“There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

And so it was. Well, yes, there IS a deal—in fact it was signed yesterday, a day early, lest interfering crazies tried to derail the process. And, yes again, this looks like UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. Only it’s not Iran doing the surrendering.

Yesterday we tried to explain the overall shape of the MOU (Text Of MOU Released–Major Geopolitical Shifts Ahead), arguing that:

1. In practical terms, the MOU gives Iran everything it needs to become a dominant regional power, if the results are managed wisely. No Final Agreement is actually required. This is a victory for both Iran and for BRICS.
2. It is unlikely that the Anglo-Zionists will be able to re-up into another war—whether kinetic or economic—against Iran because, even in the short 60 day period now entered into, the geopolitical landscape will change. The rest of the world will not stand for a new war, and the US is not in a position—economically, politically, or militarily—to embark on another such fool’s errand. No matter the threats or blandishments of the fast talking Jewish Nationalist salesmen who got Trump into this mess.

Today, The Multipolarity Substack takes their own victory lap and examines the question:

Trump pulls out, but who finished first?

Their argument is that not only did the Anglo-Zionists fail, miserably, to attain any of their stated war goals, but that the MOU amounts to an unconditional surrender to Iran’s own war goals. The point being that Iran actually sought a deal, rather than war, but when war was forced upon Iran they went into it with a clear set of goals.

What were the Anglo-Zionist goals? Here are the demands that were presented, just two days before the sneak attack on Iran, followed by Trump’s own words:

1. The end of Iran’s nuclear programme, including (i) a handover, under strict US and International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, of its enriched uranium stockpile, and (ii) the physical dismantling of nuclear sites, such as Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
2. Iran must agree to never enrich fissile material again (even for medical purposes).
3. A limit to Iran’s missile programme, in terms of overall size and the range of individual missiles (thus removing Iran’s primary means of national self-defence).
4. Iran must end its support/funding/arming of regional proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar Allah (aka ‘the Houthis’), the Shia militias in Iraq, et al).
5. The deal would be permanent, with no sunset clauses (unlike the 2015 JCPOA).
6. In exchange for compliance on all these matters, Iran would receive only minimal/conditioned sanctions relief.

Then, addressing the American nation after his shameful second sneak attack on Iran, Trump enunciated his goals:

“We will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon… They will never have a nuclear weapon.”; “We’re going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated”; “We’re going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilise the region or the world and attack our forces.”

Contrary to Trump’s claims, these war goals were an embrace of the Anglo-Zionist fantasy of “regime change” via “decapitation”. We now know who lost their heads.

The MOU both confirms the complete failure of these war aims and amounts to a complete surrender to the terms imposed by Iran. The Multipolarity Substack goes on to document the complete failure of the war aims:

• First, far from destroying Iran’s nuclear programme, the effort to contain and curtail Iran’s efforts to proliferate is in a worse state now than it was before the war. …
• Second, far from cutting off its proxies, Iran is for the first time defending them by attacking Israel directly. …
• Third, on 12 May the New York Times reported that the US bombing campaign had not done nearly the damage to Iran’s missile capacity as the presidential administration, led by the claims of Trump himself, had implied. …
• Finally, it hardly needs to be said that the US has failed to compel regime change. …

Next, the Multipolarity Substack quotes its earlier assessment of what would be required to reach an end to hostilities. Please note that wording: “an end to hostilities.” Not necessarily a “deal” nor a “final agreement”. Just an end to hostilities because, knowing that they had won in the first phase, Iran was determined to pursue the logical course of war until it achieved its own ends. And that’s what the MOU represents. It may or may not lead to a “final agreement,” but it will lead to a de facto geopolitical shift that will mark a decisive defeat for the Anglo-Zionist Empire.

