Israel violated the 2024 ceasefire over 10,000 times [0], not counting all the ones since Feb. 28. I guess this time they're not satisfied with having only 50 "freebies" a day.
That is such a boring brain-dead myth. Israel has traded in territory numerous times, kicking out the settlers, handing over what was in effect working farms and buisnesses.
* Sinai
* Ghaza
* Lebanon
The result was always the same- more attacks on Israel, more fanatics taking over, more of the same horror. The peace through land strategy has never worked. Because the assailants are not interested in any form of peaceful coexistance or well beeing for their people or families. They want to wage a absolut dhijhad
For reference: This would almost triple their govts funds each year. One must also not forget that they're able to raise tolls in the future, both for monetary investment but also for negotiation purposes.
Not convinced it will happen. What would prevent Saudi Arabia from retaliating and introducing a special fee on all ships coming from Iran. It's not like intercepting those massive cargo ships in a small sea is of any difficulty for a well funded military.
Saudi Arabia has something like twice as many jet fighters than France. Even if you factor incompetence, it's not hard to hit a cargo ship or an oil production facility in absence of any meaningful air defence.
If Iran's 10 points become the basis of the peace, it ratifies Iran's sovereignty over the strait, at which point they can raise the price. It will be years before alternative routes devalue control of the strait, during which time Iran can siphon a lot of money out of passages taxes.
> 2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz
> 6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran
> 7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran
These seem remarkably outside the USes power to unilaterally agree to.
The first violates international treaties and while I'd be thrilled with the precedent as a Canadian eyeing my countries future revenue streams I doubt the rest of the world's countries are going to be happy to give up freedom of navigation through international waterways.
The second is something that can only be done by the UN security council with a majority vote and none of the permanent members vetoing the termination.
I don't actually know how the IAEA works, but it seems all but certain that that's up to their board of governors not the US.
If the US wants the IAEA to agree to something like this, especially considering the global economic impact of refusing, I imagine the IAEA could be convinced.
The JCPOA came about when the US pushed for it in 2013.
It’s unlikely that Iran will get it’s demands at least all of them, and further it’s likely that this ceasefire will break no matter what.
The strait is actually not international waters. It’s shared between Oman and Iran remember (deep water shipping lanes does not exists everywhere in it as well). There was reporting of an agreement on both sides to some sort of shared booth.
Only the US would be the permanent party to vote against it which would be against which would be weird if the agree to the conditions in the first place.
IAEA are stooges, they will do what the US tells them and they’ll come up with some legitimate way of doing it.
Although i think they mostly recognize it as customary international law.
Nonetheless international law isn't really worth the paper its written on. The bigger thing is there are a bunch of other countries dependent on the strait that might have something to say about it.
Among many other items this would never be accepted. This momentary cease fire is just regrouping time for everyone involved and that has always been the case for Iran.
It is acceptable, if only enriched for civilian reactors, not weapon grade what they did - and Iran was about to agree to that condition before their leadership was wiped out. If the new leadership will agree, remains to be seen. But I believe china or russia are also not strongly interested in a nuclear armed Iran.
There no feasible escalation path for the US. Trump has alienated allies and much of his anti war supporters. A forever war quagmire in a country 3x larger than Iraq is unlikely, as is carpet bombing. So what's left? A JCPOA style agreement with a Maga bumper sticker on it, with heavy concessions to Iran to prevent them from racing to a bomb, which is the best option from their pov at this point.
Carpet bombing would be a waste of munitions. Iran to your point is massive and surface level bombing would mostly take out civilians. The civilians have been through enough. Most of Irans military and religious leaders are in missile cities that are 500 meters+ under mountains of rock, the same places they are creating nuclear material. These bunkers are immune to bunker busters and nukes. That will require ground troops and likely a lot of them. How that plays out specifically I have not a clue. I can only hope that they share body-cam footage and that casualties are kept to a minimum. If there is one thing I can give Iran credit for that is building some amazing and very impressive bunkers using US dollars.
with heavy concessions to Iran to prevent them from racing to a bomb
This game has already been played out many times before. Obama unfroze 1.7 billion, Biden gave them upwards of 6 billion. All together the US has given them upwards of 60 billion to pinky promise they wont build nukes. Never pay a bully, ever. They used that extortion money to build bunkers, pay their proxy soldiers to attack Israel and all the gulf states and to work on their bunkers. There will be no more of that. Shame on anyone that falls for those shenanigans again.
The differences in the various 10 point lists have been noticed. I wonder if different lists are being produced to make each side look better to their respective populace?
Still, either way lifting sanctions seems like a win for Iran. Also seems like Iran is going to be allowed to charge a transit fee through the SoH. Trump's going to spin this as a win, but it seems like a big loss. Maybe he's just desperate enough to get out of this that he's going to let it slide?
It doesn't seem much different. Both involve guaranteed stop of all hostilities plus payment for what you did plus keep we Strait Of Hormuz. The only difference is how the payment for the attack goes.
The president just went from threatening genocide to begging Pakistan to set up a deal that doesn't even have agreed-upon terms. Seems like they have quite a lot of leverage.
I’m not sure the terms of negotiation are even worth discussion. Every time this administration has negotiated with anyone on matters pertaining to Israeli interests, it’s only been a ruse to position for another attack.
My guess is that they know good and well all the marine landing craft are going to get smoked and are using a false peace to preposition the ground invasion. The ridiculous James Bond scheme they tried to pull off which resulted in us destroying a dozen of our own aircraft and, quite probably a few of our own operators was a Hail Mary inspired by too much television. That failure leaves the administration with quite the dilemma. Surrender and call it a victory, which Israel will not allow. Or repeat the Syracuse Expedition as farse.
It’s a bit depressing to think about, but my hope is that these catastrophic failures will get false allies out of the decision loop and we proceed as a more peaceful and wiser country.
You can just say Israel. I wonder how long it will still take that Netanyahu has not US (or anyone’s at this point, except himself) interest in mind. Even Trump must be able to put two and two together at this point, no?
Oh at this point you should probably wonder not whether he gets it, but what leverage does Israel he have over him, and if it's directly from Epstein files.
If his support from budge from him assaulting a minor sexually, Israel might have a file proving he is the antichrist, it would not matter. It’s more akin to a death cult than a political party.
> Even Trump must be able to put two and two together at this point, no?
How have you looked at the the last couple of decades of Trump and come to that conclusion? The man's a total idiot and that was even before his mental decline
He is an extremely prickly idiot that has very accute senses when somebody is crossing him over. So does any two-bit hustler. Or maybe he really did start a war just to bury the Epstein files for a brief moment, god only knows at this point.
Yikes, so basically Iran gets everything it wants. It paid a heavy price for it, but it would get so much out of this. At pre war ship rates, that toll would be ~$90B per year ($45B if split half with Oman). Iran's government generates something like $40B in income, so this would be absolutely monumental.
Posts like this from the HN community are almost surreal. Any review of the actual deal would show a two week ceasefire in exchange for the strait being open and safe while negotiations continue. This 10 point plan is just a place to start talking, no country has agreed to anything on it. How is this missed on the community here?
No it would be trivial to gain a thorough understanding of Middle East politics and the oil market for an enlightened people who were able to become foremost experts in epidemiology, molecular biology, global supply chain logistics, the war in Ukraine, semiconductor manufacturing, and many other fields entirely self-taught simply by obsessively reading social media and wikipedia.
"Infotainment" is the term I've heard to describe Reddit and other talking websites. People are looking to "win" like they do in sports or other recreational activities. It's a kind of fun that disguises itself as learning-- minus, of course, the actual work.
I understand this perspective a lot more.
I assume they're going to haggle and work on a few items, and adjust pieces here and there.
What if they at least get sanctions lifted, that would be huge, no?
Going to be an interesting couple of weeks.
Nobody knows what "the actual deal" is because we have pathological liars on both sides (well, especially pathological on one side, most just utilitarian on the other)
Iran's version of events includes the Iranian military controlling the Strait and incurring fees.
It's stunning to me, that people still do not understand Trump's one-and-only playbook. He literally published a book about his one-and-only strategy all the way back in 1987 - yet people still freak out when he makes big demands then settles for more realistic options. The guy literally has used the same strategy over and over, and everyone acts like it's the first time every time.
It's also stunning to me the very same people that were losing their minds about threatened events immediately switch into "TACO" mode when those events don't happen.
In this situation, Trump made wild threats and demands if Iran didn't agree to a ceasefire. Iran initially rejected but then some 6 hours later accepted. The one-and-only playbook strikes again.
How is it backing down when his threat was we’d do it if they didn’t agree to open up the strait, which is now open?
I don’t like the way he does things but we’ve seen Trump’s playbook enough to see what he does. Big threat, followed by the US getting some sort of capitulation from it. He then doesn’t follow through with the threat.
That’s not chickening out. That’s just negotiating with a big stick.
The strait is not open, Trump is pretending it is, to save face. Iran is charging $2M per ship, which will net them $90B and that is significantly higher than their oil revenue ($60B). Plus they get to keep their enriched uranium. Yes they lost some buildings and bridges but the strait fee is enough to rebuild. Iran is in a stronger position now than when the war started. TACO Trump lost the war.
Iran wants to charge $2M per ship as part of it's ceasefire conditions - which will almost certainly be rejected since that would impact every ship/nation traversing these waters. Waters that are not owned by Iran.
> Plus they get to keep their enriched uranium.
There's 0% chance of that happening.
> Iran is in a stronger position now than when the war started.
All of Iran's senior leadership are dead. Most or all of the "second-string" leadership is dead. All but their ground-force military is destroyed.
I mean, neither one did what they said they would do, if they had both done what they said they'd do, I guess we'd have nuclear war, so. (To the extent that you can't get anything consistent out of what Trump says he will do it's literally not possible, because he constantly contradicts himself.)
They also got to keep their new Ayatollah and continue with their religious government. An escalation of the war would have certainly ended with a complete regime change. Which would have been very expensive in life (Iranians) and money (Americans).
Or with their people rising up, which is I think what the US and Israel were hoping for - though they didn’t seem to plan for a way to actually make it happen.
