fi/a/74-20232135
Finland charges Russian captain and crew member of ship suspected of damaging undersea cables — prosecutors claim ship had eight more targets before it was stopped by coast guard
https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/finland-charges-russian-captain-and-crew-member-of-ship-suspected-of-damaging-undersea-cables-prosecutors-claim-ship-had-eight-more-targets-before-it-was-stopped-by-coast-guard
Denmark says its military will deploy battalion in Latvia
https://www.reuters.com/world/denmark-says-its-military-will-deploy-battalion-latvia-2026-06-17/
Poland readies for hoped-for permanent US military base
https://tvpworld.com/93836804/poland-takes-first-steps-toward-hosting-permanent-us-base
US weighs boosting ties with PA as it seeks to advance Gaza plan and Abraham Accords
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-weighs-boosting-ties-with-pa-as-it-seeks-to-advance-gaza-plan-and-abraham-accords/
US and Iran to sign peace deal in Swiss mountain resort Bürgenstock
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-diplomacy/signing-of-the-agreement-between-the-us-and-iran-at-the-b%c3%bcrgenstock/91597954
Three Iranian tankers exit U.S. blockade for first time in months as shipowners eye Hormuz in ‘wary disbelief’
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/17/iranian-tankers-oil-shipment-us-iran-deal-strait-of-hormuz-.html
G7 leaders ‘ready to consider’ extending military production licenses to Ukraine, agree to increase arms deliveries
https://kyivindependent.com/g7-leaders-ready-to-consider-extending-military-production-licenses-to-ukraine-agree-to-increase-arms-deliveries/
The comments following this tweet suggest that pipelines will be built in the Middle East to bypass the strait of Hormuz and remove Iran’s leverage over oil supplies.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but pipelines seem far more vulnerable than waterways assuming the existence of accurate missiles. Anyone that can hit ships on the water, which are normally moving, can certainly hit pipelines that are buried in the ground and whose positions are forever unchanging. Of course if a section of pipeline is blown up, it can be repaired, but it could also be blown up again every day, perhaps in different places to give the repair crews some healthy variety in their work.
Oil and other badly needed commodities are not going to keep flowing because of technical solutions. The only hope here is that we can somehow learn to get along and live in peace among each other, perhaps taking pride in the prosperous and successful society we have managed to collectively build. Call me a dreamer, but I think we can do it.
If you listen to Pape, the plan for Iran is to control from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea to the Gulf, and to ensure that nothing moves through the Arabian peninsula without Iranian oversight. This is consistent with Iran’s latest articulation of their vision of a belt across the Middle East. Any pipeline would be subject to drones or missile strikes.
With the base destructions, the US is out of the region. Turkey, Pakistan, Oman, Qatar and Saudi are making their peace with the new order. UAE is allegedly paying off the Iranians not to strike them. Who knows about Bahrain and Kuwait but they can forget about the USA coming to their rescue. Its going to happen unless the USA or the Israeli’s can come up with some superweapon out of a comic book to destroy Iran’s state capacity.
“If you listen to Pape, the plan for Iran is to control from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea to the Gulf,”
If true/correct, Europe will be increasingly hemmed in from all directions and unable to do anything about it. Its responses will be fascinating to watch from a purely analytical perspective, but they may want to start kissing Turkey’s ass sooner rather than later.
Or Russia’s or China’s. Pape noted that America’s military supremacy was demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf War, and part of the response was Europe drastically cutting their defense budgets. Well, this Gulf War III pretty much upended any international confidence in American military supremacy, so Europe better get used to relying on the kindness of strangers.
Pumping stations are not underground.
Now we have a new cat among the pigeons:
Keep in mind that DropSite said YESTERDAY it along with other news outlets got some points of the MOU, DIRECTLY from official sources. Then Ravid and Bloomberg and some others posted a 14 point plan, again yesterday.
But DropSite noted the version they got did not include the Lebanon territorial language that they had heard earlier was in. So was the Trump Admin trying to make the deal sound less Iran favorable than it is to reduce the pre-signing controversy level and the Lobby is piling on?
1. How does this help Israel or Trump at all, practically speaking? Presumably everybody will know the text within 48 hours
2. I find it curious that there has been no attempt on Trump’s (or Israel’s) side to claim a victory here (beyond the very half-assed, low-effort boilerplate stuff). Even the confabulation since Sunday has been just on auto-pilot. Although reneging will be suicidal, I can’t help but think that he is trying to give himself wiggle room to back out. Or he could be completely exhausted and psychologically defeated, I guess.
