General U.S. NewsJun 20, 2026·4 min read

The Surprising Reaction Inside Iran to Its War Victory

The Intercept

2h ago

The Surprising Reaction Inside Iran to Its War Victory

Summary

The White House has been desperate to find a way out of the quagmire of its own making in Iran, leading to the remote signing on June 15 of a memorandum of understanding that promises extraordinary concessions to the Islamic Republic. Stipulations once deemed a “ nightmare for Israel ” by American politicians and dismissed by President Donald Trump as “ not acceptable ” — such as total sanctions relief and the unfreezing of billions of dollars of funds held abroad — are now reality. Despite attempts by the Trump administration to spin this as an achievement of all of America’s goals and an “ unconditional surrender ” by Iran, the deal has been met with skepticism, derision, anger, and mockery by Democrats and even some Republicans, pushing close Trump allies such as Fox News host Mark Levin and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to admonish the president for doing the “ unthinkable ” by capitulating to Iran. In Israel, the deal has been seen far more uniformly across the political spectrum as an immense and almost incomprehensible betrayal by the United States, an unforeseen cruelty by Trump, and an incalculable failure by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Only 11 percent of Israelis say that their country won the war against Iran, and a whopping 71 percent do not expect Trump to look out for Israeli interests in future negotiations. One Likud member of the Knesset expressed his frustration by filming himself taking off his “Make America Great Again” hat and instead putting on a “ Total Victory ” hat, a phrase invoked by Netanyahu to justify the wholesale destruction of the Gaza Strip. After Araghchi gave an interview on state TV on June 12 saying that Iran would have to make concessions in its dealings, angry demonstrators who were attending nightly state-sponsored rallies demanded the diplomatic corps remember the “blood of the Leader [Khamenei],” with one speaker in Tehran’s Enghelab Square leading marchers in chants of “Death to the compromiser,” against those who think “America has something to offer [Iran].” In Parliament, conservatives affiliated or allied with the Front have made their criticism vocal, with members calling for Araghchi to be barred from contacting Trump administration negotiator Steve Witkoff and demanding Parliament see the deal before it is signed. In a statement announcing his approval of the deal, Mojtaba raised the eyebrows of some analysts by saying that he “ had a different view ” than what was agreed to by his negotiators, but nevertheless acceded to the wishes of President Masoud Pezeshkian on the condition that Iran rejects “excessive demands” made by the United States, remarking that the nation “await[s] the realization of the aforementioned conditions.” This kind of public and immediate skepticism of a deal agreed to by the elected government was not the type of messaging made by Mojtaba’s father, Ali Khamenei, who reserved public criticism of the red lines crossed in JCPOA negotiations until the deal had been torn up years later by the Trump administration . By signing up, I agree to receive emails from The Intercept and to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use .

From the source

A man passes a mural in Tehran on June 18, 2026, following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran. Photo: Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images The White House has been desperate to find a way out of the quagmire of its own making in Iran, leading to the remote signing on June 15 of a memorandum of understanding that promises extraordinary concessions to the Islamic Republic. Stipulations once deemed a “ nightmare for Israel ” by American politicians and dismissed by President Donald Trump as “ not acceptable ” — such as total sanctions relief and the unfreezing of billions of dollars of funds held abroad — are now reality. Despite attempts by the Trump administration to spin this as an achievement of all of America’s goals and an “ unconditional surrender ” by Iran, the deal has been met with skepticism, derision, anger, and mockery by Democrats and even some Republicans, pushing close Trump allies such as Fox News host Mark Levin and Texas Sen. Ted

Read the full article

Published by The Intercept on theintercept.com

Open on theintercept.com ↗

DOJ memo stokes fear among disability advocates of a return to institutionalization