We will see what happens at the end of this war when people come out of their homes to a crumbling country. They could decide that enough is enough and bring in some change.
Without arms, it is probably impossible for the people to take back their country.
We take the Second Amendment for granted here in the US - but the lack of a similar thing in Iran is what will keep the civilian population under the regime's control - or else another 10k-30k+ massacre.
There was never going to be a regime change. Continuing the war meant many Americans were going to die (in addition to bankrupting the US). I'm a US citizen and very glad Iran came out on top here.
But, if you had an amazing reputation for paying your debts, and get super low interest rates because of it, and all of a sudden you change your reputation and demand for holding your debt and currency goes down, well, then that's created a massive problem for the currency that reduces everyone's quality of life drastically.
It depends. If it later comes out that their nuclear material was secured by the US, this is much more acceptable - it would seriously incentivize pipeline construction by making passage through the Strait more expensive. Given that closing it is really the only lever Iran has that can put pressure on the US at all, this attenuates that a great deal.
It’s not acceptable on its face, but there’s a lot going on in this conflict that isn’t making the news.
Iran has also been freely bombing Israel and US assets around the Middle East. The Zionists bit off more than they could chew and now Iran is better positioned than ever before. Not only that Iran has earned a lot of respect globally and Israel/the US has lost what little they had left.
Probably a risk worth taking; defending a pipeline is much easier than escorting huge, slow-moving ships through a 24km-wide Strait laced with mines and peppered by artillery and missiles.
More accurate to say that the US is not willing to pay the price to achieve its objectives I think (depending on who/when you’re asking what exactly the objectives are of course).
Depends on what you mean by "win". It would be possible to go in, topple the regime and secure the nuclear material. But only at astronomical cost and years of blowback
"Regime Change" has become a modern term for vassalization. We should not be surprised that countries with no reason to be a US vassal, and no long-term ties to the US refuse to remain vassals.
So then what would we achieve? nuclear material is cheap (10s of billions) relative to a multi-decade occupation (single digit trillions). It's undoubtedly true that Iran would revert to it's preferred form of government, geopolitical orientation, and nuclear capability once the US left.
Winning a war means achieving your political goals while preventing the enemy from achieving theirs. Most of the time, you've won the war when the enemy effectively admits they lost.
The lack of will to use sufficient force to win a war is fundamentally no different from not having that force in the first place. Both are equally real constraints on your ability to win the war.
How’d that plan work out in Iraq or Afghanistan, both much smaller, less armed countries? Decades and trillions spent, and what exactly did the US “win”?
Why would the US start this in the first place? Be assured that however this comes out, a “Truth” will be posted assessing it as the Greatest Deal Ever and a Total Win, end of story.
a major reason would be that they didnt think iran could selectively close the strait, and the intelligence about how not liking the current government is not the same as supporting the US
It’s been repeatedly stated by officials that we fought this war for Israel. We had nothing to gain and much to lose, and lose we did. Thankfully Israel also lost and I think this was their last chance at using the US as their attack dog.
People are looking for conspiracy theories when the truth is simple - trump did it because he thought it would be an easy quick win that will put him in the history books.
It’s not a conspiracy theory if Trump and all parties involved explicitly state this was for Israel. The simplest explanation is that they are telling the truth, which makes sense since the US had nothing to gain from this.
Netanyahu has wanted to do this for decades. If you rob a bank, you don't get to say "oh, well, my crazy friend down the pub has been saying we should rob a bank for ages, and I suddenly decided he was right"; you do have some personal responsibility.
Because Trump is already facing a bloodbath in the midterms and his next step is either a ground war or dropping a nuke, and both of those will ensure he not only loses the midterms but has a legitimate shot at seeing the inside of a prison cell.
Because the escalation Trump was talking about would have wrecked the ME with Iran's retaliation on desalination plants, oil infrastructure, power plants, etc. Which would have been a massive shock to the global economy, along with a large humanitarian crisis inside of Iran and it's neighbors.
Not the military, the IRGC. Which is a religiously indoctrinated military.
So it would still be a theocracy, same as before, but now also run by people who are conditioned to believe that more violence is always a solution to any problem.
The old govt was about to be toppled by people sick of it. The US attack unified those people behind the leaders son, someone they’d not have taken before, and entrenched a new generation against the US. So far the carrot and stick has them openly mocking Trump and the US as Trump makes threat, draws line, folds yet again, repeats.
Yea, I do wonder, why that might be? Why is a country 1500 miles away, that doesn't even share a common border, preoccupied with the destruction of Israel to the point it invested hundreds of billion of dollars in its offensive capabilities and network of proxies on every side of Israel, had a special paramilitary wing (Quds Force) for operations inside Israel, had a public clock counting down the existence of Israel and called for the destruction of Israel on each and every opportunity?
What's the obsession with the destruction of Israel? Could it be related to the fact that an Islamic Republic of (...) could not accept a Jewish rule right in the middle of the great Muslim Ummah?
The US and Israel have killed over 3,000 civilians in this war, mostly in Iran and Jordan. Iran has killed like 30. Their attacks are literally a hundredth of what they got and we're still trying to portray them as the bad guys. Don't get me wrong, Iran sucks, but not because of this
Iran has killed thousands of its civilians. The only reason it has only killed a few Israelis (excluding Oct 7) is because they can't easily get past Israeli defenses.
Trump ensured that there is absolutely no reason for any nation, not just Iran, to believe what USA says in the future. No agreements/treaties with the USA can be trusted. And not just with Trump administration, since he demonstrated clearly that he can tear any treaty/agreement that was made under different administrations as well. The United States demonstrated that it has very, very limited control over the actions of an elected president.
Do you have a source for this being the 10 points which form the basis of negotiations, rather than something released to the media to shape those negotiations?
Exactly, but Hacker News is upvoting this because it wants the US to be seen as the loser of this conflict.
Both sides in a conflict (or any negotiation) make demands that they know the other will not accept. You can't just take someone's list like that and assume that'll be the exact outcome.
I can’t accept the theocratic tyrants who implement terrorism, execute their own people and slaughter them as they protest remain in charge. They should be forced out of power.
I wonder if the US had struck when momentum was high during the popular uprising, it could have being self sustaining, with arms and logistics setup to feed the resistance advance.
The delusional idea that one can affect regime change through bombing is the cause of quite a bit death and destruction throughout the world.
Maybe the problem wasn't the timing, but the fact that thousands of people were killed and millions lived in fear for the future for the past month? That's enough to cause most people to stand behind their government, no matter how reviled they might be.
The second day of the war Israel gave everyone in Tehran a day-long oil shower. Imagine cleaning that out of your kid's hair, you're not going to overthrow the government that's shooting back.
There was, and still is, no scenario in which US and/or Israel attacks Iran and effects regime change. Come on, we've been over this multiple times over the past few decades.
Any direct military action will galvanize population against the existential threat, not against the tyrant who's still your countryman, no matter how rotten.
If they wanted true change, grassroots support was the only way. Was, because at this point more than likely any revolution has been pushed back by a few years at least, probably decades.
I see your point. You don’t think most Iranians want freedom from tyrants? I see 90% dislike the tyrants, and 80% want Trump to eradicate them. Leveling the field for the popular revolution I hope takes over.
Spain has held a firm line, but even others such as UK/FR have allowed use of facilities or engaged their air craft carriers or facilitated US movements.
Cyprus/UK [0] faced attempted strikes; the UK is running defensive sorties for the UAE [1], Qatar [2], and Iraq [3]; and British bases in Oman and the UAE were struck [4]. France has done similar actions as well [5]. The UK and France have mutual defense pacts across the Gulf as well which they need to maintain.
Additionally, Ukraine has now begun providing defensive capabilities to the Gulf States, which Iran argues makes it an active combatant [6]. By this precedent the UK and France are also active combatants against Iran.
The reality is, the Iran War and the Ukraine War are tied to the hip. If defending Ukraine against Russian drone strikes conducted by Iranian ground troops [7] and using Iranian technology [8] is critical to European security, then ending Iran's tactical support is critical as well.
Ironically, this is probably great news for Ukraine. Russia's geoint support for Iran [9] has made it easier for my peers still on the Hill to make a case to double down and enhance American support for Ukraine, as well as pulling Gulf States who were previously neutral to supporting Ukraine as well [10].
This is also why Ukraine is calling out Russian disinfo ops about the war [11]. Iran has doubled down on similar information warfare [12] and hybrid [13] operations in the UK and Mainland Europe
Frankly, we need to call a spade a spade - the Ukraine War and Iran War have merged into a single transnational war.
If you support Ukraine you cannot support Iran, and this is Ukraine's stance as well [14][15][16][17][18].
> There is no particular reason to assume that the side you take in one conflict should have an impact on your stance toward another conflict
What you are describing is compartmentalization - something which you posited is false [0]
If Qatar and UAE's dual use infrastructure is within the rights of Iran to strike despite both having dealings with both Iran and the US and if Ukraine can be treated as a combatant by Iran [1], then this precedent holds for all of Iran given how they have aided and abetted Russia in Ukraine.
With the precedent Iran set against Qatar, compartmentalization no longer holds. And Ukraine's stance is that Iran is a terror state and an enemy of Ukraine [2], so frankly if you stand with Ukraine you also have to stand against Iran.
> Surely that has to be the default position. They all have a right to defend themselves and a valid claim for reparations.
Iran has been providing Russia ballistic missiles [3], drones [4], artillery [5], boots on the ground [6], ammunition [7], and other support against Ukraine.
If Iran deserves reparations from the US, then Ukraine deserves reparations from Iran. Yet Iran has doubled down in opposing Ukraine [1].
Look, if you continue down that road to GCC countries engaging Iran, then you have a multiparty nuclear armed conflict with combatants stretching from Europe to the Chinese border.
At that point it really does sound like ww3 started from the same causes as ww1 - nobody will win, nobody will know why they are fighting, and most of the fighting will be drones being slung over trenches.
> At that point it really does sound like ww3 started from the same causes as ww1 - nobody will win, nobody will no why they are fighting, and most of the fighting will be drones being slung over trenches.