“If they don’t honor the agreement, or some things that aren’t even mentioned in the agreement…” is wiggle room and then some.
(I’m more than a little amused that when I search for the text of Trump’s comments Google AI wants to refer me to advice on how to deal with breach of contract.)
“So was the Trump Admin trying to make the deal sound less Iran favorable than it is to reduce the pre-signing controversy level and the Lobby is piling on?” That is my read on it, too.
Trump must be utterly exhausted by dealing with this problem now (and livid HRC as crowing how she handled the Israelis 15 years ago by not supporting their desire to bomb Iran) and apparently too exhausted (or add your preferred verb to replace it) to see that this “deal” is just “an agreement to agree”, which in my experience are often broken. If the Israelis are not on board and still have attack capability (let alone leverage in the US), then no deal will happen. Personally, I think it is intractable and am planning on it being so.
0946 PDT
More than 1,000 people have been killed by Israeli fire since the Gaza ceasefire, officials say
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/israel-hamas-war/article/more-than-1000-people-have-been-killed-by-israeli-fire-since-the-gaza-ceasefire-officials-say/
Hezbollah MP claims delegations to Turkey promised to ‘support the resistance’ in Lebanon
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-899712
Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and can sell oil freely under deal with the US, officials say
https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-war-oil-deal-june-17-2026-19652f4611b704c0a991bf1f5bc9a4b9
‘Most beautiful-looking man, like an angel but he’s tough…’: Trump has nothing but praises for PM Modi
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/most-beautiful-looking-man-like-an-angel-but-hes-tough-donald-trump-has-nothing-but-praises-for-pm-modi-4042695
Bus with Belarus children hit by a drone in Russia, Moscow claims it was attacked by Ukraine
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/06/17/bus-carrying-belarus-children-hit-by-a-drone-in-russia-moscow-claims
Re; Bear Trap
[Feat. Jeff Currie]
Why Oil has not cleared $100: The VaR trap might be smothering the barrel
The reason oil has not punched cleanly through $100 may not be simply that the physical market is comfortable. It may not just be the tanker-goat trail through the Middle East, larger reserve buffers, or the post-Covid change in consumer demand behaviour, although all of those likely matter. The deeper issue could be that the oil market has lost part of its financial transmission belt. The barrels may still be tight, inventories may still be drawing, and geopolitics may still be throwing sparks across the map, but the risk capital that normally turns those facts into price appears to have stepped back from the table.
The state of demand-destruction:
‘Bear beneath the barrel’: Mirae Asset sees weak demand limiting oil rally
We are revising our stance on the oil market as underlying fundamentals have shifted more rapidly than anticipated. Historically, markets tend to bottom amid negative sentiment and peak on positive headlines—and the current wave of constructive news flow is inherently bearish for crude. Progress on regional de-escalation, reopening of key export routes, and the return of Gulf barrels are easing supply concerns. At the same time, demand destruction is now formally reflected in both OPEC and EIA outlooks, while incremental supply from Saudi Arabia and Iraq is already re-entering the market.
had to refresh my mind on VaR(Value at Risk), but that makes sense.
too much volatility and chaos every day, so that nobody knows whats actually going on, so these trader guys just leave the card table.
that looks to me like reality intruding into the silo.
and its gonna be hard to contain, going forward.
especially as physical shortages become evident( i have no idea what to watch for things like, say, pipeline flows(pipelines need oil in them to function,lol) or refinery usage of capacity(how much have they lowered their throughput, and when are they gonna hafta shut down?)
I think we also need to wonder about what appears to be market-manipulation and insider-trading in the oil market itself; how much does this affect traders for large institutions? Or does that not apply here?
I don’t know the answer to that, but if I began to suspect that it’s a crooked card-game, and I’m not in cahoots with the dealer, it seems stupid not to walk away… is there another table where an honest game is run?
Energy Information Administration of DoE reports each week on supply balances of crude, and refined fuels. It also reports production of the above and disposition including export, imports, input to refineries, last line is net of gross import and export all crude, petrol products including LNG.
Crude stocks have been declining, year on year with SPR not recovering from net draw of 170 million barrels for 2022 react to Russia.
Gasoline, diesel and kerosene stocks are down year on year but not too worrying. Inputs to refineries are run near normal. Worry when fuel declines get much higher y on y, and crude is not up to usual quantity to refineries. Speculators may not find use here?