First, here is what Iran needed from the war, according to the authors:

• A de facto, although perhaps not necessarily de jure, understanding that now Iran’s ability to control the Strait of Hormuz had been revealed, it was a fact of life hereafter. …
• The ability to stabilise its shattered economy in the short term, and to get on the path to economic growth in the long term. …
• Some sort of guarantee that the US and Israel would not come back for a second bite of the cherry later. [US withdrawal from bases?]
• … any peace agreement to cover Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and Hezbollah.

Now, here is The Multipolarity Substack’s assessment of the MOU [NB: At the link you’ll find the full text of the MOU. It’s fuller than the Bloomberg version, but is essentially identical in substance.]:

Iran gets pretty much everything it wanted.

Article 1 includes Israel and Lebanon in the ceasefire.

Article 2 gives a verbal guarantee of non-aggression (Iran can achieve much of the rest through a combination of the Hormuz weapon and pressure on the Gulf Monarchies).

Article 5 concedes that Iran can charge tolls on passage through the Strait of Hormuz, specifying that no charge will be applied “for 60 days only”. Furthermore, it specifically mentions negotiations with Oman, which Iran has said since the beginning would have a place on the board of the “Persian Gulf Strait Authority”, the body which Iran unilaterally set up to manage the Strait.

Article 6 provides for a massive $300-billion Reconstruction and Development Fund (just don’t call it reparations!) This, per Reuters, is not to be funded by the US government, but by private interests from the US and from the Gulf states (one assumes investment funds close to the US administration and Gulf monarchies — you all know the usual suspects).

Article 7 provides for the end of all sanctions if Iran strikes a deal on its nuclear material.

Article 8 makes it plain that the nuclear deal will be no worse than the JCPOA, specifically mentioning “minimum methodology”.

Article 10 gives Iran oil sanctions relief just for signing the MOU.

Article 11 provides for the return of the tens of billions of frozen Iranian funds.

The article concludes in a way that’s similar to what I’ve been arguing: Look at the fundamentals. There was clearly no military solution and global economic collapse was looming—as Trump has now openly admitted. Trump had delayed and tried every trick he could think of to get better terms, but crunch time was NOW. He had no choice but to accept Iran’s terms. And make no mistake about it—there can be no quick pivot back to a fruitless war, just to keep Jewish Nationalist donors happy. There are plenty of consequences from this war that are still to come, both in terms of military power projection but also in economic and financial terms for Anglo-Zionist financial hegemony. And so:

Alas, given the course of the war, this is about the best Washington might have hoped for. The US was defeated on the battlefield: it had failed to suppress Iran’s missiles and drones, and thus was bringing the world closer to economic catastrophe every minute the war continued. There were no good options for escalation. Unilaterally upping and leaving would have been even worse than this deal in terms of what it would have left in the Middle East.

And now Trump needs to deal with the crazy Euro branch of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, and their insane war on Russia. Remember how there was gonna be a triumphant march across Eurasia, through Iran and Russia, leading to the final triumphant sack of Beijing and Shanghai that would reduce China to the Sweatshop of the World? Time for a wakeup call on that Anglo-Zionist fantasy, too:

Philip Pilkington @philippilk

4h

The Americans know that on current trajectory the Europeans are going to get into a missile and drone war with Russia so they’re pulling their forces out. This could be the endgame for Europe if mishandled.

Clash Report @clashreport

WATCH: Pete Hegseth:

I’m announcing today a six-month Department of War review that will examine America’s force posture and basing in Europe. Up to six months—it could be less.

Let’s call it the NATO 3.0 Review.

Does that suggest to you that the US will be maintaining its current deployment of forces levels in the Centcom region indefinitely? Me neither.

Philip Pilkington @philippilk

7h

Moscow.

War is coming to Europe. Likely before 2027. Make your plans accordingly.

Never a dull moment. Some few Euro “leaders” are realizing that this US defeat in the Persian Gulf means European defeat at the hands of Russia. Thank you, Anglo-Zionist Empire. Trump seems to get that, otherwise Hegseth wouldn’t be doing that urgent review. Presumably the Joint Chiefs get it, too.

So many shoes yet to drop.