Name me one war of aggression that ended up being a long term win for the aggressor.
The first time I saw a graph describing relationships between various factions in the Middle East was probably in the late 90s. I remember being amused by it. It turns out that if you are a region full of conflicts, the ally of your ally is often your enemy.
On the other hand, it should have been obvious. Real-world relationships are not transitive.
There is no particular reason to assume that the side you take in one conflict should have an impact on your stance toward another conflict. At least if you are not some kind of a rationalist who values logical consistency over practical implications.
Also, another question: Do you think that World War III or something close to a global conflict will start as you mentioned that the Ukrainian-Russo War and the Iran War "have merged into a single transnational war"?
My stance is the same as Fiona Hill (former Senior Director for Europe and Russia in the US NSC and now a Defence Advisor for the Starmer administration) [0] as well as Zelensky [1].
Frankly, Canada does not have the power projection capabilities needed for West Asia.
That said, Canada is best served protecting the Arctic, North Atlantic, and the North Pacific, all of which now face increased pressure from Russia and China, and threaten much of North America, Northern Europe, and Northern Asia.
This is also the stance of the Government of Canada [0][1]
So this 10 point plan that was “not good enough” according to Trump on Monday 6th April, now as the deadline looms, it’s suddenly “a workable basis” for negotiations?
Frankly if Iran get nothing more than a complete lifting of sanctions this would be a massive climb down for the US.
Trump's rhetoric was all bluster, he actually had no leverage and was unwilling to pay the cost to continue the war (mostly in terms of cost to himself). He needed an offramp and this was it.
Iran if they have any sense should be prepared for a massive self defense and counter attack. "Talks" from the USA and Israel have a precedent of being attacks and invasions.
If there's one thing that's pretty clear, it's that the Iranian government is quite aware of this and of how the US acts. The US government, on the other hand, seems oblivious to anything about how the Iranian government acts.
The US government seems to be pretty oblivious to how it itself acts, expecting them to understand another country's motivations is so many steps beyond that.
I am honestly surprised and shocked to admit but Iran is the sanest and least immoral side in this conflict and it's not because my views of Iran improved or changed much. I couldn't imagine I'd be saying such a thing a few years ago.
Why would the US accept these terms? They could just keep crippling Iran’s infrastructure and fuel supply and more until their new leadership fractures. Is this entirely about midterm elections?
It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror. The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive. If winning and losing is the way you are framing this, instead of thinking about the humans that these actions affect, then we all have lost.
That doesn’t align with the perspective of actual Iranians I know.
There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.
That aligns with conversations I’ve had with Iranians friends in the US and family members within Iran who want the regime destroyed so there is a chance of removing the Islamic theocracy that governs the country currently.
My general impression is many people want the regime destroyed, which seems clear from talking to people but also just all the protests. I haven't asked but I'm skeptical they are for things like attacking of every bridge, railroad, and power plant (which are important civilian infrastructure). The threat was specifically that their "whole civilization will die tonight"
I will tell you exactly what my Iranian wife said when I asked her about people congregating on the bridges after Trump said he’ll bomb them: she said (paraphrasing) “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters”.
The country is basically on the verge of civil war. The reason it’s not is because the anti-regime forces are disorganized with no clear leader, have no weapons, and rely on internet to organize.
Sad that my comment got flagged, this is a major problem with hacker news - censorship of comments that prevent people from hearing all perspectives.
The point of my comment was to give a first-hand conversation with an actual Iranian.
You can react to it any way you want, but the point of my comment was to show how some Iranians are actually thinking. And yes, many Iranians want regime change and they see the supporters of the regime as the enemy.
Yes, many Iranians want regime change, but that's not going to happen by bombing everything in the country, and Trump isn't willing to send troops. I'm not sure what your point is actually.
I was responding to a comment about bombing bridges.
I quoted an actual conversation i had with an Iranian where they said essentially “go ahead and bomb the bridges”. That got flagged for some reason.
I’m simply trying to surface conversations I’ve had with Iranians. So often these Internet conversations occur in a bubble.
My point? I guess there’s this idea that Iranians are disgusted with Trump’s comment today. That hasn’t been my experience at all. My wife is Iranian. I’m connected to a large Iranian expat community. They are very pro Trump because of the war. The initial reaction I saw was disappointment with the ceasefire. They want continued pressure on the regime, and they feel that a cease-fire works against that.
"Corruption" is all but meaningless. It happens in every society and the only people that get prosecuted for them seem to be people outside the elite. /s
I don't think holding such views is helpful.
Besides, a few people have been prosecuted for war crimes while being on the winning side (or by their own side), some examples:
William Calley (US), convicted for his role in the 1968 My Lai massacre, in which American troops killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese civilians.
Donald Payne (UK), for abuse and death of an Iraqi detainee.
Charles Graner (US), sentenced to 10 years in prison for the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.
However, we can agree those are very few and far between, compared to all crimes committed. But it's more useful to condemn them and advocate for more accountability than to claim it's useless anyways and normalize calls for more crimes.
Sure but that response about the people is entirely ignoring the vastly larger issue of does she (or, more importantly, people actually in Iran) want every single power plant bombed because that is what the threat was (also all bridges and some railroads). This is talking about the country being without power and stable food or water infrastructure for the foreseeable future and a lot of normal people dying (not particularly regime supporters)
My impression is that people don’t take Trump‘s words literally. Trump often exaggerates and plays word games. If you take every statement from Trump literally you’re going to be constantly triggered.
But even so, I think the response you’ll get from most anti-regime Iranians is “go for it, if it may let us get our country back”.
Iranians who wants the regime overthrown are very conflicted right now. They see their country being destroyed, but they also hate the regime and want a revolution.
They literally feel that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. They want that destroyed, so they’re thankful that Trump is attacking it.
How far should Trump go? I just saw news reports that Iranian expats and anti-regime Iranians were disappointed with the cease-fire. That aligns with the initial reaction from my family and the Iranian expats that I know.
So it’s a complicated answer… Do Iranians want all their infrastructure destroyed? If it would guarantee the regime was defeated I think most would say yes.
I have never seen any diaspora have more contempt for their own people than Iranians. Thankfully more recent diaspora in the US are both more level-headed and diverse (coming not just from Tehran and a few other major cities but many other places and ethnic groups). I know an Azeri Iranian who was nothing but contempt for the regime (especially after thousands of protesters were murdered) but is horrified by what the US/Israel has been doing.
Diaspora communities are never representative of their home country. This is something I know from my own community, since selection bias leads to a very particular (and privileged) set of people with the means to emigrate, almost universally from a single ethnic group that is less than 11% of the total population. Perhaps you should consider whether the Iranians you know are representative of the Iranian population as a whole.
I would agree that there is some bias amongst expats, I think that’s a fair point.
I think saying diaspora “never represent” their home countries is an exaggeration.
All the Iranians in the US I know are first generation immigrants who have been here maybe 5-20 years. I’m not talking about second generation Iranians. They all still have family in Iran. And their views do not differ from their family.
My mother-in-law is the most anti-regime person I know, and she lives in Tehran. A bomb recently exploded nearby and broke all the windows in her house. But life goes on, Iranians are extremely resilient.
> All the Iranians in the US
Maybe thats the only demographic in the US? They are anti-regime and must clear interview at US consulate, can't exactly get into US if you are pro-regime?
Is your wife one of those crazy monarchists? I don't have any preference for the current theocratic dictarorship vs monarchical dictarorship. If they want to be en enslaved people I see no point what the change in figurehead does. I hate monarchies and see no reason to support her kind. I'd fully support any side that wants a proper democracy for iran.
Purely historically too of course the USA and Israel are rhe last people whose words I'd trust about wanting to bring "freedom" to a country. The only thing they are experts at are toppling democracies and installing dictators, including in Iran itself.
No, she’s not a monarchist, and she’s actually very uncomfortable with people referring to “prince” Reza Pahlavi.
I think she understands that every movement needs a leader, so she’s ok with Mr. Pahlavi leading that, i.e. a constitutional assembly. But beyond that she doesn’t recognize the monarchy
That's much better then. And I personally am just very wary of any entity claiming they will "just" be a king for a while and cede power given how dictatorial the last pahlavi was.
Your wife doesnt live in iran im assuming? She wont risk her child being killed in preschool by a tomahawk, or having to live without electricity or transportation or drinking water because trump bombed it?
As someone from and in a thirdworld country, these expats can be even more arrogant and psychopathic than the imperialists they live under
My in-laws all live in Iran. My wife has many aunts, uncles, and cousins. I don’t even know how many people - it’s probably 20 to 30 people at least. All in Tehran.
My mother-in-law is the most anti-regime person I’ve met.
I gotta say, that's really fucked up. Like, I'm Russian, I hate what Russia is doing, I think support for Putin in Russia is far higher than it has any right to be, but I'd never casually throw out a "bomb them all, they're all complicit." I think people with these sorts of opinions need therapy.
My impression is that Iran is much closer to a civil war than Russia is. It’s very polarized.
You have to put yourself in the mindset of someone against the regime. They feel that their country was hijacked by an islamic theocracy.
This is a regime that forces little girls to cover their body. Dancing and singing in public is illegal. Protesters are hanged.
My wife was sent home from school as a kid because her headband didn’t properly cover her forehead. At the age of 30 my wife still has trouble wearing shorts because she is self-conscious about showing her legs.
This is the kind of mental trauma that women have to recover from after leaving Iran. And I’ve only skimmed the surface.
There is zero sympathy from the anti-regime side for those who support the theocracy.
The other side (regime) publicly state “execute them all” and the response is “bomb them all”. To be clear, I’m not agreeing with the sentiments and agree that bombing the infrastructure is awful, just stating my observation of the state media vs opposition voices.
I have friends in the US that want the US government destroyed, there are people in the southern US that think the south won the civil war. Who cares?
Every government in all of human history has had its detractors and supporters, more detractors probably exist in expatriated communities, their existence does not really prove anything.
I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that anti-regime Iranians are a minority?
I’m not sure if we have good statistics on this. So everyone may have a different perspective.
All I can say is this: I’m married to an Iranian woman, and through her I’ve met many Iranian expats, and I’ve talked to her family members within Iran.