I consider the impact of drawing down reserves to be a factor affecting speculators. Delay crude supply shock.
While sudden demand destruction is a factor no one wanting to hold $100 contract when crude goes to $20 if the economy shuts down like spring 2020.
I had traded a couple of energy ETF coming out of Covid, but took profits and have not been into them. Partiality because I felt drawing the reserves over Kiev was manipulation.
I am short the market…..
The Branko Marcetic Xitter is important: “The collective response today from Democratworld to the Iran/Trump peace honestly pretty well sums up why this disastrous war was allowed to happen in the first place.”
What I am seeing on my admittedly curated / limited FcBook feed is U.S. liberals melting down, yet they are also trying to play oneupmanship and oneupwomynship. Trump got a worse deal than Obama, you see.
I’m seeing a lot of liberal and liberalish warrior princes and princesses avoiding any reckoning with how the Iran war is still another moral disaster for the U S of A — what the tribe wants us to know instead is that Obama handled the money better and prevented that non-existent kooky plan for a Shia nuke.
Knowing U.S. culture well, I’m going to throw out a few ideas as to what to expect:
–Eager waits for Heather Cox Richardson to channel the latest drivel from the “intelligence community,” plus resultant worship of Richardson and her patriotic friendses. Guess appearance: The Vindmans!
–More blabbing about any reparations to Iran, something that obviously offends Usonians. (None of them recall: You break it. You bought it.) Which leads to the question: Isn’t it time for AngloAmerica to start having that AngloAmerican conversation on reparations to the Palestinians?
–I saw a Hillary Clinton video in which she claims that Israel played the U.S. government, unlike the good ole days when she and Obama had Israel under control. If you believe anything that Hillary “Adoration of War” Clinton says, it’s time to check into the assisted-living facility for memory care and hospice, snookums.
–Corollary: Clinton is trying to start that classic U.S. theme: Who Lost China? Who Lost ____? Fill in the blank. This is part of the paranoid style of U.S. politics as well as the general culture of panic. One result will be even more McCarthyism.
–Corollary: Clinton and others will also try to trot out that other great theme of U.S. politics. The stab in the back. Stab in the back has kept delusions about what happened in Vietnam on a low simmer for years. Yes, it’s time for you to fold up that MIA flag.
Three major losses in a row: Ukraine as a strategic failure of NATO expansion. Palestine as nihilism and racism. Iran as a tactical failure in every aspect, plus colonialism.
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes
It’s a little secret, just the Robinsons’ affair
Most of all, you’ve got to hide it from the kids
Heather Cox Richardson perplexes me. Her books from ~25 years ago on the Reconstruction and so forth weren’t half bad at all, in fact, somewhat refreshing for the time. How you go from that to – based on one or two recent podcasts of hers I tried to listen to, giving up after a few minutes each time – being an unquestioning DNC mouthpiece I’ll never know. I’m far more “understanding” of people who start out as propaganda shills to begin with a la Robert Conquest. Them – I get.
Her newsletters are, in my opinion, better than the podcasts. And you can easily skip the nauseating parts. I find most of what she posts informative – like reading a newspaper. I never followed her until about a month ago.
From DD Geopolitics:
1032 PDT
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he had spoken to Syria’s leader about combatting Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-he-talked-syrian-leader-about-taking-hezbollah-2026-06-17/
Russia to import gasoline by sea as shortage looms
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-import-gasoline-by-sea-shortage-looms-sources-say-2026-06-17/
If India comes under attack, US will help: Trump at briefing with PM Modi
https://mybs.in/2g6wx9Q
UN food aid agency gets $800 million grant from US after funding cuts
https://www.reuters.com/world/un-food-aid-agency-gets-800-million-grant-us-after-funding-cuts-2026-06-17/
Israel Launches Fresh Airstrikes In Lebanon; Trump Says He Could Still Restart War
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/g7-leaders-demand-ceasefire-lebanon-welcome-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
I don’t know how credible the Hindustan Times is, but they have an interesting piece up now that says the US is pulling twenty percent of its’ tanker force out of Ben Gurion. For the life of me I cannot understand why those tankers were not a part of Iranian reprisals already, but either this could potentially be to preserve them or, maybe, a hint to Israel that a lot more could be done to reduce Israel’s strike abilities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cTtxyyNRsQ
They are also saying that Israel was consulted prior to the MOU being electronically signed. As I say, I don’t know if any of this is true, but it is interesting.
