Vance: Iran can have access to $300B reconstruction fund

Posted by GreenSalem 1 day ago

Counter87Comment62OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by adrian_b 1 day ago

USA has a weird concept about the future as it were something already known, so they may declare now what will happen, even if the actual future depends on other agents.

From TFA:

> U.S. officials have said Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz permanently without tolls, while Tehran said the agreement is to allow free passage for the next 60 days during another period of negotiations led by Vance.

> When asked about the confusion during a Monday appearance on CNBC, Vance said “Well, our expectation is that the strait is gonna be opened in a toll-free way for the long term, and that’s the sort of thing that we’re gonna figure out in these technical negotiations.”

Comment by adjejmxbdjdn 9 hours ago

These are semantic games.

Iran has said the Strait will be open without tolls as well.

But they’ve said they will charge fees for “services they provide”, where the possible service they will provide is not shooting down any ship that pays them the “fee”.

Comment by Schiendelman 3 hours ago

That's not the US, that's just how you communicate when you're projecting your political goals.

Comment by mdp2021 1 day ago

I would campaign that the deal be fulfilled with private money instead of public funds.

(Or, act to show - roots and consequences - that this should be the proper procedure.)

Comment by vintermann 1 day ago

Don't worry, nothing this administration says to Iran means anything.

Comment by ciconia 1 day ago

I got news for you: that private money - a big chunk of it comes from public funds.

Comment by mdp2021 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago

this is bait

Comment by mdp2021 9 hours ago

As in? Check again

I have been complaining against this bad "culture" since the start.

Comment by fifilura 1 day ago

> Can anybody for f.ing f. f. do something against the snipers who annoy and add nothing to the discussion?

I don't care about your comment but I downvoted you for the rude language.

Comment by mdp2021 9 hours ago

And I don't care about the occasional "overwhelmed by the form" left tail of the curve,

but I do totally care about having here an environment that is _substantially_ civilized.

That implies that the discussion must be carried out with respect and effort - actual, factual respect. In that context, shallow dismissals include "hit and run" (downvote and do not substantiate unless perfectly evident), "sneer" (the same) etc.

--

Oh, incidentally:

> We are at staggeringly low levels of general civilization and ### even push it

there is a downfall of civilization in the "western" world at least, and you are focusing at the cursing. Look at it: it makes no sense. It is not even part of the accused phenomenon - whereas the shallowness of the relations is (downfall of the societal exchange).

Comment by erentz 1 day ago

This would be an incredible $1,800 from each taxpayer sent overseas to the Iranian regime. On top of what’s already been spent and the inflation caused. In any other time in history just this alone (ignoring all the other scandals) would lead to something like a landslide 100 seat swing in the house. The fact polls show we’ll be lucky to see 10 seats switch shows how incredibly broken our information environment has become.

Comment by t0lo 1 day ago

Sustained flooding the zone and abject denial over multiple years really is an unmatched cognitive warfare strategy isn't it. It's incredible how so many of us are tricked by something so primitive.

Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago

rubes gonna rube

Comment by jiwidi 1 day ago

what, so you go and bomb them then now u pay them hahaha

Comment by mdp2021 9 hours ago

If you like those kind of "jokes", also note that

-- it does not seem that those who had to bear the collateral damages of the whole action (e.g. economic loss, diplomatic loss) will be paid;

-- there have been hints that some not involved in the action (hit by the retaliation) also paid (to appease the retaliator).

Comment by LtWorf 1 day ago

Loser has to pay reparations.

Comment by 3eb7988a1663 1 day ago

Surely such a deal would have to be approved by Congress, right? Would they really have the votes?

Comment by WarOnPrivacy 1 day ago

> Surely such a deal would have to be approved by Congress, right?

That's the law. But Congress is abdicating much of it's power. The SCotUS defers to the WhiteHouse (ex:sides with the admin 90% of the time). The mechanisms that foster ethics in the 3 branches are being intentionally sabotaged by the majority in power.

Comment by joxdosba 1 day ago

What is congress going to do? Say “never negotiate with the US”?

It’s not like congress can very feasibly reject this deal in the end, Iran would just extort the gulf countries and it’d be even harder to sell an intervention.

Comment by 3eb7988a1663 1 day ago

Iran has been bombed at least twice during negotiations. Surely there is some skepticism that the US will not keep the deal.

There is no winning move -which is why this never should have been started. Congress absolutely can and should reject the deal. I thought we were worried about the deficit? Or is that just when the next guy is in charge?

Comment by joxdosba 1 day ago

If the congress rejects this deal, it cripples the US ability to negotiate in the future and essentially just forces an unconditional US surrender as nobody has appetite for a ground invasion of Iran.

Congress can only sabotage deals like this at an immense cost to the US’s future ability to negotiate anything with anyone, and it certainly can’t sabotage it’s way into a more favourable deal.

Comment by jusssi 1 day ago

I think you're underestimating both the amount of damage Trump has already done for the future ability to negotiate, and the desire of everyone else to be not bombed by the US.

