Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds
- Thread starter Khorasan Black Flags
- Start date
unconventional
Registered Member
Throughout this discussion, I repeatedly asked you to clarify three simple things:
- Why was the 60-day period strategically significant?
- What exactly did Ghalibaf mean by "victory"?
- Which specific provisions of the MOU favored the US over Iran?
That is why I don't think you've actually substantiated the implications of your earlier posts. Instead of defining your claims when pressed, your position became progressively narrower and more qualified.
At this point, I think we've both stated our positions clearly enough for readers to judge.
unconventional
Registered Member
@VCheng
This has been the recurring pattern throughout our discussion.
When I asked you who, outside of the Trump administration, viewed the text of the MOU as more favorable to the US than Iran, you didn’t answer the question. Instead, you changed the discussion to “it’s childish to compare who got the better deal.”
When I cited US polling showing public perception of the deal, you tried to rubbish the polling instead of engaging with what it indicated.
My issue isn’t that we disagree. It’s that whenever your earlier implications are examined closely, they are either left undefined, dismissed without substance, or replaced with a different claim.
This has been the recurring pattern throughout our discussion.
When I asked you who, outside of the Trump administration, viewed the text of the MOU as more favorable to the US than Iran, you didn’t answer the question. Instead, you changed the discussion to “it’s childish to compare who got the better deal.”
When I cited US polling showing public perception of the deal, you tried to rubbish the polling instead of engaging with what it indicated.
My issue isn’t that we disagree. It’s that whenever your earlier implications are examined closely, they are either left undefined, dismissed without substance, or replaced with a different claim.
VCheng
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Again, in simple English:
1. The 60 day period is significant because the MoU states this period as the time to negotiate a final settlement.
2. Ghalibaf's statement is pretty clear and has been given above already. He has even said the MoU represents "the end of an era", which seems pretty long term to me.
3. For the nth time, it is childish to see any terms of the MoU as favoring one side or another. The MoU is exactly that - a document showing the understanding of the common ground between two parties at war establishing the basis to negotiate an end to the war.
Is the above too hard to comprehend?
What others think is up to them, not me. They are totally free to think and post as they wish.
Last edited:
VCheng
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
I did, clearly, and directly. It is indeed childish to see the MoU as favorable to one side or another. Utterly foolish, for anyone who does so..
LOL. Polls in USA are meaningless, since their methodology and wording is carefully designed to yield desired results, especially in the run up to crucial elections. Utterly meaningless. That is what it indicates.
Or you intentionally choose to not comprehend the answers. That is all on you, not me.
Again:
Perhaps this will help:
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a type of agreement between two (bilateral) or more (multilateral) parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used either in cases where parties do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
Memorandum of understanding - Wikipedia
Master Chief
Trusted Member
Have you not met the famous and silver tongued Mr @VCheng before? You sound strangely surprised at his unique mannerisms.
We are all quite used to him and have a separate thread where we play bingo with his responses. I'm in the lead as I got 3x "time will tell" this week. Even the great man himself plays but somehow I am actually ahead of him in score.
VCheng
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Perhaps you would like to take the lead on what I have posted about the topic above, rather than talk about my person, since that only shows your inability to actually present a coherent argument?
Let us start here:
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a type of agreement between two (bilateral) or more (multilateral) parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used either in cases where parties do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
Now, how can such a document favor one side or another?
BHAN85
Trusted Member
unconventional
Registered Member
I think we are going in circles at this point, what’s been said or not been said by each poster is clear for the readers to see
unconventional
Registered Member
One thing to clarify about the MOU, it does not merely talk about 60 days, but also provides the foundation of the future US-Iran-regional relationships through a generalized/broad framework. Hence, dismissing the significance of what the MOU states is very wrong.