“Who pays the Piper calls the tune”, something in the front of every Congresscritter’s mind.
In the “Land of the Fee and the Home of the Grave” that would be the Zionists.
That won’t change peacefully.
But if you cheat the piper, he takes your children away….
1308 PDT
Revealed: US-Iran deal includes $425 billion fund, immediate end to oil sanctions
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/revealed-us-iran-deal-includes-425b-fund-immediate-end-to-oil-sanctions-20260618-p607th.html
1315 PDT
US releases text of Iran peace plan as Trump says deal averts ‘worldwide depression’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/17/trump-us-iran-war-mou-deal
Trump says US would do better without USMCA trade agreement
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-says-us-would-do-better-without-usmca-trade-agreement-2026-06-17/
Iran confirmed those are the points and the deal has now been electronically signed.
The key is Lebanon and the wording is not explicit about Israel withdrawing from the buffer zone. Expect this too be the main wrangling issue. Yes it talks of “respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon”, but this is far short of “Israel will withdraw to previous borders”.
1. The U.S. and Iran and their allies in the current war declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.
Israel doesn’t really have borders, only truce lines in occupied areas. It’s a modern day crusader
colonystate.Anyway, I’m thinking the whole purpose of this point is to establish internationally and beyond doubt the fact that Israel is the reason there can be no peace in the region.
Most people in Iran seem to believe this MoU is just a short breather before an all-out, full-on, no-holds-barred existential war between Iran and Israel.
Biden redux. No matter what happens at this point, Trump has been defeated. In Europe, the pictures show him tired and confused. Now, he will look for scapegoats in his Administration and, next, do some house cleaning. In all probability, Vance will be viewed as a threat because, compared to Trump, Vance comes across as ‘intelligent’ and as a ‘winner’. This will put Vance in the same position as Harris was when she ran for to be the POTUS. Vance will not be able to get from out of Trump’s shadow. Trickle down theory implies, if Trump has lost, Israel & Netanyahu, will follow suit. MOU not withstanding, Trump’s legacy is now inflation, high gas prices, and, probably, more never ending type wars.
Donald Trump appears ready to wave the white flag in showdown with niece Mary Trump after discovery reversal completely changed the game
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/donald-trump-appears-ready-to-wave-the-white-flag-in-showdown-with-niece-mary-trump-after-discovery-reversal-completely-changed-the-game/
Trump Calls Obama a “Son of a B*tch” After Disastrous Iran Deal Leaked
https://newrepublic.com/post/211977/donald-trump-barack-obama-son-of-a-bitch-iran-deal
After Months of War, Trump Says Iran Has Right to Nuclear Program
https://newrepublic.com/post/212003/trump-iran-right-nuclear-program
Iran is a Bigger Defeat Than Vietnam
https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/06/16/iran-vietnam-strategy-defeat/
The United States would not exist if it weren’t for Israel, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee announced during the International Conference on Israeli Heritage in Judea and Samaria on Tuesday. Huckabee also stated that it was his job to represent the importance of Israel to the US.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ambassador-huckabee-defies-trump-claims-us-would-not-exist-with-israel/ar-AA25PpPz
Holy cow, those headlines! (on a side note, have the Izzy’s literally brainwashed Huckabee? Grafted a pager to his chest?)
I didn’t see this in the comments. It’s the official USA version. If someone else posted my bad.
It’s hard to believe Trump has done this.
But it looks to be actually good for Iran?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/politics/us-iran-memo-annotated-intl-vis
Just one comment. Vance on first of 14 implied Iran has to disarm Hezbollah. How about it also require US to disarm IDF against Shi’a Lebanon and denuke Israel.
I do not see much understanding in the treatise of Tactics to gain advantage.
I wonder if all that talk of the Strait being mined and France and the US going in to de-mine it points to a Trojan Horse military strategy whereby they get US ships into the Gulf under the demining pretext, said ships being the forward spear of the next military attack on Iran
I’m confused. I keep reading the straight is mined.
If the straight is mined how are ships getting out?
Or is it mined and no ships are getting out
Or is it not mined and ships are getting in and out?
My understanding is that any mines laid/claimed to have been laid were for the side of the strait along Oman, to deter ships from avoiding Iran’s specified toll route (and possibly easy firing range)?