I think you’ll find that Iranian expats are pretty unanimously against the regime. That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody.
Thousands of protesters were killed opposing the regime. And that’s just the latest protest.
This is a regime that will kill women who don’t cover their hair correctly. Dancing and singing in the street is illegal.
Don’t be concerned on behalf of the regime. This is a just war supported by Iranians. You are on the right side of history to kill people who hang protestors and force little girls to cover every part of their body.
>That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody.
How do you square this with the absolutely massive pro-government rallies that we've seen all across Iran for the entire duration of the conflict? Millions of Iranians opposed to the regime, in a country of 90 million+, might still be a fringe minority.
If you asked some American expat their thoughts on MAGA, and they responded "China should bomb MAGA rallies so we can be free from the Republican party, my whole family in the US agrees".....that person would be considered a fringe lunatic, even if Trump's regime has record-low approval like it does now (and rightly deserves, I hope he is impeached and jailed).
In a country of 90 million, if the regime has 20% supporters, that’s 18 million supporters.
Tehran population is 9 million, 20% of that is 1.8 million.
So it’s easy to understand why you might see videos of hundreds or thousands of regime supporters in the streets. That doesn’t mean they’re the majority.
Thanks, I hadn’t seen that article before. Interesting read.
My take is that GAMAAN likely overstates the opposition, but all surveys on Iran are imperfect, not just GAMAAN.
I know Pew has done surveys in Iran, but didn’t directly ask if people support the regime.
I personally believe that the opposition group is larger than the regime supporters. I think there’s enough data to infer that.
But I’ll also admit that there’s probably a sizable percentage of ambivalent/non-revolutionary Iranians who would just be satisfied with a better economy.
I trust the people who are close to this more than what you hear on the news. My guess is 90%+ of the readers here know nothing of Iranians except what they read or hear on the news.
How many of you have been to Iran, have family members there, etc? I'm guessing very few.
I have a serious problem with calling 100+ schoolgirls who - at best - got instantly dismembered by a bomb and didnt suffer (too much) and at worst were crushed to death or bled out from shrapnel wounds "evil"
Was one of them BBC, who quoted one Iranian resident as saying they were ok with the US nuking Iran, and then quietly removing that bit from the quotes with no note that the article was edited?
Destroying infrastructure and making live hell for normal people does not remove the regime. When will people learn that air-wars don't magically change governments?
Also, the Iranians you likely hear, are not representative. I don't think most people who depend on energy and water don't want that infrastructure destroyed.
> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.
Good question. From the conversations that I’ve had with Iranians, it’s unclear. The regime is too embedded. There’s no easy answer. Killing Mojtaba would be a good start.
Anti-regime Iranians are basically holding onto any sliver of hope that they can regain their country.
Of course, it’s all very unlikely, but I can’t help sympathizing with them. I think their cause is just. I think a non-theocratic Iran that could rejoin the global economy is a dream worth fighting for.
It was a great start. Iranians celebrated his death, which made me happy.
I think one idea is that if you can kill enough regime leaders, perhaps a moderate leader may emerge?
Or perhaps there may be a military coup? Which may be a lesser of two evils?
The Iranians I’ve spoken to don’t feel like it was counterproductive. They actually feel like Trump has done more than any other president to damage the regime.
What’s the alternative? More economic sanctions? The status quo of the last 40+ years has accomplished nothing.
Anti-regime Iranians want action. They want us to make a move. We killed a lot of regime leaders and destroyed their military capability. That’s something. Now we have to see how that chess move played out.
Your perspectives of Iranians seems to be too biased, given also that you have partner from Iran and confess that you "only" talk to their inlaws and friends.
The Iranian diaspora is more divided on the matter than you think [1], and given your background, you're probably in the bubble of the diaspora that wouldn't mind sending threatening messages to anyone not being completely aligned with anti regime stance.
It's like someone marrying a deep south confederate flag waving MAGA American, moving there, and judging from talking to their friends and their hate for everything not MAGA, conclude that every American is like this. Or same scenario but California and liberals.
I’ve never sent threatening messages to people, and would never do that, so I’m not sure what that’s in reference to?
I’ve responded to this idea of bias in other threads.
I’m open to the idea that I’m perhaps biased by my wife, her friends, and my in-laws.
I’ll admit that it may be a little hard for me to accept that given that I’ve been to so many Iranian celebrations, and met so many different people, and heard the same perspectives again and again. I feel that what I’ve conveyed on hacker news in my comments does reflect truly the conversations I’ve had.
Most importantly, my goal in making these comments is to surface what actual Iranians are thinking.
Many Iranians in the US are afraid to speak out because they have family in Iran, or they’re here in the US on a visa. They fear that if they speak up, they’ll never be able to go home and see their family again.
As a US citizen, who is connected with the Iranian community, I feel it’s my duty to surface these conversations I’ve had.
My apologies if it came off as I was accusing you or your wife for sending threatening messages. That wasn't the intent
It was (supposed to be) a reference to the content of the linked material:
>Individuals and opposition groups took it upon themselves to allege relationships between diaspora Iranians and the Islamic Republic and guided their followers to conduct purity tests that sought to target, silence, and excommunicate anyone with whom they disagreed, labeling them as apologists or agents of the Islamic Republic for having called for reform in years past (now deemed too soft on the Islamic Republic), or for being unwilling to name the then-nascent protest movement a “revolution” or, in more extreme cases, for being unwilling to support regime change by any means necessary.
And a comment about the fact that you and your close Iranian relatives and friends probably hold the anti regime views strongly, and so does many (especially the ones that had to flee the revolution, or the childrens of) of their friends. I'm not questioning that fact, but pointing out that it's quite obvious that your friends and relatives probably wouldn't hang around the Iranians with different views.
It's not the only group and in a political climate like the Iranian diaspora, individuals (or groups) with opposing views or nuanced views are often silenced relentlessly.
It's simply unavoidable dynamics: iranian diaspora strongly wanting regime change are also not the ones that have to carry the blunt of that cost (they're outside Iran already), but reap most of the benefits. They're also spreading that message on platforms in countries that have an incentive to push for that message (USA, Israel) so the discourse will be highly amplified around anti-regime rethoric. The fact that it's not their house that is being bombed, also means that there aren't really any counteracting weight put on any potential opposing discourse, the discourse will maintain or go more extreme in is anti-regime rethoric going even more "any means necessary" route.
The Iranians against the regime inside Iran, I would assume, have a more nuanced view now. They might be against the regime, but not to the point they're willing to sacrifice their children, neighbors, and society collapsing Libya or Syria style. So they're probably less "any means necessary" about regime change.
Don't know why this is downvoted, people must forget that the weeks leading up the war, Iran was pulling the plug on the internet and shooting regime protestors in the street.
It seems Trump and Israel expected an internal revolution once the bombing started, but it doesn't seem that manifested.
> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.
Iranians hoping that war and death will save them are chasing a gruesome mirage. The US has successfully liberated exactly one country by regime change since 1945: Panama in 1989. Every other intervention has either supported a rebellion (secession) instead of a revolution, or it has ended in failure (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somalia) or a prolonged civil war (Iraq, Libya, Yemen). Anyone hoping for such a fate to befall their own country is morally compromised.
Calling Iranians who are against their current government “morally compromised” is real reprehensible for someone sitting in an armchair. Hoping foreign power can help overthrow the domestic lord is nothing new. That’s literally how the U.S. gained its independence with French military assistance.
And to your point, US interventions saved South Korea, Kuwait, Grenada, Bosnia, in addition to Panama. The legacy of Vietnam is complicated with the country rejecting communism, becoming capitalistic, and embracing the U.S. in recent years. This is in stark contrast to countries like North Korea. We don’t know how Iraq and Venezuela will turn out in the current timeline either.
Even more problematic though, is the fact that many of the US interventions happened in countries at the brink of free fall. These are failed states who are more likely to experience turmoils with or without the U.S.. Yes, civil wars can be worse than dictatorship. But that’s one of many possible outcomes. Avoiding all changes due to the fear of the worst potential outcome is weirdly privileged view. Kurds in Iraq can attest to this. Iraq has become much better for them nowadays because the Saddam era was pure hell. They were desperate and any alternative was thought to be better.
However, I don’t think intervention in Iran necessarily serves the US interest to begin with. So sure, I agree with you that the U.S. really shouldn’t waste more time in Iran.
Looks like an interesting article, but it’s paywalled. Would love to read it. Do you have a different link or can you summarize it?
From my conversations with Iranians, they know regime change is a long shot. But what are they to do?
Anti-regime Iranians literally feel like that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. 40+ years of status quo has done nothing to change that.
So yes, they enjoy seeing the regime being bombed. Do they really expect a revolution? Maybe the tiniest sliver of hope in their heart believes in it. But that’s better than nothing.
Trita Parsi recently stated in an interview that he has data showing the support for regime change among the Iranian diaspora has significantly increased from 5% to around 30% but only a minority of them accept the 'at all costs' premise: https://youtu.be/dUyJubRB-ek?si=9wl8pc3sEgTrDlql
Yes, we have lost sound leadership and stability. Pakistan has brokered the cease-fire in a war started by the US for no good reason. The current US administration was supposed to be non-interventionist.
It is hard to watch the grim spectacle of the US fallen to the point of simultaneously making despicable threats to destroy another country and sending love and best wishes at election-time to Hungary's anti-EU, pro-Russian Orban.
The largest military the world has ever known was recklessly used towards a foe against decades of internal warning not to go there. People on both sides who didn't ask for this war paid with their lives.
High gas prices might have been a great cause for it ending, but the win for the world is that a escalation towards WWIII was averted, and that even idiotic leaders have learned that the world is a complex system and there's no such thing as a far away war anymore.
> It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror
Its because you're such a better person than them, wow, incredible. Nobody else knows what war is.
I don’t see how the majority of comments paint this as a victory for Iran. Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships? I guess I’m missing something. War sucks but in this case Iran is a shell of the threat it was a month ago.
