News of the World

[kyonides]

US-IRAN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Iran’s Supreme Leader Responds to Trump’s Deal With Tehran: Read in Full

Iran’s supreme leader has broken his silence on President Donald Trump’s deal with Tehran, issuing a cautious endorsement that casts the agreement as a product of American weakness rather than Iranian compromise.

The statement came after the memorandum of understanding was signed by Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday, marking a major step toward ending more than 100 days of war and launching a 60-day negotiating period.

His response matters because, in Iran’s system, no deal with the United States can proceed without the supreme leader’s approval—effectively unifying Iran’s political and military institutions, for now, behind a fragile ceasefire and uncertain path to talks.

It also comes amid unresolved questions about his leadership. Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen in public since being wounded in the early days of the war, an attack that killed his father, former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with other relatives.

Below is an English translation of the statement, based on the text published by the Iranian leader’s office.

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

To the passionate and loyal nation of Iran: As you have been informed, a memorandum of understanding was signed between the presidents of Iran and the United States of America.

In the course of reaching this stage, the officials in charge, out of sincere concern and goodwill, made extensive efforts—and of course, it was the American president who, out of desperation, used all kinds of leverage to bring this about.

I, as a matter of principle, held a different view; however, out of the commitment that the esteemed president—as the head of the Supreme National Security Council—gave to me on his own behalf and on behalf of the other members regarding the safeguarding of the rights of the Iranian nation and the Resistance Front, and his explicit acceptance of that responsibility, I granted my permission.

He also explicitly stated that if the American side seeks to make excessive demands, they will not submit to them. From this moment on, we—that is, you, the proud nation, and this humble servant—will await the realization of the aforementioned conditions.

However, it is self-evident that future negotiations will not mean acceptance of the enemy’s position. We hope the blessed prayers of our Master (may God hasten his noble reappearance) will bring all kinds of victories and triumphs to the honorable Iranian nation.

Leader’s First Response

This is Khamenei’s first official response since the agreement was finalized.

His wording reflects a careful balancing act, endorsing the agreement while emphasizing Iran has not conceded its core positions. He stressed that future negotiations “will not mean acceptance of the enemy’s position,” underscoring that Tehran does not view the talks as a concession.

It also reinforces his authority at a time when his absence from public view has fueled speculation. Iranian officials have acknowledged he was injured in the February 28 strikes that killed his father and multiple family members, and he has remained out of sight since then.

I must state here that the letter made a serious mistake by translating Allah as God because the Iranian religious leaders don't believe in the same God as Westerners usually do.

Trump Blasted in Newspaper Owned by Top Donor: ‘You Betrayed Us’

A newspaper owned by a billionaire Republican megadonor has published a blistering opinion piece accusing President Donald Trump of betraying Israel over his deal with Iran to end the war.

The critical op-ed was published by Israel Hayom, the Israeli newspaper owned by Miriam Adelson, one of Trump’s biggest financial backers and one of the most influential pro-Israel donors in Republican politics.

Adelson, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen with an estimated fortune of tens of billions of dollars, has been a major force in shaping conservative support for Israel and has had close ties to Trump for years.

In the column, Israel Hayom journalist Danny Zaken praised Trump's past support for Israel but said the president had made a "colossal mistake" by signing what he called a "surrender agreement" with Tehran.

In a piece headlined “You could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed,” Zaken wrote that Trump had missed an opportunity to be remembered among America's greatest presidents and warned the deal could damage U.S. interests and Israel's security.

The criticism from a pro-Israel outlet closely aligned with Trump’s political base comes at a tense moment for U.S.-Israel relations, and suggests Trump’s push to end the Iran war tests not only that relationship but his own political coalition.

What To Know

In the op-ed, Zaken accused Trump of reversing course after initially joining Israel in military action against Tehran, a conflict Zaken described as “one of the most just wars in human history.”

The U.S.-Iran agreement, signed this week by Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, extends the ceasefire between the two sides, commits Tehran to not developing a nuclear weapon and sets out a framework for further negotiations, though key details remain unresolved.

Zaken wrote about the deal: “Mr. President, you have gravely harmed the human interests of the enlightened world, and you may be remembered forever as the president who brought about America's humiliation. You betrayed us, the Israelis.”

He also criticized Trump for pressing Israel to halt further strikes against Iran and accused someone in the president’s “circle” of leaking details of a tense conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He hit back at Trump’s recent claim that "there would be no Israel" without him, describing it as a “megalomaniacal statement,” and contended that “Israel existed before you and will exist long after you.”

“You lost your patience and your moral and leadership compass. Only if you walk this back and avoid reaching a final agreement with Iran might there be a correction,” Zaken wrote.

Amid recent criticism from Israeli officials, Vice President JD Vance defended the deal and warned Israeli officials against attacking Trump’s approach on Thursday.

“If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” Vance said.

Murdoch Outlets Turn on Trump Over Iran Deal

Rupert Murdoch-controlled outlets, including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, are breaking with President Donald Trump over his Iran deal, in a rare instance of sustained criticism from influential conservative media.

Across those outlets, hosts, commentators and editorial pages have questioned the deal’s terms and broader strategy, marking a notable shift from their frequent alignment with Trump’s agenda. The criticism underscores the outsized role these platforms play in shaping conservative opinion and political messaging.

A March 21 Bloomberg report, citing people familiar with private discussions, said Murdoch was among outside voices urging Trump to take a harder line on Iran, communicating with him multiple times as his media empire adopted a hawkish tone early in the conflict.
Now, months later, some of those same voices are expressing skepticism about the agreement meant to end the war, raising questions about whether Trump delivered the outcome he had long promised.

Fox News Criticism Grows

The most visible pushback is coming from Fox News, where several hosts have openly questioned the deal’s substance.