This article shows a map: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/4/13/what-do-we-know-about-sea-mines-in-and-around-the-strait-of-hormuz
1536 PDT
Trump Says Affordability Is ‘Fake Word’ As Inflation Hits 3-Year High
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/06/17/trump-says-affordability-is-fake-word-as-inflation-hits-3-year-high/
Trump threatens to pull unemployment benefits from all states for the first time in history
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-unemployment-benefits-fraud-b2997881.html
Trump’s Iran deal is a national humiliation
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-trumps-iran-deal-is-a-national-humiliation/
Trump raises eyebrows after claiming he ‘fell deeply in love’ with Egyptian president after meeting in hotel
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-raises-eyebrows-after-claiming-he-fell-deeply-in-love-with-egyptian-president-after-meeting-in-hotel/ar-AA25SJWl
Ex-prosecutor warns women’s right to vote may be next on chopping block: ‘Handmaid’s Tale’
https://www.rawstory.com/women-and-right-to-vote/
Trump says he likes idea of blaming Vance if Iran deal doesn’t work out
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/17/trump-vance-iran-deal-nuclear-g7.html
US used Musk’s Grok AI to deploy 2,000 munitions during Iran war
Re: Trump capitulation
And, as a friend commented:
Thank you, Micah.
The MOU simply acknowledges the reality that Iran has the World economy by the throat.
I expect lots of screaming with Lindsey Graham one of the loudest screamers.
I never made a buck denying reality even when I shouted at the clouds and these chickenhawks are making serious bank doing so.
Enjoy the show…
I am frankly astonished that Graham isn’t throwing an epic tantrum already. He’s been remarkably measured in his criticism so far.
It’s almost as though he’s aware that an extended war could go very badly indeed for the world economy, and advocating publicly against the peace deal could be a career-limiting move in the long run. Which is of course perfectly true (if I were him, I’d be staying quiet as a mouse and hoping that everybody forgot my own role in precipitating this catastrophe) but I didn’t think neocons like him were in touch with reality enough to see it. It certainly never stopped them before.
1854 PDT
PM Carney says he’s seen tentative U.S.-Iran peace deal, calls conflict ‘worth it’
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-calls-war-in-iran-worth-it-says-tentative-deal-a-game-changer/
RCMP officer charged with threatening Donald Trump
https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/rcmp-officer-charged-with-threatening-donald-trump/
The Text of Trump’s Iran Deal Is Out. It’s Worse Than I Thought.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/trump-iran-deal-war-news-hormuz-mou.html
BREAKING: Judge orders FBI to review and release thousands of records related to the Epstein Files. We knew the Trump-Vance admin’s attempt to delay this process was unlawful and absurd – today the court agreed with us.
https://x.com/DemocracyFwd/status/2067296826986762387
Trump says he’ll send Iran deal to Congress for approval
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5926050-trump-iran-agreement-congress-approval/
Isaac Chotiner interviews Shimon Riklin, an anchor on the Israeli right-wing Channel 14, on the Iran deal
The New Yorker
Archive
1920 PDT
Settlers set fire to two West Bank mosques overnight
https://www.timesofisrael.com/settlers-set-fire-to-two-west-bank-mosques-overnight/
Trump Champions Peace Agreement, Threatens to Resume Bombing If Iran Doesn’t Comply
https://time.com/article/2026/06/17/trump-iran-peace-agreement-terms-lebanon-bombing-threat/
Initial US-Iran agreement leaves many key issues to be negotiated
https://bbc.com/news/articles/cgmd8dgklzzo
Trump signs Iran deal in Versailles
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/06/17/trump-iran-nuclear-peace-deal-usa/
1940 PDT
Trump Administration to Pay $765 Million to Cancel 4 More Wind Projects
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/climate/trump-wind-farms-cancel-millions.html
Former Israeli Intelligence Officer Alleges Netanyahu Blackmails Trump with Epstein Files
Former Israeli intelligence officer claims Epstein operated as Mossad asset for political blackmail
https://timesofislamabad.com/03-03-2026/former-israeli-intelligence-officer-alleges-netanyahu-blackmails-trump-with-epstein-files/
According to Iran’s PressTV:
US President Donald Trump has acknowledged that global oil reserves were on the verge of exhaustion, a development that pressured Washington to accept Iran’s terms for a framework agreement to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaking at the G7 summit in France on Wednesday, Trump warned that without the deal with Iran, the world would have faced “bedlam” as oil reserves were set to run out in approximately four weeks.
“We run out of reserves at about four weeks,” he told reporters. “You know, there are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”
Somebody on Team Trump is lurking here! 🤣