1. Nuclear sites are not "in rubble", uranium is very much intact. They attempted to extract some of it with the failed F15 mission and had to scrap it (oversight by CIA) near Isfahan.
2. Leadership KIA doesn't matter, IRAN has a decentralized leadership, not a top down one.
3. Military apparatus is intact, majority of missile cities are still operating, over 1M IRGC forces mobilized with many more men willing to sign up.
4. Strait of Hormuz is fully under control of IRAN, "impotent threat of attacking ships" (even though IRAN has much more power) is more than enough to control it.
6. No regime change, IRGC is stronger than ever
7. Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf
8. Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded (we'll see what the actual numbers are after CENTCOM releases them finally)
9. Sanctions lifted on Russia, helping them majorly profit. China is still collecting cheap oil.
10. Israel took heavy damage, losing many interceptors as well.
11. Brent 100$+ for 40 days, causing major global issues.
To be fair, US did manage to kill 170 kids on day 1 and bomb bridges, hospitals, universities and civilian areas.. so I guess that's a "win" for you?
The reality is far more nuanced, and not clearly a win to Iran. We saw how degraded their military capabilities became when they couldn't capture a pilot on their own land for nearly 48 hours. We also saw that the number of rockets that they used "in total" has only just recently reached the number they used in the June war last year with Israel.
Diplomatically, we saw Lebanon, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia expelling Iranian diplomats (some even threatening war with Iran). And the entire gulf region unite against Iran. All while Iran's allies were mostly passive.
It's quite likely that Iran would need to deal with the mess both internally (as the power grab in the leadership vacuum could take place), and externally with the neighbors it bombed. Iran needs to make it appear as a win internally, and that's something that would affect any long term agreement.
Regardless, whether it's a win to ETTHER side remains to be seen when a more permanent agreement is signed. If for example Iran actually manages to impose a fee on passing ships, then that's a major achievement for Iran, and could create a dangerous pretendant for other regions (like the strait of Malacca in Indonesia, Bab El-Mandeb and even the South China sea.
>We saw how degraded their military capabilities became when they couldn't capture a pilot on their own land for nearly 48 hours
This is a such a armchair opinion. One country has the location information and other has vast forest and mountains. How it took 48 hrs for US is a eye opening scene for rest of the world. Multiple trillion of defense budget still a minion.
The only thing really destroyed is the image of the west and particularly it’s leader the US. Whatever you view of Iranian acts, even wars have laws related to portionality that has been broken.
Also if there ever was an ounce of internal resistance then this war have probably galvanized the population and is aligning everyone to common cause of working on the build up of particularly their national security.
Perceptions are fickle, and that includes the local population. There are many cases of countries the US bombed whose population later became strong supporters of the US.
All policy aimed at preventing nuclear Iran has one goal: buy time. I think it is hard to argue that time has not been bought (though how much and whether the price was right is another question). The only semi-stable long term option is a friendly Iranian government. The IRGC's main purpose is to occupy Iran, so anything that makes them weaker, less stable and more decentralized improves the odds of successful internal revolt in the long run. It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.
The threat of the strait closure has always been a major factor in Iran policy from all relevant nations, it is just now explicit. It's hard to take the Russia point seriously when the war forced both Russia and Iran to shift resources form the Ukrainian theater to the Persian Gulf; it seems to be close to a wash. It's also kinda silly to gas up using interceptors for their intended purpose as "heavy damage" or catastrophize about rounding errors in damage to USA assets, while simulatenously writing off the total effect of all USA/Israel actions as inconsequential.
Disruption to global fossil fuel supply chains was also a goal of this war, so I am not sure you should list it as a negative. In the current state of the world, USA interests and global economic interests are becoming increasingly decoupled, and one shouldn't assume they are automatically aligned.
Also this has probably done more to hasten the world's weaning off fossil fuels than any action by any other government.
IRGS domestic propaganda has always been that US is a military murderous malevolent regime, mercilessly going after their land and their children.
With just a little bit of propaganda spin, or even without it, US just proved to the entire Iranian population that IRGS was right all along.
This should strengthen or even harden their regime as they will have new generation of hardliners join the movement.
This is like 1930s Germany kinda thing. Who won or lost is semantics at this point, the regime is free to spin it any way they want, and will have quite the support to do it.
>It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.
It's not hard for me to see. It's very similar to the situation in Ukraine. They have suffered losses but I can only imagine that their morale and confidence is through the roof. Conversely, the population must feel that there is no hope of getting rid of them. The cavalry sounded the horns but mostly rode into the river.
>Disruption to global fossil fuel supply chains was also a goal of this war
I am not convinced that a population that just recently had 30k people die in a revolt is gonna immediately rally around their oppressors after a foreign power kills 2k. I have yet to see compelling evidence that formerly IGRC-hostile segments of the population have switched alleigances. It is possible. But one could also imagine an exhausted population that is tired of a goverment they despise putting a target on their backs. The Iranians I personally know suggest that the second idea is more true, but it is anecdotal evidence with heavy selection bias. Another factor is that Iran has an unstable food and water supply, and people who lack food and water tend to focus their anger on whoever is closest that has food and water.
The Trump administration is actively interested in the dissolution of the current global economic order. This is why they are relatively unbothtered by the global economic shock that is a Strait of Hormuz closure, whereas the globally-oriented neoliberal administrations of the past wanted to avoid this at all costs.
> All policy aimed at preventing nuclear Iran has one goal: buy time. I think it is hard to argue that time has not been bought (though how much and whether the price was right is another question).
Given that Iran has been one week/one month/one year away from acquiring nuclear capabilities since 2014 - first Trump Presidency, and they are not any closer a decade later this "buying time" rhetoric is nothing short of "Iraq has WMD" level of absurdity.
It is not jist Bibi, but also the IAEA and other international organizations. And at least the last 5 US administrations. I suppose they could also all be in Israel's pocket though.
Iran's 60% enriched uranium stockpile is really not up for debate. Iran is happy to tell everyone that they have it. With the proper equipment, 60% can go to 90% in a single month. So the question is how advanced is the Iranian infrastructure for the final enrichment step, and (less commonly talked about) how ready they are to actually make a fission bomb out of that material. The latter task is not considered to be very hard, North Korea did it after all, so the main focus has been on the former. There does seem to be some decent information that the centrifuge array has been under active development at various points, and has been consitently, actively targetted by Mossad/CIA for at least the past 20 years or so. For example, Stuxnet was a joint CIA/Mossad operation that begain in 2005 and continued through both GWBush and Obama.
Unfortunately, even with some nice bribes from Obama, Iran was always a little cagey with the IAEA inspectors, and officially kicked them out in 2021. So after that, the only sources for the state of Irans nuclear infrastructure information effectively became Iran itself and Mossad.
> It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.
It's not really that hard to see - if you open your eyes.
If you refuse to do that, to the point where you see nothing but the hint of a silver lining in every carcinogenic cloud, then yeah I guess things must look pretty silvery.
It’s a nation of 90 million people. Now that basically every facet of society has been hit by a single common enemy, they will galvanize and it won’t matter what name IRGC or whatever you give it they will start to work in unison for common security and deterrence.
> They attempted to extract some of it with the failed F15 mission
This is fake Iranian propaganda. It makes no logical sense. The force sent to extract the F15 officer (approx 2 C130s of equipment) is far to small to retrieve tons of nuclear material stored at Isfahan.
> Military apparatus is intact
No, the IRGC is struggling. After weeks of bombardment, they are unable to provide food or basic supplies for its own army. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202604074692
Sources said that over the past 72 hours, operational forces have faced acute shortages of basic supplies, including edible food, hygiene facilities and places to sleep.
Recent strikes on infrastructure and bases have left many Guards and Basij personnel sleeping in the streets, and in some areas they have had access to only one meal a day.
According to informed sources, some personnel were forced to buy food from shops and restaurants with their own money after expired rations were distributed.
At the same time, disruptions affecting Bank Sepah’s electronic systems have reportedly delayed the salaries and benefits of military personnel, fueling fresh anger and mistrust within the ranks.
Iran International had previously reported similarly dire conditions in field units, including severe shortages of ammunition, water and food, as well as growing desertions by exhausted soldiers.
Even in the Guards’ missile units, which have historically received priority treatment, sources reported serious communications failures and food shortages. They said commanders were continuing to send only technical components needed to keep missile systems operational, rather than food or basic individual supplies for personnel.
> majority of missile cities are still operating
Missile launch volume is down ~90% from the beginning days of the war.
> Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf
Iran has taken $150-200 billion dollars in damage, to its assets, and also economy.
Their entire missile manufacturing supply chain was destroyed, with the destruction of both the Parchin Military Complex and Khojir Missile Production Center, they have no ability to produce more. The Iranian missile problem was one of the primary causes of this conflict.
Both the Mobarakeh Steel & Khuzestan Steel factories have shut down. They are responsible for 1% of Iran's GDP, and billions of dollars of profits which fund the Iranian economy.
If there were no ceasefire, Iranian power and petroleum facilities would be destroyed today. Both sides do not want this to happen, because it would set back the Iranian economy by a decade, and cause an enormous humanitarian crisis.
It is not possible to run a modern economy without fuel or electricity.
> Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded
Iran lost its entire air force, and navy; losses are far higher on the Iranian side than US/Israeli.
So far, the US/Israel have not lost any ability to continue combat operations; they can maintain this level of bombardment for months.
It is not possible to run an advanced economy, capable of manufacturing missiles and drones at scale, under perpetual bombardment.
I basically believe you're right, but I can't wrap my head around this: How is it that they still have any control at all of the strait after all of this? Is their significantly depleted missile force enough of a threat as long as they have any credible capability whatsoever left?
Iran "controls" the strait by shooting missiles at any ship that passes through without paying them a protection fee. This includes ships that pass through Omani waters, which it has no legal control of. It's terrorism, and also an act of war.
Iran built thousands of fast-attack speedboats which patrol the strait, get up close, fire a few missiles, and quickly return. This video gives a good explanation of their strategy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKJHaODzP-0
This can be mitigated by the US/Gulf Countries, with a large number of airplanes / drones patrolling the Iranian shore, and preventing these boats from launching.
