"Is it over?" Topic

Legion, I think that your view of what should happen is diverging from what is looking like is going to happen.
It looks like the US is trying to get out of the situation in any way possible. Given that, they are going to be very reluctant to get back into the situation.

Also, threatening to bomb Iran if they don't comply with the MOU is actually a breach of the MOU.
How can you expect Iran to comply with the MOU if the US isn't going to comply with the MOU.

If they breach the MOU, etc. the POTUS has repeatedly said what will happen.

Here's a thought … don't breach it. If Iran breaches it then no matter what happens they know what the result will be.

If you break the law … you get charged and/or arrested …

And frankly again … I and other believe they will breach the deal.

So it we don't show them the Big Stick … only the carrot there is no leverage on them.

And agreement only works if both sides follow it …

What is so hard to understand ?

What is the worst-case scenario ? The islamic lunatics get nukes. They violated the MOU, etc. The MOU really would no longer be in effect.

So … they get the big stick. We are not dealing with an honorable peace-loving, etc. regime …

They know what to expect … E.g. B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, TLAMS, drones, etc., etc. They want to bring about the End Times … they need to be careful what they wish for.

Martyn purported because these are not official. Unnamed sources , in the know sources, the usual. Never named.

"The Wall Street Journal did not disclose the specific names of the officials involved in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), citing them instead as "people familiar with the agreement," "senior U.S. officials," and "Arab mediators". These individuals provided details regarding the framework that allows Iran to resume oil sales under the proposed agreement."

These people are vermin on all sides, hiding in the shadows. Afraid to use their names.

CBS (Vice President on MOU)

"Vice President JD Vance said Wednesday that the text of the U.S.-Iran deal will be released Friday "at the latest," adding that the White House is pushing to release it as soon as Wednesday.

"We want to tell the American people what's in this deal," Vance said on "CBS Mornings."

President Trump announced Sunday that the U.S. had reached a deal with Iran. But the details of the deal have not been formally released. Both sides electronically signed the memorandum of understanding earlier this week, and a signing ceremony is expected to be held Friday.

Asked about the delay in releasing the agreement, Vance said Qatari and Pakistani negotiators, who helped mediate the agreement, "asked us not to release the full text for a little while." But he said "we're actually trying to push them to get it out today."

The vice president said he's seen the deal being misrepresented. He called it "fundamentally a good deal for the American people."

Vance said the agreement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz "immediately" and provide a framework "whereby if the Iranians give us what we need on stopping the funding of terrorism, on no longer pursuing a nuclear weapon, then they can get some benefits, be reinvited into the world economy."

"When I say benefits, I'm talking about sanctions relief on their economy," Vance said. "We've destroyed their nuclear program, but one of the things the president is trying to do is give them the incentive not to try to rebuild that program for the long haul."
"
…

"Vance, pressed by Norah O'Donnell on whether the deal includes reconstruction financing of at least $300 USD billion for Iran, ending all sanctions against the Islamic Republic, along with the release of all frozen funds, said Wednesday that "none of those things flow to Iran unless Iran fundamentally changes how it behaves with the world."

"What the president is really saying is, if Iran fundamentally transforms how it deals with the United States and the region, the rest of the world, then Iran can get some economic benefits," he said. "

Subject: Vice President JD Vance says text of U.S.-Iran deal will be released Friday "at the latest" – CBS News


link

Even reading what's out there, most reads like an agreement to make agreements.

When all is done:

The Iranian politicians and Iranian media will portray it as huge victory. They have to. For some their heads are on the line.

Those who oppose and hate the President, will portray it as a defeat. They can do nothing else. I see nothing that would change my mind on what they will say. They have been doing it forE V E R.

We who agree with most of what he does will probably see it in a positive light, or at least a potentially future positive light.

I'll probably be disappointed that we did not have our foot on the bleeding head of the last fundamentalist Muslim leader of Iran, signing a treaty with his own 🩸 and then…. the axe falls.

"What is so hard to understand?" You ask this without even a hint of irony.

"And the agreement only works if both sides follow it …"

The US just broke the agreement by threatening Iran. It is literally in article 1. "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".

I think that your view of what should happen is diverging from what is looking like is going to happen.
It looks like the US is trying to get out of the situation in any way possible. Given that, they are going to be very reluctant to get back into the situation.

No the US is not looking for anyway to get out this situation. The US is setting the parameters. And the parameters are they must follow the "rules". Or suffer further attrition …

The US has not pulled any forces out of the region. They are sitting e.g. like a QRF on the DMZ. Waiting for something bad to happen. Then activate and clean up the situation.

For anyone especially Iran to think the US will leave the region before the mission is really completed. They are not living in reality.

I believe the US is actually prepared to cleanse Iran of these vermin. The talks are just part of the steps.

Iran is still trying to wait this US POTUS out. He won't be in office for more than two more years. Plus they are betting on the midterms going their way. And impeachment procedures will go into effect. And the actions of the Congress, reporting of the media will even be more and more negative.

And in the end, 2-3-4 years from now. Iran can start their quest for nukes again.

Frankly I'm pretty sure the IDF won't let that happen.

The only positive/best action is to destroy the regime, regardless …

As to the 300 billion fund.

"Here's what the White House revealed regarding the deal:

• A memorandum outlines a $300 USD billion reconstruction and economic development plan for Iran by the U.S. and regional partners. The U.S. is not committing funds — it enables outside investment if Iran complies with a final deal."

I recall the conversations here and from the right about Obama giving them back some of their money. It will be interesting to see how this is now framed if it occurs. As always, the WH will get back to us in the next couple of weeks….or months, whatever. The MOU is the MOU. It's still official. But no more binding than whatever comes next to the Iranian leaders. My guess…

35th, I think we agree on what the results should be. It should be said!

It's remarkable that after months of being told the objectives were obvious, the strategy coherent, and the critics simply unable to see the bigger picture, we have now arrived at a point where supporters are demanding that skeptics produce the official objectives.

That seems backwards.

If the objectives were always so clear, why is there now so much disagreement over what they were?

At various times we have heard various goals like no nukes, no enrichment, destroy the missile threat, restore deterrence, regime change, unconditional surrender, and now a memorandum of understanding followed by sixty days of further negotiations.These are not the same objectives. They are not even the same type of strategy.

