| macintosh.world | Log In | Register |
| Today | News | Books | Recipes | Notes | YouTube | QuickTake |
| Translate | Wiki | Browse | Maps | Reference | Reddit | About |
House Democrat slams US-Iran peace deal as 'basically a surrender document'
by /u/B-Z_B-S | 120 comments | 2026-06-13T21:36:08+00:00 Central
Comments
| /u/AutoModerator As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. Sub-thread Information If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of "incorrect flair". r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. |
| /u/Dragonpunch73 Please don't tell me he's going to announce the signing of this "deal" tomorrow during his ufc bullshit. |
| /u/zokka_son_of_zokka No warring in the fight room! |
| /u/MrCakesSr Is it Strange that I Love this comment so much? |
| /u/MCPtz Mein Trump! It's a miracle! I can walk! |
| /u/DBJenkinss It would be strange if you didn't. |
| /u/psu1989 Timed the announcement for after the stock market closed and the deal may get signed before it opens. Let's see who makes how much money come Monday. Tehran dismisses US assertions of a finalised agreement, criticising the proposed timeline as a domestic PR stunt |
| /u/0ldgrumpy1 And Pakistan told Iran that the timeline is not finalised due to the "INSTABILITY OF THE OTHER PARTY". That needs to be emphasised. PAKISTAN AND IRAN ARE THE MORE STABLE MEMBERS IN THE NEGOTIATIONS! |
| /u/seriouslythisshit Their are reports that Iran has several high level psychologists consulting with leaders and negotiators, as they are operating under the conclusion that Trump is mentally ill, and they want to better understand his behavior. Seems like a reasonable assumption. |
| /u/manicdee33 Not just that Trump is mentally ill, but that "Trump" is actually many people acting as if they are POTUS, with Donald being every bit the titular character in Weekend at Bernie's. |
| /u/Hector_P_Catt ....and that's after half of Iran's government have literally been killed. |
| /u/Due-Currency-3193 Look at it this way. The 'deal' is just more Trump con artist bullshit. So it's entirely appropriate that it comes with his ufc bullshit. June 14th. is now Bullshit Day. |
| /u/its-a-baka If I were Iran I'd wait until the middle of the event to unequivocally reject the deal just to really piss him the fuck off. |
| /u/justking1414 Apparently Iran hasn't actually agreed to it yet |
| /u/frostygrin Make fight, not war! |
| /u/Odd_Dragonfly_1834 On the 250th birthday of the US he will surrender to Iran and all he has to show is a crappy deal much much worse than Obama's |
| /u/ruff1298 Not to mention permanent damage to America's reputation, countless people dead, permanently poisoned land from all the black rain, billions of wasted money and fuel wasted, security concerns stretching into the future (like Taiwan) due to all the missiles, soldiers, and expensive military base infrastructure that was destroyed... The military historians of the next few decades are going to see this as a very interesting, stupid time. |
| /u/Money_Percentage_630 The militarian historians will have so many "And this is why it's important to have capable military officals who will tell you this is a bad idea over military leaders you promoted because they say your bad idea is good" examples. For instance "If you want a regime change from a oppisitional stance to a cooperative stance maybe don't bomb schools and threaten war crimes on civilians, that makes people more oppisitional, not less". |
| /u/JerHat Plus, it says to Iran's civilians that the regime was correct to vilify the US, and makes radicalizing civilians so much easier for terrorist cells when you do things like bomb schools full of children. |
| /u/mightyenan0 It's basic logical reasoning that some people just can't do. "Okay, imagine China wanted us to change presidents. So they bomb the school your daughter goes to, killing her and all her friends and teachers. Would that make you more inclined or less inclined to listen to China?" Unfortunately I could see them asking if the president China wants is Republican before giving an answer. |
| /u/tierciel I got banned from worldnews for asking if killing someone's family was the right way to get them on your side or if it would be more likely to radicalize them against you |
| /u/mido_sama Unless ur an IDF defender and a Muslim hater you will get a ban from world news. |
| /u/Weekly-Role-1132 I will say one thing this admin did for me was open my eyes about Israel and the IDF. |
| /u/mido_sama I don't remember exactly what comment I made but it was related to killing of world kitchen crew in Gaza the same ppl that volunteered in Isreal to feed the ppl that were suffering after October 7th. |
| /u/PassiveMenis88M There are worldnews mods that mod here as well. Be careful. |