Last edited:
Muji.Iqbal
Trusted Member
Iranian sailors seized by US handed over in Pakistan
Iranian sailors seized by US handed over in Pakistan
US forces boarding the sanctioned stateless vessel Davina on June 5 in the Indian Ocean located in the Indian Ocean. Iranian members of the ship's crew were handed to Iranian diplomats in Pakistan on Friday. (US Pacific Command)
Short Url
Updated 26 June 2026 20:02
Arab News
June 26, 202619:53
Follow
- Twenty-two Iranian crew members seized by US earlier this month arrive at Iran's consulate in Karachi
- Pakistan's foreign minister says the sailors were on board the supertanker Davina, which the US boarded in the Indian Ocean
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the sailors were from the ship named Davina, which US forces boarded in the Indian Ocean earlier this month.
Iran’s state news agency IRNA reported that the crew were handed over to Iranian diplomats and are expected to return to Iran in the coming days.
Pakistan has mediated talks between the US and Iran to end the conflict, which led to an initial agreement signed last week.
Dar said Pakistan had remained in close contact with the US and Iranian authorities throughout the process.
“Arrangements are now being finalized in close collaboration with the Iranian Missions in Pakistan to facilitate their earliest and safe return to their homeland,” Dar said on X.
The group is the fourth set of Iranian crew in the past two months that Pakistan has helped repatriate.
The US military said it had interdicted and boarded the sanctioned stateless vessel Davina on June 4 as part of a blockade of Iranian ports.
The supertanker, capable of carrying up to two million barrels of crude oil, was placed under US sanctions in October 2024 for Iranian oil trading, Reuters reported.
The vessel, also known as the Lenore, was seen on June 5 off Sri Lanka’s southern coast.
*With AFP and Reuters
Master Chief
Trusted Member
No actually I wouldn't.
I am going to defer to those with a lifelong career in politics, specifically American politics, to help understand who is the bigger benefactor of the terms of this MoU.
On the basis of opinions available on this matter at present, I personally believe USA has suffered a marginal strategic loss against Iran. I'm not the only one who believes the MoU's composition favours Iranian objectives over American objectives, as declared to the American public prior to and in the early days of the conflict.
“I stood and said, ‘You have not told the American people what’s going on,’” Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, recounted to reporters afterward. “This is supposed to last four weeks. It’s lasted four months. Our original objectives have not been achieved.”
Trump's showdown with Republican Sen. Cassidy: Inside the blow-up on Capitol Hill
President Donald Trump's visit to Capitol Hill is rekindling a feud with one Republican senator. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana confronted Trump during a private lunch Wednesday.
apnews.com
Cassidy isnt the only one who holds this position among US Republican senators. I'm not going to pretend I am some expert analyst in geopolitics but I will give weight to the privately held (and now leaked) views of someone with the experience and wherewithal to comment freely and reliably on these matters. Interestingly, further information was shared with Cassidy after his outburst, which appear to have assuaged at least some of his concerns (as per the article). It would be great to know what that additional information is! But until then, I have to conclude that Iran is the main benefactor of this arrangement as written.
Now a further question arises with regards to whether or not the listed articles will be delivered on in real terms. That remains a fair question to ask. Of that I am not particularly confident. So, my declaration of an Iranian victory remains wholly dependent on delivery of the stated terms.
Meengla
Elite Member
Right.
There is enough integrity in most Western analysts, even the most pro Israel ones, to know this war has given Iran at least the upper hand and is a strategic loss to Israel. I don't know about America except unless America loses Petro Dollar, America will be fine. It is a Superpower with many interests and many resources. Israel, on the other hand...
No point arguing with Mr. Water is Wet!
unconventional
Registered Member
My point is this MOU agreement is the best the US could have gotten in light of everything that was not achieved from the war itself.
hussain0216
Elite Member
If anyone wants to know how screwed the U.S is and what cards Iran has to play to force concessions, take a look at this video
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
Country Watch Latest
Latest Posts
-
We've Been Lied to about America....[World Cup] Foreigners 1st Time to USA (22 Viewers)- Latest: SABRE
-
-
-
-