[[link removed]]

OPPOSING A BAD IDEA: THE LIBERALS WHO ARE CRITICIZING TRUMP’S PEACE
DEAL FROM THE RIGHT  
[[link removed]]


 

Carl Davidson
June 19, 2026
LeftLinks
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Unlike too many liberal pundits, we are not going to attack Trump
from the right, with a hidden suggestion that the terms should be
rejected and war might continue. _

,

 

Every morning, we’re in the habit of getting a cup of coffee at 6 am
and returning to bed to watch_ ‘Morning Joe.’_ We’ll confess to
a clever trick: when they cut to streams of stupid ads, we hit two
clicks and switch to _Al-Jazeera _for more realistic and rational
coverage of the Middle East. Then we flip back to _‘Morning Joe’_
when the ads are over.

We’re also noting that we're more a fan of Mika Brzezinski than Joe
Scarborough. The real saving grace of the show, however, is the range
of politicians and experts they bring in for commentaries.

But this past week has been unique. It’s been a disgusting display
of warmongering chauvinism over the content and projected outcomes of
the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ (MOU) that Trump signed with
Iran.

Make no mistake. We have been ‘revolutionary defeatists’ regarding
this unjust ‘war of choice’ from the git-go. We also held no brief
for the fascist theocrats of the Islamic Republic, and their aims of
becoming a wider local hegemon based on the Shia and other Muslims in
the region. We also predicted that as long as the regime in Tehran
held on, Trump’s war would end in a political defeat, regardless of
all the inflicted military and human damage. But unlike too many
liberal pundits, we are not going to attack Trump from the right, with
a hidden suggestion that the terms should be rejected and war might
continue.

The signing of the MOU on June 15, 2026, should have instead been a
moment of profound relief for anyone identifying with progressive,
liberal, or humane values. After months of a destructive,
‘voluntary’ conflict that destroyed human lives and pushed the
global economy to the brink, triggered skyrocketing domestic
inflation, a diplomatic exit ramp was finally established. The virtual
signatures of President Trump and Iranian officials represented an
objective necessity: the halting of an unsustainable quagmire, the
reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and a phased de-escalation of a
naval blockade that was choking working-class families at the gas
pump.

Yet, alongside _MSNOW’s Morning Joe_, reading the op-ed pages of
mainstream centrist publications in the days following the
announcement revealed a surreal, inverted reality. Rather than
welcoming the ceasefire, too many prominent voices of establishment
liberalism launched a coordinated, vitriolic attack against the
agreement. To hear them tell it, the MOU is an act of craven
“appeasement,” a “humiliating capitulation” by ‘Neville’
Trump that hands a “blank check” to the regional ambitions of the
Iranian theocracy.

For the American left, watching this spectacle is as revealing as it
is grotesque. It exposes a fundamental truth about the modern U.S.
political landscape: when the survival of the American empire is at
stake, the distinction between the institutional right and the
establishment center-left starts to dissolve. By criticizing the peace
deal from the right, these “liberal” commentators have revealed
themselves as the dependable media guardians of the
military-industrial complex. They sound like they want the war to
continue indefinitely.

Their core grievance is that the U.S. gave up its hard-won
“leverage” for nothing. Pundits wring their hands over the
“surrender” of the naval blockade and the prospective unfreezing
of between $20 billion and $25 billion in Iranian assets, alongside
the creation of a $300 billion regional reconstruction fund. From a
strict materialist and class-conscious perspective, these arguments
are easily debunked fabrications designed to manufacture consent for
permanent global dominance.

First, the narrative that American taxpayers are funding a
“bailout” for Tehran is a lie of omission. The $20 billion to $25
billion slated for phased release is not a gift from the U.S.
Treasury; it is the release of Iran’s own capital. These are
sovereign assets frozen in international banking channels, such as
accounts in Qatar, by unilateral U.S. banking sanctions. Returning an
adversary’s own withheld property to secure a cessation of
hostilities is standard diplomatic protocol, not a radical concession.