Yes, Iran built underground caves specifically to store their attack speedboat fleet. The US and Israel bombed the entrance to one on Qeshm Island multiple times, and it's unknown how many boats are still functional.
The straight is narrow enough that they could use artillery to hit the ships in it.
And for US and/or Israel to prevent it, they would have to occupy the correspondingly wide strip of Iranian coast. At which point we're talking about a massive ground invasion (and of course then the same artillery would be firing at those troops, so you can't really just stop there either).
> This is fake Iranian propaganda. It makes no logical sense. The force sent to extract the F15 officer (approx 2 C130s of people) is far to small to retrieve tons of nuclear material stored at Isfahan.
And how does it make any logical sense to send 100+ spec ops guys in two big planes to rescue one (1) guy in a remote mountainous location? That's begging for >1 casualties and PoWs in situation which would otherwise be capped at 1. Mickey mouse nonsense.
It's far more logical that there was a different operation planned, one that would actually require hundreds of special ops guys, like securing a strategic site. And just because two planes were "stuck in the mud" doesn't mean there weren't more involved or planned to be.
> And how does it make any logical sense to send 100+ spec ops guys in two big planes to rescue one (1) guy in a remote mountainous location?
I’m a former Air Force officer, and can attest that this is in fact a long-term standing policy. “Never leave a man behind” exists because if we didn’t have that policy, pilots would be too risk averse to fly the missions aggressively.
Check out the “Notable Missions” section for a few very public examples over the past decades:
It's one of the reasons the US military is so good. As a soldier, you know they will come for you, behind enemy lines, so you can fight like hell, knowing that your fellows have your back.
1. Why pretend like you have any insight into the state of Iranian uranium? Just immediately makes you unreliable.
2. Ah yes, "supreme leader" doesn't sound "top down" at all
3. If by "still operating" you mean, not shooting missiles out of fear of getting destroyed. Sure. But that's silly.
4. For now. But very unlikely to last, imo.
6. "IRGC stronger than ever" is an insane take. How could they be stronger than before this war? They aren't. Again, shows that you're completely unreliable on this subject
7. "Millions of dollars" haha. Oh no, not millions with an "M"!
8. Sure. But how are you going to downplay the damage to Iran and then emphasize the damage to the US when they are many orders of magnitude different? Like, surely you don't think the damages are at all comparable
9. So long as Iran has oil to sell, yes
10. K.. again, playing up damages that are orders of magnitude less than what Iran has sustained
11. True
You seem to be very confident in your understanding of what is currently going on in Iran, despite the fact that you no longer live there. Obviously the IRGC has the internet turned off for a reason. They want to be able to control the narrative. And if it were all roses like you're making it out to be, they would personally be paying the internet bill of every Iranian to spread the word. Yet instead, they silence your people.
And do you really want to bring up the school, as tragic as it was, after your government slaughtered like 30,000 of its own citizens days before that? Motes and beams and all that.
you seems very confident about 30k casualties propagated by western media. all we, in the south east, see from west media and leader are just lies and hypocrisy
Wars are about objectives. The USA managed to accomplish none of its objectives. Iran forced USA to concede and call for ceasefire before US could achieve objectives. That’s the definition of defeat. Iran won by not losing and holding out.
Iran has more leverage at the end of this war than it did at the start. Iran has proven that it has the capability to catastrophically disrupt global economy.
Discovering? It was announced a thousand times, maybe you dismissed because none of them were easily achievable?
Opening the Strait, renouncing nuclear program, renouncing ballistic program, regime change. Even Israel will be forced to retreat from Lebanon.
Iran won by choking the Strait and telling USA and Israel they could endure far longer than their aggressors could endure a few missiles and domestic support drop.
A Pakistani-made taco was not in my radar for today.
Opening the Strait was not a goal of this action; the Strait was open before this war started. They are trying to sell as a win a return to the status quo ante.
I dismissed them because the president and the Pentagon could not seem to articulate the objectives of the war in a way that was cohesive with one another.
Yeah obviously opening the strait wasn’t an objective. I think what you’re suggesting is that the mentioned reason - denuclearization of Iran - is unlikely to be the real reason, which may have been something like distraction.
This war is happening today, to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. They cannot fight a nuclear one. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.
That is why we have this conventional war happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future.
This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next.
> This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next.
Iran was, as per the latest reports I've read, complying with terms and not enriching uranium to weapons-grade or close to weapons-grade. Are there credible reports suggesting otherwise?
Those reports are old. IAEA inspectors have not been able to access any of Iran's nuclear facilities since the start of the 12 day war on June 13, 2025. Currently, nobody knows what Iran is doing with their nuclear material.
Although it might reflect actual considerations of Israel and, by extension, the US, that's ultimately a very unreasonable take. Iran might not have been trying to build nuclear weapons in the past, as they claimed. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. In contrast, Iran will try to build nuclear weapons in the future with certainty. They'd be insane not to try now, after having been bombed for weeks in an illegal war of aggression against them and having been threatened with massive war crimes and genocide.
This sounds like goalpost moving. Like if you fail to acheive regime change, just say whateber the consequences of your failure were had been your objectives from the start. According to "some" who might "say"
You speak like you and I discussed this before, and you remember where the original goalposts were.
Many analysts suggested that the attack was a smoke-and-mirrors, and the actual goal has always been financial. Similar to the tariffs story. According to that opinion the outcome of the attempt is irrelevant. Regardless of whether the regime have changed or not, the goal is still achieved.
What action can Iran take today that they couldn't take a year ago? No one who has been paying attention should be surprised that Iran can shut down the straight. It has been a known factor for decades.
They have less leverage. The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival, when they never have had to before. That is a position of weakness, not strength.
>The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival
That is not their most powerful card. Their most powerful card is mining the Strait of Hormuz and taking out all GCC desalination and oil infrastructure. That would result in a global depression, and probably end the Gulf countries as we know them.
Destroying the gulf states would dramatically reduce the importance of the Strait, which would make mining it or otherwise shutting it down somewhat pointless anyway. It is a bit of mutually assured destruction, but the USA is probably in the best position of anyone to weather that storm.
I suppose it is more powerful in an absolute sense than just temporarily shutting down the Strait, but like Russia's nukes, I think the threat is more useful than the play itself. Unless they are just looking to take others down with them.
> What action can Iran take today that they couldn’t take a year ago?
Remove of sanctions, ability to monitize traffic through the strait, guarantees against aggression and a cessation of military bases in their region. IMO, a much stronger position than they were in a year ago.
1. The strait had freedom of navigation before, now Iran controls it.
2. It was suspected Iran would shut the strait in a conflict. Its ability to enforce the closure was question. Iran has now proven it can enforce control of the strait and American can’t do anything about it.
3. The negotiation plans mentions nothing of denuclearization. Iran doesn’t even need a nuclear deterrence now they have proven that closing the strait works so well.
4. The regime didnt collapse, leader replaced by the more hardline son. Command and control continued to function despite attempted decapitation.
5. Iran inflicted billions of dollars worth of damage to US assets forcing US soldiers to flee and reside in hotels.
6. Despite taking a pounding by America for over a month they can still target and destroy local targets as retaliation as they proved yesterday by striking large Saudi petrochemical plant and striking in the heart of Israel.
You keep making comments making it sound like you have a better view of the world than the people you're responding to, but just making personal attacks. The person you're responding to, for that specific point, is referring to: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/troops-iran-h...
“Flee and reside in hotels” not equal to relocate and continue mission. The major operational staff at these bases still work there. Support was relocated not fleeing.
Iran looks like it will get a toll on Strait traffic. This money, plus even a partial lifting of sanctions, will be a windfall.
Any Iranian leadership whose brains are not made of sawdust will use that money to race to a nuclear weapon. Clearly, we are in an era where the only reliable nuclear umbrella is locally sourced and homegrown. Expect a dominant geopolitical theme to be proliferation as every state that feels somewhat threatened boots up a nuclear weapons program. From ~9 states today, we should expect to see ~30 within the next 10-15 years.
> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships?
* Which doesn't mean much nowadays: see Ukraine, and the perseverance of the Taliban who eventually got their way.
* Are you talking about now? Or last year when everyone was told that the nuclear program was obliterated? If it was then, why was there a second round of attacks in this year? And it's not like the existing stockpiles of enriched uranium vanished.
* As Ukraine has shown, you can have a defence industry in people's basements churning out 4M drones per year that can do a lot of damage.
* Yes, the past leadership was KIA. And new people were put in place who are more hardliner hawks than what was taken out. So how is a more hawk-ish regime a "win" for the US?
* An "impotent attack" that has kept several thousand ships sidelined in the Gulf? That has caused fuel (petrol, diesel, kerosene, LNG) prices skyrocket? That have caused helium (needed in chip manufacturing, MRIs, etc) prices to triple? If that's "impotent" I would hate to see effective.
Perhaps stop taking the administration's claims at face value. Their army has not been destroyed. They continue to launch missiles daily and have been extraordinarily successful in targeting US/Israel radar and defensive assets throughout the region. They have suffered air force and naval losses, but if you look back at analysis from before the war started, exactly nobody considered the Iranian air force or navy to be of any strategic significance. Iran operates on a distributed military structure rather than a centralized command, so the assassination of senior political and military leaders is not the crippling blow the US expected it to be.
And really, that expectation is itself stupid. Suppose the US got involved in a hot conventional war with another superpower, and in the first week they killed the President, the vice President, a bunch of Representatives and Senators, and a bunch of senior figures at the Pentagon. Would the US just fold, or would it fill those positions via the line of succession, declare a national emergency, and fight back vigorously? You know the answer is #2, and the idea that other countries might do the same thing should not be a surprise. It appears the US administration has fallen into the trap of believing the shallowest version of its own propaganda about other countries, and assuming that Iran was just like Iraq under Saddam Hussein but with slightly different outfits.
The Iranian strategy is basically Mohammed Ali's Rope-a-dope: absorb punishment administered at exhausting cost (very expensive munitions with limited stocks) while spending relatively little of their own (dirt cheap drones with small payloads but effective targeting, continually degrading the aggressor's radar visibility and military infrastructure). The one limited ground incursion so far (ostensibly to rescue an airman, but almost certainly a cover for something else) resulted in the loss of multiple heavy transport aircraft, helicopters, and drones at a cost of hundred$ of million$.
