this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
127 points (99.2% liked)

politics

30165 readers
3179 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lydon_Feen@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago (3 children)

So, it's not only not the same deal that was in effect before the orange turd decided to start war, it's actually much worse because they have to pay Iran for reparations?!

LOL god! What a fuckin vile, pathologically incompetent fucking moron of a corrupt president.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"They're not reparations! It's -- it's -- umm, it's an investment fund!"

[–] YouTalkinToMe@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 week ago

Let me guess, 1776 billion?

[–] Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Yes, now with his name on it.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Not only that, but how much money is getting funneled to defense contractors to restock the military

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This looks more like Terms of American Surrender than anything else. So that is Trumps fabulous art of the deal: Start an unnecessary war, and then lose it.

His only hope is that Israel sabotages this "peace" process, so he does not get to sign it...

[–] nosuchanon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Shart of the deal.

[–] VeryVito@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

How is this a “leak?” International trade agreements are not secrets. Laws are not secrets.

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

The sources all stressed that the text was not yet final, with a Western source, an Iranian source and a Gulf source saying a key issue yet to be resolved was language on ceasing hostilities in Lebanon. Iran has demanded that Israel end a campaign against Iran's allies, the Hezbollah militia.

(Naturally the main thing that can't be dealt with is fucking Israel....)

Under the terms as described by the sources to Reuters, the U.S. would immediately provide Iran with billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and waive sanctions on its oil exports, in return for Iran lifting its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, largely closed since the war began.

Any discussion of key U.S. demands regarding Iran's nuclear program would be set aside for later during a 60-day period of talks on a final settlement. The only explicit reference to nuclear policy for now would be a restatement of Iran's decades-old commitment not to seek nuclear weapons, first made when it ratified the UN Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970.

Among the major U.S. concessions included in the drafts would be discussion of hundreds of billions of dollars in potential war reparations to Tehran, and the dropping of longstanding demands for curbs on Iran's missile program.

Washington has previously demanded that Iran give up its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. But none of the versions of the text reviewed by Reuters includes any mention of it, and the sources said the demand had been explicitly excluded for now.

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago