By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has approved a framework agreement with the United States, albeit with significant reservations. Despite disagreeing with the deal in principle, his approval stems from a sense of responsibility to the Iranian people and their allies. The letter emphasizes that Iran awaits the fulfillment of its conditions and that future direct negotiations will not signify acceptance of the opposing side’s position.
Read the original article here
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has reportedly approved a deal, characterizing former President Trump’s actions as stemming from sheer “desperation.” This perspective suggests that Trump’s eagerness to strike an agreement wasn’t driven by strategic brilliance or a position of strength, but rather by an urgent need to achieve *something*, anything, to salvage his image or political standing.
It appears the narrative is that ripping up the previous deal was not about a fundamental disagreement with its terms, but a seemingly impulsive decision to undo anything associated with the Obama administration. This leads to the interpretation that Trump’s foreign policy playbook, at least in this instance, was defined by a desire to erase Obama’s legacy, rather than to construct a superior alternative.
The core of Khamenei’s assessment seems to hinge on the idea that Trump was under immense pressure to lower oil prices, particularly with midterm elections on the horizon. This perceived urgency, the argument goes, forced his hand and made him susceptible to Iran’s negotiating demands, effectively leading to a situation where he was “punked” by Iran.
Furthermore, the notion that Trump expected Iran to simply collapse internally, with its own populace rising up to overthrow the government, is presented as a significant miscalculation. This wishful thinking, the argument suggests, proved to be far from reality, leaving Trump in a position of needing to secure a deal, regardless of its unfavorable terms.
The reported approval of the deal by Khamenei, coupled with his scathing assessment of Trump’s motivations, paints a picture of a strategic victory for Iran. The idea of Iran securing a substantial financial windfall, reportedly around $300 billion, while simultaneously being able to continue its nuclear enrichment without the same level of oversight as under the previous agreement, is seen as a tremendous gain for them.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that Trump’s pursuit of this deal was a desperate attempt to avoid further escalation, especially given the potential financial strain of a prolonged conflict. The idea is that continued hostilities could have depleted US reserves significantly, potentially jeopardizing the Republican party’s chances in the upcoming elections, and thus constituting a political death warrant for the administration.
This outcome, where Trump is seen as having initiated a conflict only to concede and reach a deal widely perceived as more beneficial to Iran, is viewed as a significant blow to his credibility. The narrative suggests that history will remember him as the president who lost a war he initiated, a notion that undermines his self-proclaimed status as a master negotiator.
The perception is that the entire world recognizes this as a “desperate deal” that favors Iran over the United States. While there’s an acknowledgment that Iranian leaders often present their victories in strong terms, the current situation is seen as a rare instance where their pronouncements align with a tangible outcome that benefits them significantly.
The question of what exactly fueled this desperation is raised, with some speculative, albeit unflustered, suggestions pointing to external factors. Regardless of the specific drivers, the core message is that Trump was in a position of weakness, and Iran skillfully exploited this to their advantage, effectively outmaneuvering him in the negotiation process.
The comparison to a child’s drawing of “The Art of the Deal” implies a profound lack of sophistication and a hasty, unstrategic approach to a complex international negotiation. This suggests that Trump, in his eagerness to finalize an agreement, perhaps by a self-imposed deadline or for personal satisfaction, agreed to terms that were inherently disadvantageous to the US.
The idea that Iran “bent Trump over” and obtained everything they desired, including the continuation of uranium enrichment without robust monitoring, is a recurring theme. The financial gains are seen as substantially larger than under the Obama-era agreement, further highlighting the perceived disparity in the outcome.
There’s a palpable sense of disbelief and even amusement surrounding the situation, with many questioning the competence of the administration and the electorate that supported it. The notion that the US, a global superpower, would capitulate to a nation like Iran, especially after initiating a confrontation, is viewed as a national humiliation.
The “deal of the century” is sarcastically referenced, implying that the agreement is anything but, and that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who might have envisioned a different outcome, is likely displeased. The belief that Trump might have thought a war with Iran would boost his popularity and image of strength has been proven wrong.
The narrative highlights the perceived inability of the US to effectively wage and win wars in the post-World War II era, contrasting it with its historical success. This suggests a deeper, systemic issue rather than a singular presidential failing, though the current administration is seen as particularly inept.
The financial cost, in terms of aircraft, personnel, and direct monetary sums, is pointed out as a stark reminder of the price paid for this perceived failure. The fact that Iran is reportedly receiving significantly more financial benefit from this deal than from the previous one underscores the magnitude of the perceived capitulation.
The commentary suggests a desire for accountability, with questions about impeachment being raised, although the prevailing mood seems to lean towards incredulity and scorn rather than a belief in meaningful consequences. The framing of this as “Biden’s Iran Deal” in the future, as a way to deflect blame, is anticipated by some.
The perceived incompetence extends to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Iranian government’s willingness to use force against its own citizens, suggesting a naive hope for internal revolt that was destined to fail. This, combined with the idea of Trump “begging the Iranians like a dog,” paints a picture of profound subservience.
The idea of Iran “husing training” Trump to prevent further missteps illustrates the extent to which he is seen as having been subjugated by the Iranian leadership. The “Art of the Deal,” in this context, is reduced to a childish attempt at negotiation that ultimately failed spectacularly.
The notion that history will be unforgiving of Trump’s actions is strongly implied, with the specific mention of his birthday adding a layer of almost farcical detail to his alleged desperation to finalize the deal. This is contrasted with the ongoing focus on less significant matters, like Hillary Clinton’s email server, to highlight what is perceived as misplaced priorities.
The sentiment that Trump was “owned by Iran” is a direct expression of this perceived defeat. The idea that this desperation might be linked to other sensitive issues, like the Epstein files, is a speculative but telling indicator of the extreme measures some believe Trump might have been willing to go to.
The “Supreme Leader played Trump like a little violin” is a vivid metaphor for the skillful manipulation and control that Iran is perceived to have exerted over the US president. The question is posed directly to anyone, regardless of political affiliation, asking if they disagree that the situation was handled poorly.
The outcome is described as being, at best, a return to a “somewhat worse status quo,” with Iran achieving its objectives and the US finding itself in a diminished position. The lack of stringent monitoring of uranium enrichment, a key concern, is highlighted as a critical concession.
The perceived ineffectiveness of the deal in impacting midterm elections, coupled with the prior understanding that oil prices were already low before the conflict, suggests that Trump’s actions were not strategically sound and did not achieve their intended political goals.
The comparison of Iran’s actions to those of Somali pirates, while seemingly dismissive, highlights the idea that the US’s willingness to engage and its perceived “good graces” can be exploited. The argument is that the US, unlike its detractors claim, may not be as ruthless as necessary to secure its interests effectively.
The historical observation about the US’s success in wars before World War II and its struggles thereafter suggests a shift in strategic approaches or a change in the global landscape that the current administration failed to navigate.
The phrase “America surrendering to a 3rd rate power on its 250th birthday” is a potent encapsulation of the perceived national embarrassment. The idea that a “joke at the White House press roast” could lead to a shift in global power dynamics underscores the perceived unseriousness and amateurishness of the US approach.