The companies with billions on the line didn't seem to think Iran's threats to attack ships were impotent.
Their military capabilities are diminished in the short term, but if their ability to impose a toll on the Strait of Hormuz holds then that's a massive win for Iran in the medium/long term. A mere $2M per ship represents 10% of Iran's GDP. They would become the only country in the world to impose a toll on international waters, and they would have established a defensive deterrent almost as effective as having a nuclear bomb.
They took on the most powerful military ever seen and lived to tell the tale. It's hard to spin that as a loss for Iran.
The thing to remember about Iran is it's a country run by religious fanatics. Ask a secular democracy if they would trade the lives of most of their political and military leaders for a 10% boost to GDP and they would look at you like you're insane. Ask 86 year old Ali Khamenei if he would trade dying from an Israeli bomb landing on his house for Iran establishing a stranglehold on global oil trade and securing $100 billion in annual toll revenue, and he would have been ecstatic.
Yes, we basically pressed a magic button that eliminated two layers of leadership (as well as hundreds if not thousands of civilians). Now, what strategic objectives have we accomplished?
The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils. And by those standards they seem to be succeeding.
So now we have a pointless war that has resulted in thousands of dead with no tangible benefit to anybody, except of course those cronies of the administration doing insider trading.
This is not pointless. It exists to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.
Most people do not comprehend this conventional war is happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future.
Hitting desalination plants across the gulf isn't much better than a nuclear war. If anything, the takeaway from this conflict is that nobody is ready for even the modest number of conventional ballistic missiles produced by an impoverished and dysfunctional state.
> It exists to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
That's just ridiculous. Nobody can predict the future, so trading uncertain war in the future for a certain war today is completely irrational. (And for the same reason, the war today is unlikely gonna be easier than the war tomorrow.)
Besides, Iran has avoided having nuclear weapon, because it causes too many civilian casualties, and that's against their beliefs. In this, they're more civilized than Americans (and Europeans), despite that this might be considered to be an irrational view by barbarians like you.
I think you're just coping with the fact that this war was utterly pointless, destructive for almost everyone in the world, and a poor attempt to increase power by a small group of people.
Former Iranian Majles member Ali Motahari said in an April 24, 2022 interview on ISCA News (Iran) that when Iran began developing its nuclear program, the goal was to build a nuclear bomb. He said that there is no need to beat around the bush, and that the bomb would have been used as a "means of intimidation" in accordance with a Quranic verse about striking "fear in the hearts of the enemies of Allah."
"When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb,” former Iranian politician Ali Motahari told ISCA News. “There is no need to beat around the bush,” he said.
Read the last two lines of that interview. Khamenei interpreted Islam as forbidding even building the bomb, and he is the moral authority on this, like it or not.
Japan could also have built a nuclear bomb, but chose not to. They decided that out of nothing else than their moral beliefs.
You simply don't want to accept than other cultures can be (in some respects, and even regardless of what individuals think on average - that's probably similar for large enough groups) more ethical than your own.
Iran enriched over 450kg of uranium to at least 60%.
There's no need for anything over 5% for powerplant use. They were preparing HEU for weapons; whether those weapons were to be built now or in 20 years is irrelevant.
Yes, I agree, except it's not irrelevant whether they built functional nuke or not, because this is used as a justification for war. (Not to mention, as a justification for war, "they could have built a nuke" is even more barbaric than "they have built a nuke".)
Still, that doesn't counter the fact they didn't actually make a nuclear bomb out of the material, nor the fact that their highest moral authority banned them from doing that, so it doesn't do anything to disprove that culturally they are more civilized (in that respect).
(Maybe an example from a corporation would clarify this better - the fact that there is a group of people in it doing things unethically doesn't mean that the company as a whole condones this behavior, even if structurally - how the corporation or capitalist society is constructed - might lead to some people doing it internally off the books. But once it is known to the CEO - the highest moral authority in a corporation, if he is not to be implicated in this, he must tell them to stop.)
It's frankly just moving the goalpost in an attempt not to accept your own barbarism. Is your culture OK with using nuclear weapons, even in self-defense? If yes, how do you dare to judge?
Per international agreements, it was their right. The idiotic thing about this argument is that now everyone knows they want nukes and that not having ones is strategic mistake. Because Iran and Ukraine did not have one. Meanwhile, countries with nukes are safer.
> The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils
clearly not, they had an already planned goal to remove the american ability to impose sanctions, and implemented the plan, while sufferjng a ton of losses to personel and materiel.
this is a major improvement from where the US could impose sanctions and states would comply. surviving iranians are in a much better position now than before the war
I think the nature of war has changed. A slow moving swarm of drones, will keep large Aircraft carriers well outside the range of their fighter jets.
A nation can swarm an aircraft carrier with a 1000 drones, each costing about 40k USD. Only a few are needed to seriously damage the carrier. Not to mention ballistic missiles.
In this scenario, does a US massive, slow moving aircraft carrier possibly carrying hundreds of billions of assets really work ? Can the US meaningfully project power with these?
In this scenario, who holds more power or leverage ?
An aircraft carrier can project power within 500 miles. The idea is to use a few of these to knock out the air power of the opposing nation, basically airfields, missile stockpiles, factories, power infra, etc. And then drop in a ground invasion force.
Does this now work? I dont think so. 10 drones can be launched from the back of a truck.
The US Navy has quite a few more tricks up its sleeve apart from aircraft carriers. Just one publicly known that immediately comes to mind: amphibious assault ships, which can launch/land F35s.
All the ships stuck in the Gulf probably didn't consider the threat impotent.
On the other side: what more can the US do? Target civilian infrastructure? There is no appetite for getting stuck with boots on the ground, and everyone (including Iran) knows this.
You're probably right that it won't a win for anyone. If some of the points includes removing sanctions from Iran, it might be a huge win -- for Iran, or at-least it's population.
This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
It not that impotent. Attacking civilan targets in the age of drones is not that hard - a small motor boat with explosives or a shahed style drone is all you need. And to keep the strait closed they don't need to attack all ships. Even 0.1% probability of an attack (maybe even 0.01%) is enough to halt the traffic. And they don't need to sink the ship - a fire on board is enough to create an unacceptable security risk for tankers and LNG carriers.
It was a while since Houthis attacked any ships and yet traffic via Suez is still 60% down from what is was befor attacks started in 2023. Because the risk of an attack is not zero.
They've frustrated the biggest military on the planet to the point of issuing expletives. It's a huge moral win. Symbolism matters more than anything else in these situations.
Asymmetric warfare shouldn't be measured on the metrics of conventional warfare. Iran can continue to cause enormous economic pain for the world without any of that.
> This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
You arguably can't run gorilla large-scale manufacturing. There are obvious limits to what you can achieve when the opposition can run decapitation strikes every few months.
> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA
the same thing the media keeps asking trump: what do these things matter?
there's a meaningful change to iran's negotiating position basically forever into the future: the US cannot impose sanctions without also banning states from using the strait, and its clear what states will choose between the two. I still dont think they care about nukes, but now they can keep enriching as much uranium as they want to 60% and they can use that as a negotiation chip for something else.
the US and israel are not nearly the threats they were a month ago, not just iran has paid the costs of war
the real problem for iran is that now they actually have to deliver good stuff for their citizens - for all the western bluster, its still a democracy, and they do have to hydrate their population
It's not clear to me they are much less of a threat than they ever were, but it's also not clear to me they were ever much of a threat.
They did everything they could in this war, didn't they, and apparently it didn't do too too much? (other than the economic damage of closing the strait, which seems to be what worked). But I think they could probably keep doing everything they've been doing still? (including controlling the strait).
> Iran is a shell of the threat it was a month ago.
That's why it is crippling the entire world's economy and demanding concessions bigger than the status quo ante bellum, with the US powerless to stop it. Because it's no threat.
> 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
You've been paying attention to what's happened over the last few weeks and you qualify that threat as impotent? That impotent threat basically brought the rest of the world to it's knees.
They hit like 20 ships, people died. That’s why insurance went up. Literally the US navy will not go near the strait due to the ballistic missile threat.
With battery tech going the way its going in two years how far do you think these drones will fly? Enough to hit all surrounding countries and cause chaos. There is also the Al bab whatever its called strait as well to shutdown.
I worry this war has only made things worse in every regard and pulling out at a time like this is also bad. The reason no one wanted to get into this position is because it takes some fucked shit and some pain to get out properly.
That's asymmetric warfare basically. The regime is more or less intact. There are no US booths on the ground. And Iran just demonstrated it can majorly disrupt international energy markets by blocking the strait of Hormuz more or less indefinitely. With a major power like the US seemingly unable to prevent that or put a stop to it militarily.
Painting this as a victory for Iran would be a stretch. But they definitely did not lose either.
This is something that keeps on happening to the US. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are all conflicts where the US won militarily and then had to withdraw anyway. Vietnam is still ruled by the communists, Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban once more, and the regime in Iraq is nominally Iran supported and not exactly on the best of terms with the US either. This conflict seems to be a repeat of past mistakes. The US went in, bombed the shit out of stuff for a few weeks and only then steps back to literally think "Now what?!". It could have done that a few months ago and saved us all the trouble of having to deal with this BS.
Painting this as a US victory is also quite a stretch. Iran never really posed a credible military threat beyond its borders. Nor did Afghanistan or Iraq. I think China might consider this a win though. And they definitely pose a non trivial military threat. Some historians might end up arguing the US took some long term strategic hits here for essentially very little meaningful gains. And we'll see in November how Republicans fare on the economic aftermath of what you might describe as a gigantic cluster f** at this point.
I think you are right. Leadership vacuum will not resolve by itself: Iran either will go democratic way or into some internal fights (this one more probable IMHO).
I don't think its a victory for either Iran or the US.
Iran suffered a lot of losses in terms of people and widescale destruction of infrastructure.
