![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
politics, Iran, etc.
Jun. 17th, 2026 09:37 amSo the folks at The Bulwark had an extensive discussion yesterday of the Iran "deal" Trump announced for his own birthday, which will allegedly be signed by all parties later this week.
It’s been clear for months that Trump didn’t have clear goals going into the war, didn’t have a backup plan for what happens if the Iranian government doesn’t immediately fold to his superior manliness, and didn’t have a way out of the war that would leave the US in a better position than it held in February. So the goal of negotiations has become to extricate the US from Iran in a way that Trump can somehow spin as a "win", while the Iranian government also spins it (more plausibly) as a "win".
But when life hands you lemons, make lemonade. It’s an ill wind that blows no-one good. Putting yourself in Trump’s mind, what’s the best possible outcome? If I can’t get a legitimate "win" to brag about, at least I and my buddies can make a bunch of money. It doesn’t matter whether that money comes from Iran, or Russia, or Iran’s frozen assets in the US, or directly from US taxpayers: as long as we have opportunities to make profitable private deals, it’s a good outcome. Remember that the chief US negotiators talking to the Iranian government are Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, both billionaires actively making private deals in the Middle East at the same time as they negotiate a "deal" on behalf of the US. (Kushner doesn’t even, AFAIK, have a security clearance or a government job other than "President’s son-in-law".)
Using the US’s military might to overthrow the Iranian government, and replace them with a US puppet as in Venezuela, didn’t work. Maybe instead we can use the US’s financial might to make them our friends and business partners. Remember, the “horrible” JCPOA treaty that Obama signed with the Iranians included unfreezing $30-50 billion of Iranian assets and lifting many but not all economic sanctions on Iranian exports. We don’t have the text of the new, "very strong" deal, but leaks indicate that it calls for "at least $300 billion" (yes, ten times as much) in reconstruction and redevelopment for Iran, and immediately (like, next week!) lifting most economic sanctions on Iranian exports. We can even spin the $300 billion as a win for the US because much of it will be spent on US companies (run by Kushner, Witkoff, and other Trump buddies). Maybe the US oil companies that said "no thanks, I'll pass" on huge oil-infrastructure investments in Venezuela will be more interested in making such investments in Iran.
As the Bulwark people point out, Trump has no problem with repressive, corrupt dictators — in Russia, in North Korea, in China, in Venezuela, etc. — as long as they’re willing to work with him, either as his puppets or as his friendly rivals staying out of one another's spheres of influence. Until now, Iran has been the most prominent exception. Maybe the outcome of this "deal" is that a year from now, Iran is officially an ally of the US, an alliance cemented by US taxpayers paying Trump’s billionaire bros to rebuild Iranian infrastructure. Heck, if they’re our allies, we could even sell them weapons, again funded by the US taxpayer.
In related news, the Bulwark folks point out that Donald Trump, the man who puts his name on everything, is graciously giving JD Vance the credit for negotiating and signing this deal, and most Trump-allied Republican commentators have adopted the talking point of referring to it as "the Vance deal". Almost as though... there were something wrong with the deal, and they didn't want to be on record associating it with Trump? It looks like a way to put a thumb on the scale in favor of Marco Rubio as heir apparent in 2028... unless... Israel makes a real stink about the deal (which makes promises on their behalf, but which they weren't involved in negotiating), and Trump cuts them off at the knee for being disloyal to His Greatness. At which point suddenly Vance's well-known Israel skepticism becomes an asset, and Rubio's traditional support for Israel becomes a liability. It would be so much simpler if (as the New Yorker cover suggests) Vance and Rubio just held a cage match. I know a venue near the White House that might work.
It’s been clear for months that Trump didn’t have clear goals going into the war, didn’t have a backup plan for what happens if the Iranian government doesn’t immediately fold to his superior manliness, and didn’t have a way out of the war that would leave the US in a better position than it held in February. So the goal of negotiations has become to extricate the US from Iran in a way that Trump can somehow spin as a "win", while the Iranian government also spins it (more plausibly) as a "win".
But when life hands you lemons, make lemonade. It’s an ill wind that blows no-one good. Putting yourself in Trump’s mind, what’s the best possible outcome? If I can’t get a legitimate "win" to brag about, at least I and my buddies can make a bunch of money. It doesn’t matter whether that money comes from Iran, or Russia, or Iran’s frozen assets in the US, or directly from US taxpayers: as long as we have opportunities to make profitable private deals, it’s a good outcome. Remember that the chief US negotiators talking to the Iranian government are Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, both billionaires actively making private deals in the Middle East at the same time as they negotiate a "deal" on behalf of the US. (Kushner doesn’t even, AFAIK, have a security clearance or a government job other than "President’s son-in-law".)
Using the US’s military might to overthrow the Iranian government, and replace them with a US puppet as in Venezuela, didn’t work. Maybe instead we can use the US’s financial might to make them our friends and business partners. Remember, the “horrible” JCPOA treaty that Obama signed with the Iranians included unfreezing $30-50 billion of Iranian assets and lifting many but not all economic sanctions on Iranian exports. We don’t have the text of the new, "very strong" deal, but leaks indicate that it calls for "at least $300 billion" (yes, ten times as much) in reconstruction and redevelopment for Iran, and immediately (like, next week!) lifting most economic sanctions on Iranian exports. We can even spin the $300 billion as a win for the US because much of it will be spent on US companies (run by Kushner, Witkoff, and other Trump buddies). Maybe the US oil companies that said "no thanks, I'll pass" on huge oil-infrastructure investments in Venezuela will be more interested in making such investments in Iran.
As the Bulwark people point out, Trump has no problem with repressive, corrupt dictators — in Russia, in North Korea, in China, in Venezuela, etc. — as long as they’re willing to work with him, either as his puppets or as his friendly rivals staying out of one another's spheres of influence. Until now, Iran has been the most prominent exception. Maybe the outcome of this "deal" is that a year from now, Iran is officially an ally of the US, an alliance cemented by US taxpayers paying Trump’s billionaire bros to rebuild Iranian infrastructure. Heck, if they’re our allies, we could even sell them weapons, again funded by the US taxpayer.
In related news, the Bulwark folks point out that Donald Trump, the man who puts his name on everything, is graciously giving JD Vance the credit for negotiating and signing this deal, and most Trump-allied Republican commentators have adopted the talking point of referring to it as "the Vance deal". Almost as though... there were something wrong with the deal, and they didn't want to be on record associating it with Trump? It looks like a way to put a thumb on the scale in favor of Marco Rubio as heir apparent in 2028... unless... Israel makes a real stink about the deal (which makes promises on their behalf, but which they weren't involved in negotiating), and Trump cuts them off at the knee for being disloyal to His Greatness. At which point suddenly Vance's well-known Israel skepticism becomes an asset, and Rubio's traditional support for Israel becomes a liability. It would be so much simpler if (as the New Yorker cover suggests) Vance and Rubio just held a cage match. I know a venue near the White House that might work.