| /u/Mike_Kermin Then they can go fuck themselves then, because our bans were unreasonable. The IDF has caused incredible harm, and the idea that harm is necessary or simply self defence is a LIE. And if the mods that are in both are not liars, then, they'll be with us anyway. |
| /u/Catlady_Supreme fuck the IDF and FUCK ISRAEL. |
| /u/HIMARko_polo try r/anime_titties , not kidding! seriously! |
| /u/Admirable_Scene_5066 I was just banned from there for saying a blog post debunking random Twitter pictures is not a source for saying an attack didn't happen. The thread is in my recent history somewhere. It is not even about being pro-palestine anymore: anything doubting the official US/Israel narrative, you are gone. |
| /u/CatOfTechnology But you really have to remember just how conservatives think. It's not about convincing someone to or not to do something, it's about coercion. Normal, sane human beings know the addage "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" in that, if you want something from someone, the best way to go about it is to have a positive rapport and build from there. But these insane dinosaurs and their fucked up, traumatized crotch goblins don't learn that lesson. They learn that if they're told to do something and say 'no', then they get beat, berated and abused. All you have to do to understand Trump's "policy" is recognize that he was raised to fear authority by someone who would beat him to prove their superiority and, in turn, that's what he thinks it means to be an authority figure. "Do as I say, or I'm going to beat the shit out of you until you do." What he doesn't get, though, is that the only reason that worked for his dad was the fact that his dad was punching down. Trump thinks everyone's beneath him because of his upbringing. It's why he fucking sucks and is a coward when it comes to dealing with people who can, and will, take a hit and swing back. |
| /u/Nocturne7280 "Every time China visits Kenya, we get a hospital. Every time Britain visits, we get a lecture." |
| /u/Dr_Trogdor Whenever I try and make this point I always ask people how long it would take to forgive a foreign country if they killed your sibling, parent or child. |
| /u/Disasterhuman24 Nothing unites a nation more than getting bombed by another nation. |
| /u/S1R2C3 When you realize that many people can't accept that other people have feelings and are actual people, then those same people saying that "it's different if it affects me" make sense. |
| /u/tincartofdoom Kinda seems like the regime was right to vilify the US. Doesn't seem at all radical for civilians to hate the country that just attacked them, bombed their infrastructure, and murdered their children. |
| /u/deaglebingo yep. it hardens their position. exactly. which is how you know that trump never cared about the iranian protestors... not even a little. he's just the american version of the ayatollah. just as bibi and others are the same in their respective countries. it's not the people who are bad. its these fucking tyrants propped up by billionaires and now a supposed trillionaire too |
| /u/Greedy-Lynx-2746 Tbf, not that hard to do when we've blacklisted them from the global economy and financial system, frozen their assets, assassinated their leadership, killed their scientists, sabotaged infrastructure, funded anti-government rioters and armed them with American weapons, funded Saddam in the 80's, then gave him chemical weapons that killed 100k+ Iranians in a war that radicalized most of the existing IRGC leadership That was all before Trump, but yeah, outright blowing up schools and threatening to wipe the country off the planet is a new level of genocidal, even for the US |
| /u/PausedForVolatility FM 3-24 comes to mind. While it is specifically geared at being an occupying force engaged in counterinsurgency (three guesses on what the focus was when it was written), it argues for a lot of strategies that would've improved the US's geopolitical position here. It talks about supporting "the host nation," which obviously isn't applicable here, but getting the nations hosting US military forces on board with this operation and its consequences seems like better than the alternative. But that manual also contains such phrases as "cultural understanding is critical" and so it must be woke, even though the argument being employed is essentially, "if you understand them, you know how to defeat them and what traps to avoid." But more to the point: military historians are likely to point at the staggering number of dismissals, reassignments, and resignations of flag officers that happened since Trump was sworn in. To put the numbers into context here: if you imagine us inflicting the same scale of senior military losses on China in a hot war, it would be called a decapitation strike. |