Brian Kilmeade, co-host of Fox & Friends, described the memorandum of understanding (MOU) as “very vague and concerning,” pointing to imprecise language governing the deal. He focused on provisions requiring Iran to use its “best efforts” to meet key commitments, arguing that the wording raises questions about enforcement.

Kilmeade also cast doubt on whether the deal achieved the administration’s stated objective, saying it “doesn’t look like Iran has been brought to its knees,” a line that directly contrasts with earlier claims about U.S. pressure on Tehran.

Other Fox News figures echoed those concerns. Host Trey Gowdy criticized the deal for potentially leaving Iran “a richer country” even though “they lost the war,” suggesting that financial provisions and sanctions relief could benefit Tehran despite the U.S. campaign to weaken it.

That concern was echoed by retired four-star general and Fox News contributor Jack Keane, who told Sean Hannity on Tuesday that while the U.S. was “clearly…taking a diplomatic path now,” he saw no indication “that the behavior of this regime is going to change.”

Keane also sharply questioned proposals tied to a roughly $300 billion recovery framework for Iran, arguing that any such funding would ultimately strengthen Iran’s current leadership. He added, “Who cares where the money comes from? If it doesn’t come from the United States, I get that. Of course it shouldn’t. But it shouldn’t come from anybody. I mean, when we recovered Germany and Japan, the Nazis weren’t in charge, the Japanese imperialists weren’t in charge.”

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales told Newsweek on Friday: " Following the historic destruction of Iran’s military capabilities through the successful Operation Epic Fury, President Trump and his negotiating team have brokered an excellent, performance-based MOU that advances the interests of the United States by ending the fighting, reopening the Strait of Hormuz to significantly lower energy prices, and forcing Iran to commit to abandon its nuclear ambitions. What the President has achieved on the battlefield and at the negotiating table is nothing short of remarkable and will strengthen American security for many years to come.”

Mark Levin Breaks With Trump

Fox News host Mark Levin’s reaction to the Iran deal has drawn particular attention.

Levin, long one of Trump’s most vocal foreign policy allies, sharply criticized the agreement after its release, dissecting the memorandum of understanding in a detailed, point-by-point analysis posted on X Wednesday.

Levin argued the deal undercuts U.S. leverage at a critical moment, questioning why the U.S. would agree to an immediate and “permanent” halt to military action while key issues remain unresolved and negotiations are still ongoing. He described it as “unthinkable” to give up the threat of force before Iran has complied with any final terms.

He also renewed his longstanding warning that Iran cannot be trusted to honor any agreement, arguing the regime has historically used negotiations to buy time and advance its objectives.

More broadly, Levin suggested the deal cuts short a campaign he said had inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military, arguing the U.S. had not fully used its leverage before shifting to diplomacy. He warned that unless the terms are significantly strengthened during the upcoming negotiation period, the conflict could ultimately continue anyway.

But guess what? Somebody actually likes the MOU!

Barack Obama ‘Very Happy’ to See Donald Trump’s Ceasefire With Iran

Former President Barack Obama said he was "very happy" to see President Donald Trump secure a ceasefire with Iran, while warning that the United States may be in a weaker position despite months of military conflict.

In an interview with NBC's Today that aired Friday, Obama welcomed the halt in fighting but questioned whether the war ultimately achieved enough to justify its costs. His comments come as the Trump administration seeks to build on a recently announced ceasefire framework and move toward broader negotiations with Tehran.

"I am very happy to see a ceasefire," Obama said. "I'm hopeful that it holds."

The comments mark one of Obama's most direct assessments of the conflict since fighting between the United States, Israel and Iran escalated earlier this year. Obama's comments also underscored the continuing debate over whether the conflict was necessary—and whether the outcome differs significantly from the diplomatic approach pursued during his own administration.

Obama Questions Whether the War Was Worth It

While speaking favorably of the ceasefire, Obama suggested the conflict may have left the United States little better off than before.

"We've now fought a war, spent billions and billions of dollars, put enormous strain on our military," Obama said during the Today interview. He added that it appears the United States is now "back where we were before we started the war, except maybe a little bit worse off."

His remarks also come as policymakers, military analysts, and foreign policy experts continue to debate whether any side can claim a clear victory in the conflict. Obama's comments also nodded to a long-running debate over the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which his administration helped negotiate and sign before Trump withdrew from it in 2018.

Trump, for his part, is touting the war as a major success and pushing back on the view that Iran is better off. In a Friday Truth Social post, the president said Iran "doesn’t, any longer, have an Air Force, a Navy, Antiaircraft Equipment, Radar, or practically anything else, and yet the Dumocrats say that Iran is better off now than it was four months ago."

Military Experts Split on Who Won

The question of who is emerging stronger from the war remains heavily disputed. Some military experts argue that Iran suffered severe military and strategic setbacks, including damage to key military assets and the weakening of regional proxy groups.

Mark Cancian from the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Newsweek he believes the U.S. "is in a better position...The United States and Israel have conducted about 20,000 strikes against Iran, but because of Iranian information suppression, we don't see the effect of all of those strikes."

Others contended that Iran's leadership survived a major military campaign, remained in power and ultimately returned to the negotiating table without suffering regime change, allowing Tehran to claim a degree of political success despite significant losses.

"It is difficult to make the case that this war achieved any significant positive result for the United States," James Stavridis, a retired U.S. Navy admiral and former supreme allied commander of NATO, told Newsweek.

The competing assessments reflect the broader debate Obama referenced in his remarks, with supporters of the Trump administration arguing military pressure helped produce the ceasefire while critics question whether the costs outweighed the gains.

And that's it for today's edition of News of the World!