The fallback position now appears to be: Iran does not have a bomb. Fine. Iran did not have a bomb when the war started either.

So if that is the sole measure of success, then people are entitled to ask what exactly the fighting, escalation, disruption, economic damage, diplomatic turmoil, and repeated claims of historic success were supposed to achieve beyond returning us to a position that looks remarkably similar to where we began.

And on here, every outcome seems to be interpreted as evidence that the strategy was correct.
Negotiations prove strength.

Escalation proves strength.

Compromise proves strength.

Military action proves strength.

A weaker agreement than the one previously rejected somehow proves strength.

At some point a theory that explains every possible outcome ceases to be a theory and starts becoming an article of faith.

More than one hundred days into this conflict, and at the risk of repeating it over and over, the basic but questions remain exactly what they were at the beginning:

What is the political end state?

What constitutes success?

How do we know when we have achieved it?

It is starting to look increasingly like we are at a strategic disadvantage. This is the net result of a lack of political and end state planning.

Who broke what and when.

Iran launched drones on ships the day after, that we intercepted.

So based on that, Iran is already behind the 8 ball.

Israel is not a signer to this and neither is Hezbollah. They keeping quiet is probably slim to none.

So even the administration admits they are under no illusions.

"While defending the agreement, one senior U.S. official said negotiators entered talks with "the full expectation that they will lie and they will cheat," arguing that any final agreement would require extensive monitoring and enforcement mechanisms."

All just a pause for the cause? Possibly and in all likelihood probably. Let gas go down and prices before an election? 😏

Since we all like to speculate. Heard a gentleman talking about his sources in Iran on radio say the same today.

True? Who knows.

But all may not be sunny in the land of goats and camels.

"While the military has not organized a unified coup or successfully turned over the government, declassified U.S. CENTCOM intelligence and independent Middle Eastern outlets reveal that the regular army is under severe internal strain following the recent war with the U.S. and Israel. [1, 2, 3, 4]

1. Violent Clashes Between the Army and the IRGC [1]
The most severe unrest involves direct, armed confrontations between the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). According to investigative reports by Alhurra, armed shootouts broke out between IRGC units and regular army personnel in major cities, including Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Mariwan, and Ahvaz, resulting in casualties on both sides. [1]
These violent internal clashes were triggered by:
* Espionage Accusations: IRGC commanders forcibly expelled regular army officers from joint military bases, accusing them of leaking highly sensitive missile and drone coordinates to U.S. and Israeli intelligence. [1]
* Mass Arrests: Following the localized clashes, IRGC intelligence detained and jailed dozens of regular army officers and enlisted personnel, many of whom remain in custody. [1]

2. Deepening Resentment and Delivery of Wounded [1]
Reports from Iran International and European security trackers highlight extreme, systemic discrimination by the regime against its own regular army. During the heavy bombardments earlier this year, the IRGC explicitly refused to transport or treat wounded regular army soldiers in IRGC-controlled medical facilities, citing "blood and ambulance shortages". This left regular soldiers to die and deeply embittered the Artesh rank-and-file against the regime's elite forces. [1, 2]

3. Starvation and Severe Supply Deprivation
The regime has heavily prioritized supplying the IRGC over the regular army. Frontline and field units of the regular army have faced catastrophic shortages of basic human needs, forcing some regular soldiers to survive on bare minimum supplies of food and drinking water, with reports of soldiers being forced to share a meager 20 rounds of ammunition between them. [1, 2, 3]

4. Widespread Army Desertions [1]
This combination of starvation, being treated as second-class forces, and ideological opposition to the regime has led to what the Pentagon described as a surge in widespread desertions. While the regular army remains too fractured and heavily monitored by IRGC intelligence to launch a coordinated, successful anti-regime revolt, CENTCOM reports emphasize that regular army morale has completely collapsed, leaving the military deeply fractured from within. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]"

Another 🧅 in the goat stew?

@sbminisguy

A few months ago the discussion was about victory, deterrence, stopping Iran, ending the nuclear threat, and restoring American credibility.

Now the discussion increasingly sounds like Iran will always be a problem, there is no permanent solution and we will have to strike again.

That may be true. But if so, then we have moved a considerable distance from the original rhetoric.

And if permanent management was always the realistic objective, then some of the more grandiose promises made at the outset look rather less convincing in retrospect.

Incavart simple.

There were objectives. But people decided that anything and everything said by the President, Joe Blow, the Media.. were real objectives as well. They were not.

Regime change is one. Trump bloviated about it. The MSM claimed it was. Many in here insinuated it was.

But never one of the "official" objectives. 😱

Nice if they were all dead. I'd be happy. The world would be safer.

But even then, although regime change has not fully taken place (I would say there are actually two factions as of today, old hardliners and less aggressive Muslims). Leadership change has obviously taken place.

"The vast majority of Iran's original top leadership at the start of the current conflict is no longer there. Nearly 50 senior officials and commanders were killed, including the previous Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani, and the head of the IRGC Mohammad Pakpour.Among the original political and military architects present at the outbreak of the war, almost none of the top-tier command structure remain in their same roles due to the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes. "

Many people that deserved to die for way too long, are now dead. For me a long overdue victory.

But not regime change, at least not yet. Maybe the Iranians will finally find the courage to do the rest.

But was never an official goal.

"Now the discussion increasingly sounds like Iran will always be a problem, there is no permanent solution and we will have to strike again."

Did I not say "deterrence" and "mow the grass" from day 2 or 3?

You did not like my answers.

Radical Fundamentalist Islam has to be handled this way. If past leaders worldwide had done their jobs related to this, we would not be dealing with all these flashpoints today. Mow the frigging grass! Otherwise weeds take over!

@Martyn K

Recognizing that the administration got us into this conflict unilaterally, I nevertheless find myself pulling for 47 to get us out of it, not least because the alternatives are difficult to contemplate.

Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of the original decision, there comes a point where avoiding a wider, open-ended conflict becomes more important than winning an argument about how we arrived here.

In that sense, this may well be the test of his political life.

If he can secure a durable settlement that meaningfully constrains Iran's nuclear ambitions, reduces the risk of renewed conflict, and avoids dragging the United States into an indefinite cycle of escalation, he will have accomplished something significant.