| /u/Money_Percentage_630 Fun fact, during WW1 the Officer politics and infighting was so corrisive that Sir John Moonash, the father of modern warfare, was nearly dismissed by our Prime Minister and was only saved by his junior officers and senior NCO's reporting how excellent he was because he had ideas that didn't lead to massive caualties for minimal or no gain. |
| /u/CptDropbear Another fun fact, Monash was the subject of an antisemetic newspaper campaign led by Keith Murdoch, father of Rupert. |
| /u/CrumDelicious That whole family sucks racist cock |
| /u/Awkward_Analysis_89 This proves the president has too much power. They shouldn't be able to unilaterally fire anyone in a position that's there for checks and balances. The first thing Trump did was fire everyone who disagreed with him and installed sycophants. |
| /u/Minimum_Virus_3837 Yeah, considering Congress officially has the power to declare war, it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to have a say in decisions regarding military command structure, like all senior military leadership dismissals by the executive branch not involving a military tribunal have to go through a Senate confirmation process to become official, or something like that. |
| /u/paulatredes The militarian historians will have so many "And this is why it's important to have capable military officals who will tell you this is a bad idea over military leaders you promoted because they say your bad idea is good" examples. Historians aren't exactly starving for examples of this from before Trump was elected |
| /u/DangerousCyclone That really wasn't the issue. The issue was more deluding yourself into thinking that you could just bomb the enemy into submission when you cannot stop their ability to the thing you don't want them to do, namely blockading the strait of Hormuz. |
| /u/kent_eh It's a simplistic bully's approach. Bullies tend not to expect their victims to stand up and fight back. |
| /u/RandomRobot Anyone with any level of knowledge of the region would have told you the same. You don't need elite scholars for this. You just need to elect a president who's not absolutely oblivious to the world |
| /u/HarmoniousJ "And this is why it's important to have capable military officals who will tell you this is a bad idea over military leaders you promoted because they say your bad idea is good" Trump had this, though. The problem is that he deliberately fired the ones that knew what they were talking about. |
| /u/Fortestingporpoises The military historians will be in camps next to you and me. |
| /u/kent_eh The military historians will be in camps next to you and me. Other countries have historians too, y'know. And they are watching the USA's self-inflcted decent carefully. |
| /u/OK_x86 If you read a little of history about the Civil War the Union had some capable generals in the Eastern theater who seemed a bit too fearful of Jackson and had a difficult time dealing with him as a result. Grant conversely was having a fair bit more success on the Western front and then later Sherman working under him managed to fare a lot better. This is a lesson that should have already been learned long ago. One of the many things wrong with fascists is their lack of appreciation for history, warts and all. If you hide behind an idealized version of the past where no mistakes were ever made you will inevitably repeat those mistakes because you never the lessons those mistakes taught. |
| /u/whater39 If it was about regime change, they would have taken action when there was the major protests. Instead they waited till Israel had enough defenses around it. |
| /u/TomT060404 Dissenters will be vilified and reform will be set back for a long time. |
| /u/eetsumkaus The military historians already have that... |
| /u/tidal_flux Or go whole hog, bomb everything, and occupy for a century. This shit is basic military theory. Every single general officer knows Clausewitz and knows half measures don't work when your goal is regime change. |
| /u/Ranger7381 And let's not forget the damage to all the infrastructure all over the middle east from attacks drone side or the other. Including infrastructure that is used for oil. It will take years to fix Prices are not going down anytime soon |
| /u/Round_Rooms Free health care is so bad we can afford to throw away trillions on a war. |
| /u/Western-Sport500 Don't forget the Epstein Files. |
| /u/stasi_a But look over there, a shiny UFO! |
| /u/TWDYrocks Someone definitely told Donny the entire country would collapse if Ayatollah was assassinated and when that didn't happen there was no plan B just stuck in a quagmire. |
| /u/Western-Sport500 And dic don thought it would be like going into Venezuela. Go, get rid of their dictator, and grab their oil. Geesus. |
