Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Botany

(78,130 posts)

21. I might be wrong but @ the end of day the U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for paying for Trump's war.

Reply to AloeVera (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 17, 2026, 09:56 AM

3 hrs ago

Not unless they are selling investments in Iranian oil or the fees Iran will be able to collect from
ships using the Strait of Hormuz which were not there prior to Trump’s war in order to deflect
attention from Epstein.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Rebl2

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US officials downplay text of the Iran agreement, saying it doesn't account for back-channel commitments [View all] BumRushDaShow 6 hrs ago OP

Pay-offs for the fat orange imbecile wolfie001 6 hrs ago #1

I'm pretty sure a few countries in the Middle East are very uneasy................ Lovie777 6 hrs ago #2

I mean, they're on the hook for $300 billion and have a full-fledged economic competitor Prairie Gates 4 hrs ago #12

"The framework is aimed at providing Iran the ability to sell it politically to their internal audience." Really? sop 5 hrs ago #3

More like Trump is trying to sell it to his internal audience. Baitball Blogger 5 hrs ago #5

Projection. They're trying to spin it for people here. ananda 4 hrs ago #9

Back channel commitments. Baitball Blogger 5 hrs ago #4

.... yardwork 5 hrs ago #6

So, all that for stock options? OldBaldy1701E 5 hrs ago #7

" aimed at providing Iran the ability to sell it politically" Strelnikov_ 4 hrs ago #8

It's giving secret girlfriend in NIagara Falls Prairie Gates 4 hrs ago #10

In my honest opinion, Mtnmama 4 hrs ago #11

I.O.W.s The agreement gives Iran everything it wanted and 300 billion in reparations for Trump's war ... Botany 4 hrs ago #13

It is not "reparations". It is a "private investment fund". AloeVera 3 hrs ago #20

I might be wrong but @ the end of day the U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for paying for Trump's war. Botany 3 hrs ago #21

Of course they are. One of the many, many reasons to not rush into an unnecessary, trumped-up war of choice. AloeVera 2 hrs ago #25

Another worthless document from the dumpie administration. KS Toronado 4 hrs ago #14

Back channel commitments?All that matters is what is actually signed,and with Trump,half the time even that won't matter thesquanderer 4 hrs ago #15

Everything Trump for 10+ years has gotten us to this point where NoMoreRepugs 3 hrs ago #16

Backchannel commitments for what? The rebuilding business deals that Trump wants the bribe money to be spent on? ChicagoTeamster 3 hrs ago #17

Maybe they're trying to figure out ways to WestMichRad 2 hrs ago #26

Which is why they wanted to delay releasing the text until at least Friday.. SamuelAdams 3 hrs ago #18

It was a birthday party favor for the man-child... Hugin 3 hrs ago #19

Ah, Yessss; The Old "Back-Channel Commitments" Trick..... ColoringFool 2 hrs ago #22

A "political document" only existing as a birthday present for the loser in the white house. travelingthrulife 2 hrs ago #23

$300,000,000,000 is still $300,000,000,000. paulkienitz 2 hrs ago #24

Per "back-channel agreements" it is probably 500 billion (classified for purposes of National Security) pat_k 22 min ago #32

Trump and his war-mongering assholes are desperate agingdem 2 hrs ago #27

I'm surprised they're not communicating in "pig latin". Buddyzbuddy 1 hr ago #28

Maybe Dotard tore up the original agreement because he didn't know about its maxsolomon 1 hr ago #29

TACO !! republianmushroom 44 min ago #30

Of course, any back-channel agreements are WORSE. pat_k 24 min ago #31