If not, I suspect historians will spend a very long time debating why a conflict launched with such confidence proved so difficult to conclude.

😳

Well shucks I was saying pretty much the same when this thread started

"35thOVI Supporting Member of TMP 07 May 2026 9:25 a.m. PST
Murphy +1

We do NOT know the framework of the potential deal, and that is all this is, a framework. So all judgements are only based on one's favorite biased sources of news and how those sources want to frame it, defeat! Or victory!

A "final" agreement without observers ability to go anywhere in Iran and without the ultimate removal of the dust.. will not work.

Removal of the dust is what the President has demanded.

But to those who claim no victory at all, that is laughable.

It will come down to degree of victory.

As long as there is a radical fundamentalist Islamic regime in power anywhere, we must have eternal vigilance!! You can never trust them!

Unfortunately Obama, Biden and the WORLD either forgot or purposely ignored this.

"Ironically, much of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile expanded during the pandemic years precisely because global attention was elsewhere."

Lastly, doing nothing was a joke. As the above quote insinuates.

We saw what Iran had been doing at home. (Nuke enrichment, nuke development, missile and drone buildup, building new and better bunkers, following the lead of the Nazis and moving manufacturing underground, etc. all the world twiddled their thumbs).

We saw what Iran had been accomplishing with their proxies when we ignored them.

Hamas sneak attack in Israel and the following war.
Multiple Hezbollah attacks on Israel.
Houthi's and Somalis
Iraqi militia attacks.
Multiple individual attacks in the US and elsewhere.

I guess as long as it was not you, it was ok?

There will never be any shortage of radicalized Muslims willing to become a martyrs. This conflict did nothing to change that."

@Incavart77.

I make no secret that my preferred course of action would have been to stay in the JCPOA and negotiate on some of the weaknesses in the agreement. Many in the international community were of the belief that the JCPOA was constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions. I know that this opinion is not overly popular on these boards.

That said, we are where we are.
I would love to see an agreement coming from the MOU where Iran walked away from all military nuclear ambitions and became a respected member of the world community. That would be a great outcome.

Unfortunately, at the moment, I am just not seeing things that make me believe that is going to be the final outcome. What I see is some sort of exit strategy by the US to extricate itself from the situation. This will be followed by no political will to ever get back into the same situation again. In effect the stick in carrot and stick strategy will have been removed.
I hope that I am wrong.

Incavart I spent the time to dig it up. My first I believe mention of potential rinse and repeat.

"35thOVI Supporting Member of TMP 18 Mar 2026 1:02 p.m. PST
Incavart your logic seems to be:

We can't prove this will work, therefore don't attempt it at all.

As well as

This cannot end conclusively, therefore don't do it.

First I, NOR the government for that matter, has promised this will be conclusive.

I have said, baring a regime change that will negotiate in faith, it won't. We will have to rinse and repeat.

You keep writing as if any previous attempts have been successful.

Please state how, how long and if so, why Iran still was attempting to produce nukes and had a stockpile of enriched uranium, (which their leadership has now admitted to and which our ambassadors said they were told in negotiations. That of course most did not believe).

If those negotiations and treaties had been successful, the enriched uranium would NOT be there. We would not have to deal AGAIN with the same situation.

We know after the 12 day strikes, Iran immediately started trying to dig up the old nuclear development areas again.

We know verification failed. Again I gave the information. Iran only allowed them access to certain areas. Try finding a kidnap victim if 3 rooms are off limits. 😏

I have documented these things over and over, in just this thread. I've used the power of AI to search the engine for them.

I've documented direct Iranian attacks on our troops and assets. Attacks on same by Iranian paid and supplied proxies.

How about:

"Major Incidents and Foiled Plots

Bethesda Assassination (1980): In July 1980, David Theodore Belfield (also known as Daoud Salahuddin), an American convert acting as an Iranian operative, assassinated Ali Akbar Tabatabai in Bethesda, Maryland. Tabatabai was a former aide to the Shah of Iran and a prominent critic of the Islamic Republic.

Saudi Ambassador Plot (2011): U.S. authorities disrupted a plot by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, using explosives at a restaurant in Washington, D.C..

Post-2020 Murder-for-Hire Plots: Since the 2020 death of Qassem Soleimani, U.S. law enforcement has disrupted at least 17 Iranian-backed plots on U.S. soil. These include:

Plot Against John Bolton: A member of the IRGC was charged in 2022 for a murder-for-hire plot targeting former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Targeting of Dissidents: Iranian operatives have repeatedly targeted dissidents, such as Masih Alinejad, for kidnapping or assassination in New York.

Pakistani National Charges (2024): A Pakistani man with ties to Iran was recently charged for allegedly trying to hire hitmen to assassinate high-ranking American public officials.
Homeland Security (.gov)

Cyber Attacks on Infrastructure
Iran is recognized as a top-tier cyber threat to the U.S. homeland, frequently targeting critical infrastructure.
Homeland Security (.gov)

Financial Institutions:
Between 2011 and 2013, Iranian hackers conducted massive "denial-of-service" (DDoS) attacks against major U.S. banks.
New York Dam Incident (2013): Iranian hackers successfully gained access to the control system of the Bowman Avenue Dam in Rye Brook, New York.
Election Interference: The FBI has identified Iranian actors as being involved in operations to influence or interfere with the 2020 U.S. elections."
"

You spoke earlier about the killing of their leaders.. well:

Several major Iranian-linked plots targeting U.S. presidents and high-ranking officials have been foiled by law enforcement in recent years, particularly focusing on President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden.
House Committee on Homeland Security (.gov)
House Committee on Homeland Security (.gov)
+2
Key Foiled Attacks

The Asif Merchant Plot (2024-2026):
Status: Convicted on March 6, 2026.
Target: President Donald Trump, former President Joe Biden, and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.
Details: Merchant, a Pakistani national with ties to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), traveled to the U.S. in April 2024 to recruit hitmen. He unknowingly met with undercover FBI agents posing as assassins and was arrested in July 2024 while attempting to flee the country.