| /u/UnquestionabIe Which also resulted in nothing. Country is still running exactly the same way it did before aside from the next rung of the ladder all moving up a step. Hell we're still blowing up random boats in the region and calling them drug dealers without any evidence simply isn't make headlines as often because of the weekly fuck ups coming from the Trump regime. |
| /u/Thadrea Probably Bibi and Kegseth. Even Rubio isn't that naive. |
| /u/MRG_1977 It's the Suez Canal crisis moment in the U.S. The Gulf States realize the U.S. is not and can't not defend them anymore. Countries who are neighbors with China are taking note. |
| /u/Fortestingporpoises Given our military blunders over the last few hundred years this one isn't the bloodiest, but it may ultimately be the most costly. |
| /u/RandomRobot This is, to my knowledge, the stupidest war ever. No real objectives, bombed a few military targets, a few civilians then paid the heavy price for status quo ante bellum. The only thing it did was severely weaken the US position in the region and weaken it overall in the world. |
| /u/Lucid_Insanity Hundreds of billions maybe even a trillion if we have to pay 300 billion in damages if it's true. |
| /u/Lucar_Bane Not to mention Iranian nuclear program permanently back in the menu, lost of control of the strait of Hormuz. Some ally refinery destroyed |
| /u/Purplebuzz To be fair, the only people who still think America has a positive reputation anywhere on the planet, are some Americans. |
| /u/sharies Well America voters damaged the reputation by voting him back in. |
| /u/Embarrassed-Box-1106 The US' reputation was damaged long ago. The US' is the most vile country and the source and/or reason of almost all terrorism in this world |
| /u/TheAngryGoat The rest of the world proved that we won't follow the US into their next crazy pontless war. Why? Because the US just spent the last year telling the rest of the world that it hates them, declaring economic tariff war on everyone, and threatening to invade supposed allies. The US then spent most it its time invading Iran flip-flopping daily or even hourly between "please help us" to "we don't need your help" to "we hate you for not helping us" to "we never ever wanted you to help us". The US has never been so isolated, and deservedly so. And all sorts of people around the world have been paying attention and planning their next moves accordingly. |
| /u/Maoleficent The Trump's, kushners, Bibi and associates all did well for themselves without a moment's remorse. Some are walking barefoot on land and resources they plan to steal while they work on plans for building luxury hotels over the ashes of children. |
| /u/DillBagner June 14th is not the country's birthday. |
| /u/weare_thefew It's not the USA 250th birthday, July 4th is. June 14 is the Supreme Leaders birthday. |
| /u/Jadithslimrivven I'm not ruling out an EO tomorrow, declaring June 14th to now be America's birthday, too. |
| /u/bankgoblin Fiscally it's over 100x worse. |
| /u/No-Good-One-Shoe I hate to say it, but I'd prefer he sign a surrender document vs all out war. But God damn will I not consider it a win, and I won't let MAGA forget their leader is a feckless cu*t. Had to edit my no no word because politics mods are afraid of words. |
| /u/Eddfan36 As long as it makes Obama look wait it makes him look better. Flipping Trump supporters LOL. |
| /u/Annual-Reason2970 another tRump surrender. |
| /u/lord_pizzabird In hindsight Obama's deal was pretty good. The US got everything it wanted, including an obedient Iran. If we had stuck to our side of the agreement we'd be talking about integrated Iran into the US sphere of influence, secure control over the straight, locking China out of being a superpower forever. Instead we somehow made Iran a superpower and ended up paying them for it lol. |
| /u/pseudoLit secure control over the straight, locking China out of being a superpower forever. Just one problem: oil is an antiquated technology, and China is already way ahead of the US on renewables. Claiming victory because you control oil is like bragging about your candle factory in a world that's about to transition to lightbulbs. |
| /u/TheCervixPounder_69 Dawg I hate to break it to you, but tanks and jets are a long way away from running on renewables. |
| /u/TerraceState Jets and tanks use a tiny amount of oil compared to the wider economy. Heck, you didn't even need oil from the earth to supply them, since you can actually artificially produce all the fuel your tanks and jets need from organics. It's just too expensive for the civilian economy to be used there. |
| /u/cosmicaith In hindsight Obama's deal was pretty good. Everyone knew it was a good deal - everyone from all the countries involved had worked hard at it, but of course, 'Mr Art of the Deal' knows better.... Trump ripped up the agreement for one simple reason - it had Obama's name on it. |
