INGERSOLL: So What Did We Get For All The Trouble?
Opinion
INGERSOLL: So What Did We Get For All The Trouble?
OPINION
A woman walks past a billboard displaying Iran's national flag at Enghelab Square in Tehran on June 14, 2026. US President Donald Trump said that a deal with Iran to end the Middle East war could be signed on June 14, and that the strategic Strait of Hormuz would be "open to all" immediately after. But Iran's Fars news agency, citing "a well-informed source close to the Iranian negotiating team", reported that Tehran had "not yet taken or announced its final decision" on a deal. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)
Geoffrey Ingersoll Editor at Large June 18, 2026 9:45 AM ET June 18, 2026 9:45 AM ET Geoffrey Ingersoll Editor at Large Font Size:Below is State of the Day, a morning newsletter by Daily Caller Editor-at-Large Geoff Ingersoll. Sign up here.
_________
Greetings, Dear Reader,
Well the “memorandum of understanding” (MOU) has been (digitally) signed.
In 60 days, a more formal ceasefire/peace deal is supposed to emerge with Iran.
Until then, I’m still tentatively a wait-and-see guy.
AN IRANIAN RECEIPT
The vicious “America First” nationalists among us might want to take a beat and thank globalism, but they won’t.
There’s no doubt in my mind that at the center of the 14-point MOU sits the interconnectedness of the international economy, particularly around oil being a global commodity. In fairness, there has been some balkanization of the markets. There’s reason to believe three distinct oil-producing regions have emerged, or at least, been further defined in the wake of Trump’s Shock and Awe 2.0.
That might ultimately be to the US’s advantage, as the biggest of those emerging markets.
But I digress.
You can read the MOU for yourself and probably come away with the same sense that I have. Iran promises to behave. Iran swears to Allah (and Trump) it will behave. In return, Trump and the west will reconsider certain sanctions AND start a development fund to help rebuild certain parts of the Iranian block fort they spent three months kicking over.
Reactions range from tepid to outraged. Liberals call the $300 billion dollar fund a pay off on America’s dime, which isn’t technically true, but recall they are the “men can be women actually” crowd. How the international development fund will play out remains to be seen, but it’s certainly not pallets of cash.
Conservative reactions are muddled. The neocons are pissed, obviously. The natcons are pissed as well. Why’d we even do this?
The primary problem at the center of all this is very simple: What did we get for all the trouble?
Promises from Iran are like receipts from Blockbuster Video. Or Pizza Hut.
Even I, who quite loves vulgar, violent displays of American might, wonder if the promises contained on this piece of paper were actually worth all the trouble in the first place.
JD is doing a bit of a speedrun on major media networks attempting to explain the results of the conflict. Outside of him, historically speaking, I don’t think anyone this side of Trump has been a clearer voice on what America First actually means.
That said, I’ve listened to all his soundbites and so far, I’m still trying to figure out what Iran’s receipt shows we bought.
No nukes? Uranium inspections? Don’t mine the strait?
None of this is new.
Maybe we spent three months, ~100 billion, and 13 American lives just to flick a couple Iranian leaders and their military gear off the checkerboard. Maybe that was it. Steep cost.
Regardless, nobody in the admin seems to have a clear, non-cliche answer for what the receipt actually shows that might be novel and not a rehash of previous tired promises from a backward regime.
We’ll see if that changes as the 60-day window comes to a close.
MORE LINKS
An important read.
Parents Of Aborted Child Say Baby Was Born Alive, Trafficked For Organ Harvesting
Sickening, but also an important read.
Are You Gay Enough To Get A California Utilities Contract? Here’s The Test
Well … are you?
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