The Farhad Shakeri Plot (2024):
Status: Charges unsealed in November 2024; Shakeri remains at large in Iran.
Target: Then-President-elect Donald Trump.
Details: The DOJ unsealed a criminal complaint alleging that Shakeri was tasked by the IRGC to provide a plan to assassinate Trump within a seven-day window in September 2024. The plot was unmasked through recorded interviews Shakeri had with the FBI while he was in Iran."

So as to justified. I think that was proven long ago.

Israel's go back further. But I am not here to defend theirs.

As far as making them angry by doing this?

Since when has this regime NOT been angry against the Great Satan or the Little Satan?

Since when have they stopped striking out at the U.S. and Israel?

If not them, their proxies or some religious radicalized individual or individuals.

I have lived with this situation since the 79 revolution and I am tired of it!

Get on plane and wonder. Get on a ship and wonder? Walk into a restaurant and wonder. Run in a marathon and wonder. If you're Jewish, go to the synagogue and send your children to school and wonder, (as those up by Detroit or in Rotterdam). Send your loved one to work in a tower in NYC and wonder.

Again, I don't think this will be conclusive. But it is an overdue start!

If you live in the U.S., don't get lost in your hate of the one doing it.

Would you honestly feel the same way if Clinton or Obama had done this. I think if you are truly honest, you would say no.

I would even had backed whoever was in charge last time.

Or follow the "everything the US does is automatically a failure" philosophy of the previous poster to mine."

As to how great the JCPOA

Just one provision of it.

"Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the 2015 nuclear deal whose framework President Biden sought to restore — Iran could legally delay international inspections of undeclared or suspicious sites by up to 24 days. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The inspection process and timelines were structured as follows:
* Declared Sites: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted continuous, daily access and monitoring at explicitly declared nuclear facilities. [1, 2]

* Suspicious/Undeclared Sites: If the IAEA requested access to a location to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material, the JCPOA allowed for a 14-day consultation period between Iran and the IAEA to resolve the concern. [1]

* The 24-Day Cap: If the two sides could not resolve the issue, a Joint Commission had one week to review the dispute and require Iran to take necessary measures, which could include granting inspector access by the 24th day. [1]"
"

😳

That was just one very questionable proviso.

There were more.

But after reading the famous comment Barack Obama made regarding the Islamic call to prayer (the adhan or azaan), which he described as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset".

My faith in his negotiations with an Islamic regime, pretty much fell to zero. I questioned where his heart truly lay.

"Or follow the "everything the US does is automatically a failure" philosophy of the previous poster to mine.""

Are you referring to me?

I am not sure why this is controversial. The likely course of the conflict and its eventual end state were being discussed by many commentators, diplomats and analysts from the US and around the world, from the very beginning. Jeez, there is post after post in this very thread that anticipate this mess.

The idea that only Washington and its most committed supporters understood the situation while everyone else was simply confused -or more delusional, traitorous- does not stand up to scrutiny. Avoiding unpleasant truths is NOT a good approach.

The real question is not whether mistakes have been made. Every country makes strategic mistakes, including the United States. The important issue is whether those mistakes are recognised and learned from.

The US military and political establishment drew a great many lessons from the defeat in Vietnam and became better because of that painful experience. The same applies with the defeat in Iran.. If the assumptions made at the outset of this conflict prove incorrect, then there should be an honest assessment of why and what can be learned from it.

That is not "everything the US does is automatically a failure". It is simply accepting that strategy should be judged against outcomes rather than rhetoric and that successful states learn from their mistakes instead of pretending they never happened.

Martyn read that post carefully.

That post was to Incavart and it was a previous post of mine from a much older Iran thread with quotes at both ends. So if a post of yours is prior to my post of
TMP 18 Mar 2026 1:02. It has nothing to do with anything you wrote.

The quoted post is Where I believe I initially brought up rinse and repeat ie deterrent strategy.

Thank you for your clarification.

My GOD! Have I been wrong and this is all a horrible disaster? 😱😳

Hold on to your chair.

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered surprising praise for President Donald Trump's handling of the Israel-Hamas war while appearing in New York City earlier this week.

The unexpected show of support came as Clinton spoke with The New Yorker's David Remnick at 92NY on Monday, during a conversation in which the former Democratic presidential candidate touched on topics ranging from the Israel-Iran conflict to former President Joe Biden's decision to run for re-election.

Remnick then turned the conversation to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas and pressed Clinton on her longtime support of a two-state solution in the region.

"But if I look at the Israeli polity, they don't want a two-state solution, certainly not now. And if you look at the Palestinian polity, which is an even more complicated set of geographies and population, a two-state solution is not anywhere near the offing there," Remnick said.
…

"You might be, but you might not be," Clinton said. "And here's why. I'm going to say something positive about Trump — so hold on."

"Trump's 20-point plan for Gaza is actually a pathway to security for Israel, reconstruction for Gaza, and the possibility of self-determination — however defined — for the Palestinians," Clinton continued. "There are a lot of people who reject it because Trump did it, but it's the only game in town. There's nothing else."
"

Ok not Iran… but still…. Endorsed by Hillary!???? 😱

Are dogs sleeping with cats?
Bears crapping in the cities?
People in hell getting ice water?

I doubt I sleep tonight. 😟

The MOU may not be ideal but one good thing from this "war" that wasn't a "war" is that the Iranians won't have those drone motherships to terrorize the Eastern United States:
TMP link

I know some were very concerned about the previous administration not properly addressing the Iranian motherships. The Iranians may get to keep their ballistic missiles but at least their drone carrier was sunk: link

Of course not. Their navy sleeps with the fishes. 🐟

Unless they use container ships. 🤔

"the militarization of container ships for drone deployment is an active, real-world concept. Military analysts and defense contractors are openly discussing and testing the use of merchant vessels to covertly carry and launch swarms of attack drones, loitering munitions, and even cruise missiles.