| /u/OneBigRed All the Republican bigwigs rushed in front of cameras and microphones to tell how bad the deal was, the minute the news of deal came out. They also made a tv ad where a family sits at a breakfast table and sees a mushroom cloud appear outside, and narrator urging viewers to "reject the bad deal" None of them actually had seen the deal, or knew what it said at that point though. It hadn't been delivered even to senators at that point. But, you know, set the narrative and so forth. |
| /u/mido_sama And a whole new generation that hate us .. we gave the IRGC some good material to recruit for next cycle. |
| /u/No-Seat-629 Don't tell him, he'll get upset! |
| /u/ComfyFrog His name on the deal is the only important part though. |
| /u/supertoned At this point, it would be. Trump is getting his ass kicked here, and dragging down the rest of the world with him with increased fuel prices. He's 100% floundering, and all politics aside, being seen as a 'loser' on the daily is eating him up inside. Iran seems perfectly content to flex on America pretty much ad-infinitum here. I mean, we attacked their civilian infrastructure directly, with zero diplomacy leading up to the attacks. We've given them carte blanche in the eyes of the rest of the world to kick the absolute shit out of us if they can, and it appears to be working. Barring a full scale, total-military invasion of the country, there's no alternative we have other than complete surrender, thanks to Mr. Trump's spectacular ego-driven, ill advised, 'I literally fired all my top Iranian analysts and then started a war illegally outside of Congressional approval' war. |
| /u/ruff1298 Iran gets to brag about how they beat America. It is, in a dramatic irony, Trump's Vietnam. It's a deeply unpopular, grinding offensive that will ultimately be seen as completely useless and a horrific exercise in trying to flex your military might in a place you shouldn't have gone to. That it was started by the man that did everything he could to avoid a draft adds to the poetry. |
| /u/AliceLunar And they get to monetize the Strait and make more money than ever before which in turn will make them stronger than ever before. |
| /u/WhyNotFerret why didn't they monetize the strait ever in the past? why now? |
| /u/MumpsyDaisy Because it would have to be enforced by military means, so Iran would have been the aggressors and faced retaliation from a much larger coalition of nations. Since the US attacked first it instead can be reasonably framed as the defensive action of a nation resisting aggression. It also helps that the United States spent a lengthy time beforehand alienating their most likely allies and started the war completely against their wishes and without warning. |
| /u/Sutar_Mekeg I'm starting to think that letting a dementia patient run a country is a bad idea. |
| /u/FatMacchio Trump knew what he's doing...Israel has some nuclear dirt on him, probably actual tapes from the Island. This is Netanyahu's war he's been after. I honestly don't expect him to go quietly into the night on this one |
| /u/JennyW93 Yeah I enjoyed when he told us (the UK) that we barely did anything to help in Afghanistan, then about a week later starting crying that we weren't being very good friends anymore and we should attack Iran for him. |
| /u/PurpleWhiteOut They were able to close it to traffic under the chaos of war. In normal times they couldn't get away with it. Traffic dropping to avoid a war zone was the perfect time. And now they have all the leverage |
| /u/DrFlutterChii If they tried people would ignore them. If they bombed the people that ignored them, everyone else would bomb them harder. Well, now we've already bombed them and most of 'everyone else' agrees that was a pretty fucked thing to do and isnt interested in bombing Iran. |
| /u/K-G-L Essentially, before this conflict Iran was trying to avoid a mass US/Israeli air campaign. They had no way of knowing whether they could survive one or not, and closing the Strait on their own initiative would have prompted such a strike with the full permission, if not full support, of the EU and China. Now, the Trump administration has gone ahead and initiated that air campaign anyway, and as it turns out the Iranian regime can survive it. At horrible cost and loss of life, of course, but they're a monstrous regime and don't have to care about that. We've removed the uncertainty for them, leaving them no reason not to close the Strait at will going forward, and on top of that because we've made ourselves the aggressors Iran will be able to get away with charging tolls and exerting influence over the Strait in a way they never could have if they had been the ones to start the conflict. |