Everyone already knows, any deal with the US does not bind the US, only the other party. But it still might be preferrable to the alternative of no deal at all.

Comment by brewdad 1 day ago

Congress will find a way to make sure this money is paid out in 2029. Then they will blame Democrats for the hole in the budget and our stupid electorate will believe them.

It’s been this way for almost my entire life and I’ll be collecting SS soon.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

> Say “never negotiate with the US”?

The way Tom Cotton did to Iran over Obama? And then Trump did when he tore up the JCPOA?

America has straight up broken treaties before. Most countries have. You negotiate with who you have at the table in geopolitics. Diplomats who refuse to negotiate with someone have short, useless careers.

Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago

The article says "funded by the gulf coast coalition" so it doesn't sound like they're planning on asking Congress.

No way congress passes that appropriation. They wouldn't pass the first JCPOA which is why Trump could shred it so easily.

Comment by joxdosba 1 day ago

>No way congress passes that appropriation

No way congress passes an appropriation you just invented, which even the most optimistic Iranian propagandists are not claiming to be happening?

I mean yeah. Most random things you can come up with are likely to be things that congress will never pass.

Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago

Who invented? It's the headline of the article, attributed to Vance. Yes, there's been a lot of conflicting messaging about it.

Comment by joxdosba 1 day ago

It’s the Trump admin signature big number that goes on all documents, not a reference to real money that exists or is genuinely expected to exist.

Comment by cosmicgadget 19 hours ago

You're saying once the deal is signed the president will say "lol Iran, the gulf coalition doesn't exist, you get nothing"?

Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago

Sure, I'm just saying congress wouldn't fund that if asked.

Comment by joxdosba 1 day ago

Of course they wouldn’t, the admin is claiming the seemingly non-existent ”gulf coast coalition” will fund it.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by cosmicgadget 19 hours ago

> “Well, our expectation is that the strait is gonna be opened in a toll-free way for the long term, and that’s the sort of thing that we’re gonna figure out in these technical negotiations... You know that there are a lot of very important details to figure out, that we’re actually gonna sit at the table and discuss together and figure out a path forward on these details.”

This is the kind of thing you say when the deal is ready to be signed Friday.

Comment by bediger4000 1 day ago

Why was it bad for Obama to release much less than this to assure the earlier joint agreement? We heard a lot about how bad that was. Pallets of cash they said, real bad.

Comment by newtonianrules 1 day ago

Because Democrats are held to different standards. I mean just look at the last year.

Comment by marysol5 1 day ago

And they also have no teeth, even now. They still play this "we must reach across the aisle" stuff.

And the worlds shortest memories. They literally re-hashed a conspiracy from 2008 at the fight....

Democrats can't even remember a Republican scandal from 2 weeks ago

Comment by enaaem 1 day ago

If they have to attack Obama by rehashing "Michelle is a man", then Obama must be an angel.

Comment by chadgpt3 1 day ago

But it works.

Comment by srean 1 day ago

And when they come in power it's not that they will hold any one accountable -- looking at Obama's administration.

Comment by seanmcdirmid 1 day ago

Trump has never felt any shame for hypocrisy. Or any shame at all actually.

Comment by pjc50 1 day ago

Because that was done by Obama.

Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago

because Israel, the Saudis, and a few US billionaires didn't like it.

and now they do

Comment by lobito25 1 day ago

Destroy and rebuild, that's the whole point of war.

Comment by trolleski 1 day ago

For the 3567th time, I'll believe it when I see the fuel prices drop. Anything else is just the Yellow Dog and Jeffrey Dahmer Vance market manipulation talks.

Comment by ekjhgkejhgk 1 day ago

> reconstruction fund

Literal reparations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations

> War reparations are compensation payments made after a war by one side to the other. They are intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war.

Another war lost by the USA, despite its infinite military supremacy. Weird.

One observation that comes to mind is that a lot of people in the world realize that the interests of the US and of Israel are not aligned, but American policy makers keep pretending they're one and the same. This was completely self-inflicted and it's not the first time. (The Iraq war cost what, trillions?) It's quite incredible.

Comment by Schiendelman 3 hours ago

As an American, this whole thing has been so disappointing. I donate to candidates who both oppose this stuff and win, so I think I'm doing my part well, and I think in two years we'll improve things. But in the meantime I'm sorry!

Comment by ekjhgkejhgk 1 hour ago

I know I know. I think most people wouldn't blame any one individual American voter. This specific issue isn't even left vs right in any case.

Comment by Schiendelman 58 minutes ago

I never expect to be blamed, but I do want to publicly remind folks that we're not all blowhards.

And I don't think the left would have gone this far. But who knows.

Comment by jimmydoe 1 day ago

Please appreciate the peace and say thanks.

Comment by ekjhgkejhgk 1 day ago

I think nobody here can agree what part of that offended you.