China: Open-source satellite imagery revealed the Chinese cargo vessel Zhong Da 79 undergoing modifications at a Shanghai shipyard to carry and test truck-mounted catapult systems. This setup allows civilian, flat-decked merchant ships to launch fixed-wing combat drones weighing up to two tons, turning standard cargo vessels into covert drone carriers. Additionally, China has been observed testing containerized vertical missile launchers on similar civilian ships. [1, 2]

Iran: Iran has already built a converted container ship, the Shahid Bagheri, featuring a flight deck capable of operating dozens of drones and helicopters. Iran has also been linked to deploying containerized launchers designed for uncrewed aerial systems. [1, 2]

Defense Contractors: Major defense companies are developing containerized attack drone systems designed to be easily placed on commercial vessels. For example, German defense giant Rheinmetall unveiled a proposed 20-foot shipping container capable of launching swarms of up to 18 loitering kamikaze drones. Similar modular, containerized drone-launching concepts have been developed by Japanese and Israeli manufacturers. [1]

United States & Allies: The U.S. Navy is pursuing its own containerized modular weapons and drone swarm payloads for deployment on traditional warships and unmanned drone vessels to match similar capabilities observed in China and Russia."

Darn!! Maybe we still aren't safe.

Didn't we just have a group of assassins planning a drone attack on the UFC event. Until ones mother reported him to the FBI in time.

"19-year-old Tycen Proper lived with his parents at their home in Knox County, Ohio, when his mother contacted authorities to report his disturbing online behavior."

Maybe it is a good thing so many liberals still live at home with mom and dad. 🤔

OVI +1 +,+,+,+,+ …

The US just broke the agreement by threatening Iran. It is literally in article 1. "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".

As I said, I believe the POTUS knows that based on the past. Iran will violate the MOU, etc.

He was again letting Iran know what is at stake … The US can and will use kinetic action in need be. If that upsets Iran … they still know what will happen. If Iran thinks there was a violation. Then they can say so.

If so, will Iran start shooting some of their remaining drones, missiles, etc.?

And here is the bottom line … The US has the assets to strike more targets in Iran … many more … Iran has very limited assets … to do anything.

This is not a game … this is for real. What is at risk is islamists with nukes …

we have now arrived at a point where supporters are demanding that skeptics produce the official objectives.

I don't remember saying anything like that ? Did I ?

is that the Iranians won't have those drone motherships to terrorize the Eastern United States:

I believe after all of the "drones" incidents were over. It has nothing to do with Iran or its drone mothership. And the Admin said the FAA, etc. said all those drones were authorized to do what they were doing. What they were ? … No one is saying, AFAIK. It may have been some classified operation run by some of the USA's intel agencies. But again … no one is saying. However, those drones were not a threat. Like the Chicom Balloon disaster.

Come back to the present …

Let's not forget this "art of the deal": link

I know that this opinion is not overly popular on these boards.

It has been pointed out a few times why the JPCOA was not what was needed to actually stop getting nukes. Did Obama and his admin think they could trust and believe anything about Iran's islamist gov't.

It is simply accepting that strategy should be judged against outcomes rather than rhetoric and that successful states learn from their mistakes instead of pretending they never happened.

What outcome ? It is not over … And who is pretending it never happened ?

If not, I suspect historians will spend a very long time debating why a conflict launched with such confidence proved so difficult to conclude.

But it is not over yet …

Whether what was going on has been understood or not, by who, where etc. There has always pro and con opinions from everywhere. But this is where we are at this point of the conflict. And I believe as do others kinetic action will have to come into the situation again.

"19-year-old Tycen Proper lived with his parents at their home in Knox County, Ohio, when his mother contacted authorities to report his disturbing online behavior."

Maybe it is a good thing so many liberals still live at home with mom and dad.

"Proper was hospitalized with homicidal ideations, on the evening of June 10, after his mother called police in Danville expressing concerns over his recent purchases of firearms, ammunition and ballistic plates; his affiliation with a Christian extremist group on TikTok; preoccupation with Jeffrey Epstein and government corruption; online posts sympathetic to Adolf Hitler; and his stated intention to conduct "hit and run missions."

Come on Prince. Look at their hit list.

Barrack Obama? no
Bernie? No
AOC? no
Omar?
Platner with his Nazi totenkopf tattoo? No
Antifa members? No
BLM rally? No

Just in!

"Abraham Alvarez is a DACA immigrant who allegedly used the name 'Shepherd' while organizing plans for White House attack.

Abraham Alvarez, identified in federal documents as the alleged "ringleader" of a plot to carry out a mass casualty event at the UFC White House event on June 14, is an illegal immigrant from Mexico who overstayed his visa, according to Homeland Security information"

Came in as a child, overstayed his visa and was allowed to stay, under the Obama administration from what I just heard.

"Investigators have identified 23 individuals who were part of the alleged terror planning network, however; as of publishing, only five arrests have been announced in connection with the plot. It is unclear why the UFC event proceeded with many of those involved in the plot still seemingly at large. "

Not a who's who of the democrats elite.

"Court filings related to Alvarez said the group allegedly eyed potential targets that included US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Elon Musk, as well as several elected officials – though not all attended the UFC event."

What they say their beliefs are, inconsequential. Their targets, location and event, say it all.

Did nobody watch and listen to Trump speak about the terms? I can hardly believe this is the same guy that announced the war and its aims. It's HIS deal. He seems okay with giving Iran far more than any other American president. His explanation about giving them that money is the complete opposite of where I thought he stood after his many attacks on Obama for giving them far less. And they can have some missiles – he first said the goal was that they could not project power outside their borders.

He said he wants to avoid economic catastrophe. I don't even know what to say on this. He initiated the actions that led to the economic impact. "It's their money"…how many times did we say this about Obama's release of a fraction of these impounded funds and heard no acknowledgement?

But most of all….the same guys are going to keep running Iran, only with lots more cash, and Israel is left with the security risk of Iran's continuing threat.
October 7 is how Iran wages war, not with their inconsequential navy or the rest of what's left of their military.

Again, watch and listen…two different versions of the commander and chief. Time for some serious spin.

Now the agreement.

Am I happy with the agreement for an agreement? 🤔

Not happy nor unhappy. Waiting for the final version, if and when that happens.

I don't like anyone giving them money. Even if it is regulated and for "investment loans". All countries hit by Iran should collect their damages and cost (including us), then Iran gets the Pennies left.

Nothing until Iran fulfills a required step. Then trickle trickle trickle, "good puppy".

Our ending the blockade is all they should get for opening the strait with no tolls.

Everything else works on the "good boy! Here is your reward!".

I've heard conservatives extremely upset with the deal. Liberals happy with it, including the PM of Canada. Many in between.