| /u/1610925286 The only way this is true is in the sense that Trump poisoned the idea of a concerted military effort by going ahead and ignoring allies. If Iran randomly started doing this we'd probably see NATO action. We didn't see that right now because NATO doesn't want to deal with Trump's war. |
| /u/Author_A_McGrath It would have been a gamble -- the whole world would have taken offense, claimed Iran was strong-arming them aggressively, and ganged up on Iran, leveraging global alliances. Instead, Iran was forced to take that gamble, and saw that, unlike Biden, Obama, etc, Trump was terrible at dealing with them. He's corrupt, has fired most experts on the region, but yes-men in charge of complex military leadership positions, and only seems to make Iranians angrier with his bombing of civilian structures. Iran's old leadership wouldn't have poked the bear. Now that they're forced to, they're seen as playing defense, and America gets to take all the blame because they attacked without notifying their allies. Trump is the whole reason Iran is getting away with this. It's a textbook case of bad leadership. |
| /u/G_Morgan That and he's politically reinvigorated the regime. Usually famines and similar cause nations to collapse once people have found their feet again. Because unsurprising starving people don't rebel but people who are no longer starving remember starving. At the bare minimum, Iran would have had to make compromises to avoid a rebellion 5 years from now. None of that is going to happen now. |
| /u/Forward-Surprise1192 They're going to change the name to Uran instead of Iran |
| /u/Everythings_Fucked More like Trump's Ukraine. |
| /u/Kevin-W I'm honestly Iran beat their asses too. TheUS had zero reason to go to war with them and it will go down as one of the biggest foreign policy failures in modern history |
| /u/Insensibilities I am not a fan of Trump but this ain't a grinding offensive like Vietnam as almost no US casualties have been incurred because Trump didn't do a ground invasion (which would have made everything worse.) I wouldn't even call it an offensive. Just opportunistic bombing. It is basically just a bunch of air sorties in Iran bombing whatever they could hit and Iran shooting missiles at soft targets around the region. It is medium cost (around $100B costs for the US but also costs for the oil production facilities hit) with minimum causalities in the US side and also very few in the Iranian side too, couple thousand I believe. Still strategically stupid and medium costly but nothing compared to Vietnam or Iraq invasion. |
| /u/ruff1298 I appreciate the clarification. I suppose I should have said it would be symbolically his Vietnam. |
| /u/Kaje26 He's going to blame Hegseth and fire him. He'll never admit he made a bad decision. |
| /u/LazyCon He'll find a woman or minority to blame |
| /u/Haltopen He did, Tulsi Gabbard resigned as director of national intelligence last month and steps down officially in around two weeks |
| /u/ruff1298 I do think it'll be funny if Trump then puts in a female military officer that Hegseth tried to stop the promotion of. |
| /u/Uryalis Whether people agree or not, it's hard to argue that impulsive foreign policy decisions don't come with serious consequences both at home and abroad. |
| /u/ruff1298 I would also blame Rubio for this, considering he likely had a part in it, and he's been bragging about the necessity of flexing America's power overseas. As the Secretary of State, he has this on his record as it is within his duties and his failure to reign in the president. |
| /u/gangleskhan I truly believe that everything Rubio does at this point foreign policy wise is with the goal of taking out the Cuban government. If Iran had gone as they hoped, I believe 100% we'd have attacked Cuba by now or would be soon. |
| /u/ruff1298 Chris Hayes commented something to the effect of, I do believe the success of the Venezuelan operation will be seen as the most terrible outcome the Trump Administration could have gotten. That is, they got an easy win, and assumed the rest would be just as effortless. |
| /u/StanDaMan1 Honestly, Cuba is potentially impossible now. Because the Cuban Government has gotten a clear A/B test of what worked in Venezuela and what broke in Iran. |
| /u/IolausTelcontar Cuba doesn't really have a Straight of Hormuz to hold over the world. Iran is in a pretty unique position. |
| /u/frostygrin But it's not like anyone had a reason to believe that Iran was an easier target. If Cuba is a priority, why not start with Cuba? |
| /u/TBIFridays It's Rubio's priority, not Trump's. Trump is an 80 year old Fox News viewer. They've been calling for war with Iran for decades at this point. |