Comment by thisislife2 1 day ago

There is no "$300 billion fund" or "peace treaty" - these are all "carrots" being dangled to entice Iran. What we know for sure:

1. An MoU has been signed by both sides extending the ceasefire for another 60 days.

2. US Naval blockade will be lifted. The US expects the Strait to be toll-free, while Iranians claim it will not charge anything only during the 60 days ceasefire period. Iran claims it does plan to introduce some "maritime service fees", along with Oman, for the usage of the Strait, in the future.

3. Trump claims Iran will have no weapon grade nuclear material and will hand over all its enriched nuclear material. Iran claims it has only agreed to dilute the existing stockpile of 60% enriched uranium to "civilian grade" levels. It will not hand it over to anyone. And while it will also retain its existing enrichment facilities there will no "0% enrichment" policy as the US administration demands. Iran however will restrict itself from enriching uranium for military use as per the NPT.

4. The agreement also demands that Israel will have to end all military operations in Lebanon too, and withdraw from all the Lebanese territories occupied by it so far. Israel has however said it will not withdraw from the territories it has captured. Iran says it is up to Trump and the US to bring Israel to heel and enforce the agreement.

5. "Denuclearisation" and complete cessation of hostilities in Lebanon is supposed to be further negotiated within this 60 days period. During this process, US has offered to lift some sanctions if progress is made on the nuclear "deal".

- MoU reached. Peace? Not sure. - https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/527364/MoU-reached-Peace-No...

- Iran and US agree peace deal roadmap: What is and isn’t known - https://www.rt.com/news/641641-iran-us-peace-deal/

- Scoop: CIA director doubts Iran's intentions on deal, sources say - https://www.axios.com/2026/06/15/us-iran-deal-cia-director-r...

Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath for this ceasefire to last beyond 60 days. Netanyahu needs some war, some where to continue till elections in Israel are over. Peace in the Lebanon front upsets that. The US has made clear it wants the enriched nuclear pile removed. So Iran will have to deliberate on how much of all this nuclear negotiations can be trusted to not be an "intelligence gathering" exercise (to figure out where the stockpile is currently - dilution of the enriched pile will need on the ground inspection).

Comment by N_Lens 1 day ago

It's surprising how this administration consistently keeps rolling 1s on a D20.

Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago

what's surprising is that people think 1) they give a shit, and 2) that they're not 100% manipulated by foreign influence.

Israel and Russia completely own MAGA. Every decision they make re: foreign policy looks like it is straight out of Foundations of Geopolitics or Netanyahu's fever dreams.

Comment by mdp2021 8 hours ago

The point may be beyond the surprise and towards actions towards accountability.

Edit: and more than that, towards the defense of alternative political and geopolitical models. (Actual examples redacted to keep a calmer water surface.) (Already 'alternative' seems so preposterous a term for the context - as if "rape" vs "invite to dinner" could be covered by the term.)

Comment by oliwarner 1 day ago

The lack of consequence and massive personal gains suggest the White House are hitting nat 20s.

The taxpayer and future generations are footing the bill. Trump and friends are rich forever.

Comment by tenuousemphasis 1 day ago

Do they? Then where are the consequences?

Comment by krapp 1 day ago

We pay the consequences. I don't know why we decided the DM gets to play their chaotic stupid goblin rogue and wreck the entire campaign, but we did.

Comment by chadgpt3 1 day ago

It was because of racism.

Comment by tyleo 1 day ago

Comments like this are unhelpful for finding the truth. The world would be nice if things aligned on a clear good vs evil axis, “the other side is just evil of course!” but they don’t.

I know people on both sides of the political spectrum and there’s pain and confusion across society. Perhaps one side has more power in this moment and more harmful impact but making sweeping claims, "it’s all racism" is what makes a group feel unheard and angry.

Comment by tacomonstrous 1 day ago

This kind of comment might have been borderline reasonable before 2025 (though I would have found it laughable even then), but the evidence of the last 18 months shows that one side is in fact evil, corrupt and venal in entirely unprecedented ways.

Comment by chadgpt3 1 day ago

Stating the truth is unhelpful for finding it?

It is because of racism. People were told about the invasion coming over the border, and that Trump would stop it, and they voted for Trump.

Comment by AnimalMuppet 1 day ago

You can believe that the amount of immigration coming over the border (and contrary to the law) is causing harm and needs to be stopped, without that concern being based on the race of the people who are coming.

Comment by mindslight 1 day ago

Sure, you can. In the abstract, this is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. But if you're actually coming from a place of wanting rational policy responses, then you would have gotten off the Grump train years ago. Or at the very least (if immigration is really the one single issue you're concerned about), then as it became apparent that even the immigration narrative is performative kayfabe as well (many of the despotic "executive orders" are failing in court since there hasn't been legislative action on immigration. the straightforward conclusion is that the ultimate goal is for them to end up failing).

Having been skeptical of the racism explanation for quite some time, I've come around to it. Of course racism isn't the only thing that remains (there is also religious fundamentalism, spite, grift, etc), but it is a large chunk of what remains. I find the analogy of how communities destroyed their own public swimming pools as a response to desegregation an apt comparison.

Comment by just_TACO 1 day ago

[flagged]