The fact that Vance is out in the media and not Rubio, should tell you the right is unhappy. Vance for peace. Rubio for war.

I think Israel and Hezbollah are the unknowns. It could all crack like an eggshell.

But am I unhappy we "finally" slapped Iran up side the head. No da%n way.

From this point forward, out policy with Iran should be: you or your proxies kill or wound one of ours, we kill or wound 20 of yours. You hit an airfield, we hit 3 of yours.

As long as they adhere to a government of radical fundamentalist Islam, force is all they understand.

A few posts ago someone posted about the drone carrier. In a previous discussion there was also a post about the Chinese Q ship – a converted container ship with containerized weapons.

In the latest SITREP (number 70), published by the Admiralty Trilogy Group (available on wargames vault), there is a very interesting article about the Chinese Zhongda 79 container ship in a VLS configuration. A lot of good discussion on the problems with this type of ship and some photos. Here is a link to where you can buy it. link
The pdf version is only $3. USD I bought the printed version which is nicely done.

[In a separate plug, the SITREP in question contains a Harpoon V scenario that I wrote between the JMSDF and the PLAN supported by a Brigade of DF.21 IRBMs. – and before anyone asks, no I am not getting paid].

Come on Prince. Look at their hit list.

The problem is that many geezers, and I will include myself in that lot,view things differently than new generations. It's not a binary left or right or liberal or conservative for alot of the youth. Ideologies (often extreme) are now formed on online platforms blending in various philosophies and niche meme culture and typically don't conform to how many of the older generation view things. Groypers, Boogaloos, edgelords, doomers, etc. Etching lyrics of SCW political songs on an assassin's bullet may make no sense to us but it does to them.

Peter Zeihan has argued that political parties in the United States undergo shifts every generation or so. I think social media and other only intensify these shifts. It's why the GOP today looks nothing like the GOP of Reagan or those before him. Same with the Democratic party.

And for the record, I'm not a liberal. I've been registered Republican for 30+ years. I'm not a fan of the populism which has infected American politics for at least the past two decades. I think it foments dangerous extremism and violence. Just because I criticize a policy of the current administration doesn't mean I endorse the actions of those before it. I can like the idea of a policy and dislike the execution more. I can also dislike a policy or action and understand the reasoning behind it.

Latest Iran International:

"Senior US officials sought to clarify key provisions of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran, pushing back against reports that Tehran would receive access to frozen assets, sanctions relief or a multibillion-dollar reconstruction package upon signing the agreement.

The clarifications came after the text of the 14-point memorandum finally emerged on Wednesday, triggering a wave of reactions, competing interpretations and political criticism in both Tehran and Washington.

Speaking on a background call after the text was made public, the officials said the agreement does not commit Washington to any immediate economic concessions, but instead creates a framework under which incentives would be tied to Iranian compliance and progress toward a final deal.

The comments appeared aimed at countering interpretations in Iranian media that the memorandum would unlock large-scale financial benefits for Tehran before a comprehensive agreement is reached.

Addressing a provision in the MoU to create a reconstruction and economic development plan worth at least $300 USD billion, the officials said the language does not require the United States to contribute funds or provide direct financial assistance to Iran.

Instead, they said the provision would allow sanctions relief in the future if Iran fulfills its commitments, enabling third countries and private investors to participate in projects inside Iran.

The officials also stressed that any sanctions relief would be linked directly to progress on nuclear issues, meaning Tehran would only receive economic benefits in exchange for verifiable nuclear concessions, including the disposal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Frozen assets

The administration offered its strongest clarification on the issue of frozen Iranian assets.

Iran had originally sought access to restricted funds immediately upon signing the memorandum, according to the officials, but the final text tied any release of assets to implementation of the agreement and progress toward a broader settlement.

The officials said Iran ultimately accepted that no funds would be released automatically upon signing the MoU and that access to frozen assets would depend on what they described as demonstrable good behavior and compliance with the framework.

Some frozen assets could be released during the negotiation period, they added, if Iran takes concrete steps demanded by Washington, including actions related to its nuclear program.

Strait of Hormuz

The officials also downplayed broader interpretations of the memorandum's provisions on the Strait of Hormuz, saying the relevant sections are focused on reopening the waterway and ensuring the free flow of commercial shipping.

They said the agreement is intended to restore navigation through the strait rather than establish a wider security framework for the Persian Gulf.

The officials said they beleieve regional countries would never agree to an arrangement that doesn't permit toll-free access to the Strait of Hormuz.

Miltary assets

The officials further indicated that the United States does not plan to immediately reduce its military posture in the region following the signing of the memorandum. Any future adjustments, they said, would depend on Iranian compliance and progress toward a broader agreement.

They also described direct communication channels established during the conflict between US forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as one of the factors that made the negotiations easier.

According to the officials, those channels reduced the risk of misunderstandings and allowed messages to be exchanged more quickly during both the fighting and subsequent diplomatic efforts.

Officials also rejected suggestions that the memorandum excludes nuclear issues, noting that the text explicitly commits both sides to negotiations over Iran's enriched uranium stockpile and broader nuclear activities.

The memorandum follows weeks of diplomacy led by regional mediators, particularly Pakistan and Qatar, aimed at ending a conflict that began on Feb. 28 when the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran.

The framework is intended to halt the fighting, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and create a pathway toward a broader agreement.

The memorandum is expected to be formally signed later this week, after which negotiators will begin work on a final agreement envisioned under the framework."

Prince as I've said before: Donald Trump was not my first nor second pick. But mine lost the primaries.

But I made a vow to never ever vote for a democrat again after Jimmy C.

Yes your points on views of these younger generations are true and valid.

But we have now had 4 major assassination attempts take place or foiled against this president. (I'm not counting the scads of email or web threats that they get.). One nearly succeeding.

Never in my lifetime have I seen the likes and we are not through 2 years. You know there will be more.

Yet almost no concern by the MSM and many times attitudes of almost justification… even by opposing politicians.

I won't go into the 86/47

"The numbers "8647" that appeared on the grass of the National Mall represent an anti-Trump political message. "86" is slang for removing or getting rid of something, and "47" refers to President Donald Trump, the 47th U.S. President. The message was created by individuals who applied a substance to the grass to burn the blades and kill the turf.