Second, the $300 billion reconstruction fund—whether one favors it
or not—is explicitly structured as a private investment vehicle and
development package, financed by Gulf monarchies, international
partners, and private corporations, not the U.S. government. The
administration explicitly negotiated a U.S. contribution of zero
dollars. The capital is being provided by regional states and private
international investors who desperately need and hope for regional
stability so that global commerce can resume safely through the Strait
of Hormuz.

Furthermore, as administration officials and independent analysts have
noted, this is a strict “pay-for-performance” roadmap. Access to
these funds is back-loaded, phased, and entirely conditional on Iran
maintaining the ceasefire and allowing international oversight. The
economic gates lock immediately if the terms are breached.

When _Morning Joe_ laments the loss of “leverage,” what they are
actually mourning is the failure of maximum-pressure warfare. But what
was the truth of the situation? The naval blockade was not producing a
diplomatic breakthrough; it was producing a catastrophic stalemate
while punishing the global working class. By choking off oil
shipments, the war triggered a massive domestic energy crisis, forcing
working-class Americans to bear the brunt of greater-than-usual
inflation. Lifting the blockade was not simply a favor or concession
to Iran; it was an economic necessity to prevent further domestic
erosion of living standards in the U.S. and worldwide.

A solid left response to these dilemmas is rooted in lessons learned
from Lenin. Inside the United States, the largest core of global
financial capital, imperialism is not a separate policy choice; it is
capitalism in its higher monopoly stage. The super-profits extracted
from global exploitation are the very mechanisms that stabilize
domestic corporate rule and fund the militarization of our local
communities. Therefore, it is impossible to wage an effective class
war at home while ignoring the militarization and hot wars waged by
our ruling class abroad.

The broad common front is the strategic mechanism that addresses left
isolation on such matters. It reminds us that socialists must build
the largest possible coalitions around immediate, universally
understood democratic demands, such as stopping a war, without
requiring every participant to hold a master’s degree in Marxist
theory.

We form alliances with a wide variety of non-socialists based on
shared objectives. We do not demand that a neighborhood peace group or
a progressive representative adopt the language of a Marxist vanguard
before we march together. Instead, we meet the masses where they are,
using the concrete realities of the war to demonstrate how the
capitalist state functions. It is a dual approach: building a broad,
popular front for peace while maintaining an independent socialist
voice that explains the deeper systemic roots of aggression.

This strategy operates as a long-term base-building project among
oppressed nationalities, the working class, and grassroots social
movements. It connects the violence of the U.S. empire abroad with the
structural oppression, racism, and state violence experienced by
marginalized communities inside the United States. Furthermore, the
internationalist framework allows for support for grassroots
revolutionary movements within target nations abroad, such as the
‘Woman Life Freedom’ movement in Iran, without aligning with their
reactionary governments.

The establishment liberal outrage over the June 2026 MOU is a reminder
that the corporate media’s primary function is to police the
boundaries of acceptable political discourse. When _Morning Joe_
laments a peace agreement, they are signaling to the public that
permanent war is the only realistic framework for American foreign
policy. They weaponize human rights language and geopolitical
abstractions to obscure the cold, material realities of empire,
inflation, and class exploitation.

For us, the path forward is clear. We must reject the warped choice
presented by the corporate media. We do not defend the reactionary,
anti-woman, anti-labor theology of the Islamic state, nor do we accept
the permanent-war doctrine of the American political center. By
utilizing the strategy of a common front against fascism at home and
war abroad, the left can effectively organize the working class around
a coherent, anti-war position. This war may have halted on paper for
now, but the struggle is ongoing against new wars on the horizon, such
as Cuba. The system that produces wars continues in every neighborhood
across the country. Rise up!

Carl’s LeftLinks Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To
receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or
paid subscriber.

* Iran MOU
[[link removed]]
* Right wing thought
[[link removed]]
* liberals
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Bluesky [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]