The exterior of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building is pictured on May 4, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Patrick Semansky/AP hide caption The Justice Department released a memo this week that quietly calls into question decades of civil rights protections for Americans with disabilities and stirred fear and anger among advocates and families. The memo, an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, argues that states do not have to provide in-home or community-based care to people with disabilities who need support. These services allow many disabled Americans to continue to live, learn and work at home or in their own communities, among family and friends. "It is now the position of the United States government that people with disabilities don't have a right to be part of their communities," says Alison Barkoff, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University who led disability law and policy efforts during both the Obama and Biden administrations. What's more, the memo argues, the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision "held only that a state cannot institutionalize such patients without justification." But, the memo adds: "What counts as adequate justification remains an open question." At one point, Pettit acknowledges the novelty of this reading: "We recognize that this view of Olmstead 's import is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts." "The United States government since 1977 has taken the position that [federal law] includes an integration mandate that requires services to be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate," says professor Barkoff, who worked in the Obama Justice Department leading its Olmstead enforcement efforts. The courts and Congress decided institutionalization should be a last resort because people's personal liberty is at stake, says Jennifer Mathis of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: "Who you can see, when you can go out, when you eat, what you eat. Congress makes laws, not agencies. The Justice Department memo appears to be the latest salvo in a broader effort that began on July 24, 2025, when President Trump issued an executive order intended to make it easier for state and local governments to police homelessness.

Pauline Hanson’s stance on paid parental leave and childcare could turn clock back by decades, economists warn

One Nation leader appears to suggest women should not be paid by employers while on maternity leave and calls for family income splitting Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast One Nation could wind back the clock by decades for working mothers, damage productivity and worsen gender inequality, economists have warned. In a controversial address to the National Press Club on Wednesday, Pauline Hanson seemed to suggest women should not get paid by their employers while on maternity leave. She also hinted at major changes to the childcare system, and called for income splitting for families to help incentivise a parent staying home with their children. “If women take time off and they are not paid their wages because they’re not working, fair enough. Why should business pay? But they’re not at work. The government paid parental leave scheme from 1 July will offer parents 26 weeks at the national minimum wage. Leonora Risse, an associate professor in economics at Queensland University of Technology, said any move away from paid leave could have serious financial implications for women. “Questioning these policies is actually winding back the clock to many decades back, where it wasn’t an even playing field, and the gender gap was much wider,” Risse said. “It isn’t just the financial implications for women, it is also setting women back in terms of decision-making, having financial independence, having a say, having status and respect in society.” Risse said that competitive paid parental leave ensures that women can remain in the workforce longer term and improve productivity. “If women can sustain their involvement and their attachment to the workforce and to their employer during their child-bearing years, that’s positive for productivity because it maintains a good job match,” she said. “We’ve worked really hard to validate that case and to prove that it has a productivity benefit as well as a wellbeing benefit.” Guardian Australia asked One Nation whether it would continue to support government-funded paid parental leave, but the party did not respond. The policy, which exists in other countries including France, would allow both parents to add their income together and split the total, meaning the income would be subject to two tax-free thresholds. One Nation’s website states the policy will “encourage parents to look after their own children, and reduce the cost to the government of childcare, especially pre-school. It will also encourage homeschooling.” The independent economist Silvia Griselda said policies to try to incentivise women staying at home could lead to skills shortages and a need for higher immigration. “Women, on average, tend to be more educated than men, so if you’re asking half of the workforce to not work … it means that we are kind of limiting the growth and the productivity of the Australian economy. “[And] if there is a shortage of skills in Australia, Australia has to overcome that through immigration.” Risse said income splitting would need to be designed carefully to ensure women could remain financially independent. “One of the ways in which gender equality policies have progressed over time is for women to actually gain the right to have their own bank account, their own financial stream, and not to be dependent,” she said. “Income splitting could sound potentially equitable in practice, but it also introduces potential risk or compromise in terms of women’s financial independence.” Hanson also called for an overhaul of the childcare system, which now costs about $16bn a year.

The Surprising Reaction Inside Iran to Its War Victory

From the source

More in General U.S. News

DOJ memo stokes fear among disability advocates of a return to institutionalization

Trump threatens to charge U.S. tolls in Strait of Hormuz for ‘services rendered as the Guardian Angel to the countries of the Middle East’

Pauline Hanson’s stance on paid parental leave and childcare could turn clock back by decades, economists warn