Federal authorities—including the U.S. Park Police and the Department of the Interior—have launched a high-profile investigation into the markings, classifying the act as "deranged vandalism" and treating it as a potential threat against the President. This sequence was also previously contentious when former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by the Justice Department for sharing a photo of seashells spelling out the numbers, a charge he denied."

The media, politicians should be as outraged as they were about the comment the ufc fighter made about Michelle Obama's sex. That did not threaten HER life.

But sadly they are not.

OVI +1, +, +, +, …

"While the military has not organized a unified coup or successfully turned over the government, declassified U.S. CENTCOM intelligence and independent Middle Eastern outlets reveal that the regular army is under severe internal strain following the recent war with the U.S. and Israel. [1, 2, 3, 4]

1. Violent Clashes Between the Army and the IRGC [1]
The most severe unrest involves direct, armed confrontations between the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). According to investigative reports by Alhurra, armed shootouts broke out between IRGC units and regular army personnel in major cities, including Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Mariwan, and Ahvaz, resulting in casualties on both sides. [1]

These violent internal clashes were triggered by:
* Espionage Accusations: IRGC commanders forcibly expelled regular army officers from joint military bases, accusing them of leaking highly sensitive missile and drone coordinates to U.S. and Israeli intelligence. [1]

* Mass Arrests: Following the localized clashes, IRGC intelligence detained and jailed dozens of regular army officers and enlisted personnel, many of whom remain in custody. [1]

2. Deepening Resentment and Delivery of Wounded [1]
Reports from Iran International and European security trackers highlight extreme, systemic discrimination by the regime against its own regular army. During the heavy bombardments earlier this year, the IRGC explicitly refused to transport or treat wounded regular army soldiers in IRGC-controlled medical facilities, citing "blood and ambulance shortages". This left regular soldiers to die and deeply embittered the Artesh rank-and-file against the regime's elite forces. [1, 2]

3. Starvation and Severe Supply Deprivation
The regime has heavily prioritized supplying the IRGC over the regular army. Frontline and field units of the regular army have faced catastrophic shortages of basic human needs, forcing some regular soldiers to survive on bare minimum supplies of food and drinking water, with reports of soldiers being forced to share a meager 20 rounds of ammunition between them. [1, 2, 3]

4. Widespread Army Desertions [1]
This combination of starvation, being treated as second-class forces, and ideological opposition to the regime has led to what the Pentagon described as a surge in widespread desertions. While the regular army remains too fractured and heavily monitored by IRGC intelligence to launch a coordinated, successful anti-regime revolt, CENTCOM reports emphasize that regular army morale has completely collapsed, leaving the military deeply fractured from within. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]"

If this is all true … and I believe some if not all of is. These are major occurrences that further weakens Iran's islamist regime even more so.

BTW the US had a blockade on the Straits … nothing was getting in or out without the USN, etc. saying so. What also stopped many ships from going in or out. Was the insurance companies would not pay up if a ship was hit/sunk by Iran's drones, missiles, etc. The plank owners were not willing to risk an odd angry shoot from the IRGC hitting a million to billion $ ship or ships. "It's all about the money." …

Frankly I don't really blame them for not wanting to take a risk that could cost them so much money.

However, the US did clear a path near the coasts of the Arab nations along the Gulf.

Plus … some in the region plan on or are building pipelines, alternate routes, etc. So in the future Iran no matter who is in charge can by pass the Straits of Hormuz, etc. ever interrupting international trade thru that area … IMO that is part of some of the best solutions to break Iran's threat to the worldwide economy.

Besides removing the threat of Iran's islamists. As we see Iran cannot be trusted. As they are even starting to disagree with some of the points of the MOU.

Which BTW is not really a binding agreement in any way. It is really a good framework for more negotiations, etc.

Again … However, Iran's islamists cannot be trusted.

GEN McMasters [Ret] echoed GEN Kean's [Ret] view. But put it more and more negative terms. That the MOU in really bad deal for the US in the form it is in.

I respect both McMasters, Kean, along with Kellog, and others of the caliber and opinions. Even KT McFarlane who taught at MI. Was/is an expert at geopolitics especially dealing with WMDs, etc., she was IIRC, an Asst. DNI in Trump's first admin, etc.

I was quoting unnamed GENs, etc. and that was not worthy of whatever. So now I add those when I can.

But again the bottom line no matter what one thinks of the POTUS, his Admin, etc. if nothing else happens. Iran's quest for nukes were at the very least stifled of years. If not forever. The destruction of their military assets was major. They lost a vast number of their islamists leaders.

VP Vance just said, being interviewed on news now …again … Iran will get NO $ from the US. They may get some from their neighboring fellow moslems … BUT they get 0 if the don't follow what is on the MOU. Which again is only a frame work.

The neighboring Arab moslems hated the JCPOA as they saw that it did not really stop Iran's quest for nukes.

It didn't address Iran's ability to make deployable missiles including with WMD warheads, i.e. nukes. Nor did it address Iran's the support of islamic terrorism. Those were the big problems of the JCPOA. How … How … can someone say they that the JCPOA a good deal ?

A better deal than this MOU ?

How ?

This will not … allow Iran to get nukes. And if they attempt to do so, etc. The POTUS made it clear we will strike them again and again … repeat as needed …

That is the massive difference between this POTUS and his Admin vs. Obama's and Biden's … who gave Iran billions of $. USD And they seemed to think that Iran could be trusted …
They were wrong … and those poor decisions, including giving Iran billion of $. USD Even if they were the former Shah's frozen funds. Give to the US for US weapons systems to defend primarily against Iraq.

We all know where that $ went … and it was not for widows and orphans …

Those were very foolish decisions made by both the previous POTUSs. Among others …

The VP just said again … Unless Iran does change their behavior, they get 0 … nothing, nada, zilch, etc.

How do we know what Iran is doing with nukes, etc. Our orbital intel assets, drones, IDF intel, the CIA, etc. knows … And based on those factors. Will give the POTUS the intel to see if Iran is not following the MOU …

Please … someone tell me what is wrong with any of that ?

Some of the same people who spent months insisting that skeptics simply could not see the plan are now openly describing a future in which there may never be a permanent solution at all.

That is not necessarily an argument against the policy.

It is, however, a tacit admission that many of the original questions about political end states, victory conditions, and long-term strategy were not nearly as foolish as they were made out to be.

47 is doing the right thing, painful as it is, and unfortunately he is going to be very much criticized but it seems like there is a realization that the alternative is worse and that redounds to his credit.

As for the 86/47, domestic extremists, and partisan enemies stuff, even if someone sincerely believes it was sinister, what does it accomplish in the thread?

Are we trying to determine whether the policy is succeeding, or whether Trump's opponents are dangerous?

The latter may be true. Threats, political violence, and attacks on democratic institutions should be taken seriously regardless of who is targeted.

However, those are completely different conversations.The first requires evidence, metrics/analysis, strategy, and outcomes.The second is about loyalty, identity, and tribal conflict.

The effect is that scrutiny of the policy gets displaced by scrutiny of the critics.

The deeper issue may be that some people are more comfortable viewing politics as a struggle between allies and enemies than as a process of evaluating competing strategies.

As for the agreement itself, if Washington decides a settlement is in the national interest, then all parties involved—including allies and partners—should be expected to support it. A peace agreement that can be vetoed indefinitely by every interested actor is not much of a peace agreement at all.

Never in my lifetime have I seen the likes and we are not through 2 years. You know there will be more.

Yet almost no concern by the MSM and many times attitudes of almost justification… even by opposing politicians.

There is a lot of hateful rhetoric being spewed by both sides and it's unacceptable regardless of who the target of the attacks and what their politics are. Remember the social media comments after the passing of Robert Mueller? Or the imagery of the Obamas as primates? These are all byproducts of the populism that has become all too common in politics today where we dehumanize the opposition.

"There is a lot of hateful rhetoric being spewed by both sides."

I've noticed a certain smugness from some on the other side of the political fence regarding the US's catastrophic defeat in Iran.

Even if this ill-considered conflict was always destined to end badly, the consequences for the West are not something to celebrate. The world is generally a safer and more stable place when the United States possesses prestige, influence and credible power.

That does not mean supporting every American intervention or foreign policy decision. It does mean recognising that a major strategic defeat for the leading Western power weakens the broader position of the West and emboldens those who do not share its interests or values.

You can oppose the war and still acknowledge that the outcome is deeply troubling. Not every defeat deserves applause simply because you disagreed with the decision to fight.

"I've noticed a certain smugness from some on the other side of the political fence regarding the US's catastrophic defeat in Iran."

😂🤣😂

"Oh Magoo! Have you been running into walls again?"

"Remember the social media comments after the passing of Robert Mueller?"

Remember the outright glee and leg chills at Charlie Kirk having his brains blown out?
All those who wished the assassin had not missed Trump? The first time? The second? Or subsequent?

But conversation has taken place before on TMP.

Interesting, well except for those hoping for a complete disaster. 😏

Financial Times:

"The Trump administration will allow Iran to access $6 USDbn of its oil money held in Qatar to buy humanitarian and non-sanctioned goods from the US under an interim deal between Tehran and Washington.

The move forms part of the billions of dollars in financial incentives that the administration is dangling to ensure the Islamic republic commits to the memorandum of understanding it signed with the US on Wednesday, and to follow-up nuclear talks.

The funds would be released in phases starting within the 60-day extended ceasefire set out in the deal, depending on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the progress of talks towards a final settlement.
They would only be used to buy American products, said a diplomat briefed on the deal."

…

"The $6 USDbn was previously held in South Korea but was transferred to an account in Doha after the Biden administration agreed a prisoner-swap deal with Tehran in September 2023.

Interesting, well except for those hoping for a complete disaster. 😏

Financial Times:

"The Trump administration will allow Iran to access $6 USDbn of its oil money held in Qatar to buy humanitarian and non-sanctioned goods from the US under an interim deal between Tehran and Washington.

The move forms part of the billions of dollars in financial incentives that the administration is dangling to ensure the Islamic republic commits to the memorandum of understanding it signed with the US on Wednesday, and to follow-up nuclear talks.

The funds would be released in phases starting within the 60-day extended ceasefire set out in the deal, depending on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the progress of talks towards a final settlement.
They would only be used to buy American products, said a diplomat briefed on the deal."

…

"The $6 USDbn was previously held in South Korea but was transferred to an account in Doha after the Biden administration agreed a prisoner-swap deal with Tehran in September 2023.

At the time, that deal was viewed as a confidence-building measure that the US hoped would lead Tehran to cap its nuclear enrichment programme. It was reached after nuclear talks between the Biden administration and Iran had collapsed the previous year.

But hopes of broader progress were upended after Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered a wave of regional hostilities, intensifying tensions between Iran and the west. That meant Tehran was not able to access the funds.

"Trump took a bad Biden deal, restricted the sales to humanitarian non-sanctioned goods and ensured that it's used on American products, creating a win-win situation," the diplomat said.

"Iranians get humanitarian goods for their people, and the Iranian money is used to support American farmers."
"

Subject: Iran to get access to $6 USDbn of frozen funds to buy US goods


link

I like the fact that Macron made Trump sign the document in Versailles. The question that remains: will the US Navy scuttle in Scapa Flow?

The bulls in the China shop

"2:57 PM
Israel will not withdraw from security zone in Lebanon, Netanyahu says

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has forcefully come out against the Israeli military leaving its security zone in southern Lebanon in spite of the Iran memorandum of understanding.

The text of the deal, read by a senior U.S. official but not seen directly by CBS News, calls for "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."

Hezbollah has said the last part of that point means Israeli forces must leave Lebanese territory, and they will consider it a breach of the agreement if they don't. Netanyahu said he has no plans to do so"

"I like the fact that Macron made Trump sign the document in Versailles. "

🤔

"President Donald Trump was not forced to sign the agreement; rather, he personally initiated and signed the landmark Memorandum of Understanding with Iran. He signed the document at the Palace of Versailles during a G7-related dinner, after which a copy was sent to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for his signature."

His new ballroom under construction in Paris was not yet finished. "A ballroom like we've never seen before."

I'm sure it is just residual confusion left over from this.

"Yes, Germany was effectively forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles." National WW1 Museum.

Now maybe Macron was hoping to get a treaty signed THIS TIME that would work. 😏