But the US lost too, we come out of this war looking much weaker and more chaotic than we did going in, not to mention the amount of money we poured into it while accomplishing nothing (nothing we destroyed in Iran was a threat to us until we bombed them in the first place).
iran paid costs they expected to pay beforehand, but the result of negotation is that they dont need to give the concessions they were previously willing to give.
thats a pretty clear win. they paid a heavy cost for it sure, and war is expensive, but as a negotiation tactic goes, doing the war was a success
1) Trump threatens stone age for Iran if they don't open the strait.
2) Iran agrees to open the strait if they're not attacked.
What happened here is they caved under Trump's threat but they're going to make it look like they're opening the strait on their terms, while Trump will make it look like they're opening the strait on his terms (which actually makes more sense, because if they didn't open the strait we'd have probably started bombing them)
And Iran's military hasn't been destroyed, they still control the strait. How do you explain that if they don't have a military?
We already attacked Iran twice during "talks," is there any indication that we mean it this time, or are we just going to bomb them again while negotiations are ongoing?
They underestimated Iran's unique mix of capabilities and strategy. It's not that Iran is undefeatable but it seems that the price is going to be far too high both globally and especially regionally for the tiny coalition of Israel and the US to succeed in the long term.
I think it says something that the US paid such a high price to try to produce a "viral military campaign" video of a Uranium heist. Straight out of the cold war. The palatable options must be steadily dwindling.
This coalition is "tiny" insofar NATO & the GCC (well, apart from Bahrain and the UAE) refused to join the attacks, despite Iran's transgressions. The US could wage this war for many years all alone, and force the GCC to watch as the region burned. I guess, Trump's administration isn't willing to go as far as the current Israeli leadership may have hoped or wanted. That said, the war could very well still flare up, if the events from past 2 years following "talks" are any indicator.
Ceasefires are not in place until they are in place. Before they are in place, war is still ongoing. Discussing a ceasefire does not mean there is a ceasefire currently.
I have a Naive question, "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"
> "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"
It gives the parties more room to manoeuvre with regards to the give and take that is often/usually necessary when it comes to negotiating. If you demand X at one point, but revert so you can get Y, then the absolutists will be outraged (either actually or performatively) that you are being "soft" and "weak", etc.
There are a lot of people who think in zero-sum, winner-take-all ways, which is generally not how the world of foreign relations works. And modern-day outrage machine will create more difficult situations if you give here and take there (ignoring the fact that the other side gives there and takes here in return) even though it may be necessary to get a result (even it it's not perfect).
Because most world leaders are actors. They put on a show to get elected or retain power. They don't want to look weak and want to spin the final outcome to their favor. That can include one side allowing the other to take credit for an idea that wasn't their's.
Because Trump’s war caused massive oil price hike, destabilised energy supply for the whole world, was extremely unpopular even amongst Maga and Iran regime showed that to beat them into submission you would have kill 92 million people making Trump a Hitier-level war criminal and US a global pariah.
It will be very difficult for Trump to start his war again. He is not thinking about US or even his supporters at this point, but his own legacy, but he is too dumb to understand when Israel and his own staff are lying to him.
That’s why Iran has a very strong position to go to the negotiations. You also killed all the more sensible people in the regime, so there’s only hardliners left. There is nothing to win US or Trump, everything to lose. Iran on the other hand only has to sit tight.
This is how a nation stops being a super power and an empire falls.
> Israel will also agree to the two-week ceasefire, Axios reported, citing an Israeli official, adding that the ceasefire would enter effect as soon as the blockade of the strait of Hormuz ceased
The US is one thing but there is no possible way Israel will stop bombing. They will openly say they will, and continue to do so. It just gives them more breathing room to calculate bigger and more serious strikes. Israel has literally nothing to lose. The US is taking all the heat for any actions in Iran. Israel and Iran are mortal enemies, one can not continue to exist while the other lives, this is how they view it. Iran wants Israel erased, Israel wants Iran erased. This isn't going to stop until one of them suffers catastrophic damage.
I believe from what I have heard and read that Israel will likely only stop if US formally withdraws military support in a sense that they stop supplying weapons (?)
If the war (population displacement / genocide / ethnic cleansing, you can call it however you want to) in Gaza has taught the world something is that the current Israeli regime is visceral and they clearly think they are above any international conventions. Of course they will not stop bombing any of its neighbors until we 1) stop funding and 2) start sanctioning them for their war crimes.
I wonder if regime change could help alleviate the tensions in the region.
Israel has a lot to lose, the question is only how much of the lost will be replaced by american taxpayers' money. They're almost out of anti-air interceptors, the war they started in lebanon is going badly and iran still has tens of thousands of drones left. There's also hamas and hezbollah and more and more of the world is turning against them, be it in proper politics or even mundane stuff like the eurovision.
The strict definition of the Geneva conventions does not include forced displacement but in some parts of the world that is included in the definition of. And legality is a matter of tribunal and none has been held so far.
Yes, seems a bit of a gap between US and Iranian opinions on the state of the strait. US says "open it", while Iran has for some time claimed it is open - only subject to conditions. Then, as you mention, the Israelis talk of an end to the blockade.
I foresee a possible relaxation of conditions on the strait by Iran while keeping their hand on the lever providing substantial leverage during any actual negotiations. I also note that it seems the US are considering Iranian demands - not the other way around. Even with that, Trumps' toughest negotiations may be with the Israelis.
There is no military solution to open the strait. The fact is that Iran is not unarmed children of Gaza. Iran has capability to hit back. Iran can set alight the gulf states and cripple the world economy. You can’t bomb your way through everything.
> There is no military solution to open the strait.
There is no cheap & fast military solution. There are certainly military solutions if you are ok with it taking a while or costing a lot of lives.
> Iran has capability to hit back
They have demonstrated they can make the surounding countries miserable. They arent capable of actually getting a military victory.
Which is why a deal is plausible. USA doesnt want to spend (in money and lives) what it would cost to open the strait. Iran demonstrates it can hit back enough to be annoying but not enough to force a victory. Sounds like neither side is exactly capable of "winning" (without us spending more than it wants), so a deal sounds plausible.
I can't figure out what was even USA goal in this war ? they have said everything and it's contrary, so there is no way to know if they won or if they lost. I guess it's a smart move.
But on the other hand,
Iran still has enriched uranium, nuclear facilities and now they even have put in the agreement a recognition of Iran's right to seek nuclear technology.
Iran missiles.. they still shoot them and there is nothing to prevent them to build more. They are going to get a big cash-flow with that control of the Detroit, recognized in the 10 point agreement.
Iran government has not been replaced. I'd say it's even stronger now that it 'won' the war (that's the way they're going to show it on national television) and they even asked to get UN sanctions lifted. That will bring them some legitimacy back.
What other usa war goal were proclaimed ?
I vaguely remember a national security thing where Iran was going to bomb America. I guess the war didn't prevent that because Iran did kill American soldiers and caused billions of $ in loss.
Iran goal on the other hand ?
Destroy the evil American ? They weren't going to anyway.
Survive ? I guess they did.
And now the population that was supporting their government is even more radicalized.
> Iran government has not been replaced. I'd say it's even stronger now that it 'won' the war (that's the way they're going to show it on national television) and they even asked to get UN sanctions lifted. That will bring them some legitimacy back.
That's the thing, winning depends on your goals.
Iran's goal was to survive as a country, and the autocratic theocracy that rules it to stay in charge. Not only it managed that so far, but it now effectively controls the flow of all exports going through the gulf. It is an actual victory.
US' goals were unclear. A lot was said. Regime change? Stop Iran's nuclear program? Stop its support to proxies in the region? Take Kharg Island? None of that was done. It was a deafeat.
Israel's goal is murder. It murdered a lot of people during this war. Double points for murdering children. I think Israel can also claim victory here.
1. They replaced the decrepit Khameini with a much younger and more formidable Khameini.
2. “Pulled a Ukraine” vs the US showing defiance and have now rallied any wavering regime supporters against the American and Jewish “devils”.
3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.
4. Showed everyone in the ME and the world that if anyone messes with them they’ll close the straight. Then gas prices go up. Then your own domestic pop gets pissed. Then your chances of re-election drop.
5. Destabilised the whole region costing the ME lots and lots of money.
I'm no fan of this administration but another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases. Actually it shows that the US could eliminate the leadership at its leisure even if it can't hand select the replacements. I'm also not sure the powers that be in the ME hate the rising oil prices.
Again, not a fan of the situation and while I think it is the US's loss I do not really see how it is a win for Iran.
That's not a US specific strength though, anybody with the ability to strike someone with shorter range than theirs can do that. I.e. Netherland can destabilize South America through attacking Panama and its very unlikely that Netherlands will be bombed.
Sure, when US Brazil etc. are pissed off enough, Netherland can just TACO like the US did.
China and Russia can do the exactly same thing to Iran too and Iran won't be bombing Moscow or Beijing either.
It might demonstrate madness though, which in same cases can be useful.
This is an insane take. Why would Netherlands do this when America exists? And even if they didn't rest on their laurels and let America do it, they would not be able to establish a kill chain the way USA can, and so they would need American support. And even if they forewent the support, they would be denounced on the global stage and suffer massively economically. You are massively underestimating just how much liberty USA has to say YOLO and do whatever it wants.
Russia has established that it cannot in fact do this! That is why the two week special operation has gone on for so long.
China? It remains to be seen.
For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.
Maybe the Dutch are willing to risk it all to annoy the libs so they will elect and transfer all the power to a complete clown and attempt to make some money on the stock market and betting sites in the process.
I don't think parent is arguing that is a wise or prudent thing to do, but merely that violence is very much accessible to the state as an option. Just because it is not exercised with reckless abandon like, especially more recently, in the case of US, does not mean it suddenly does not exist.
<< For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.
You are wrong in general on this point. European countries in general have a long and exciting history of imposing its will upon others ( unilaterally and not ).
> For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.
I don't think that is a correct take away.
assuming that this ceasefire holds (big fucking if) it proves that the US is unable to defend it's self and allies against sustained drone attack.
Part of the reason why the middle east's US allies are allied is the implicit deal that they won't fuck with the oil supply, and the US will protect them against their enemies.
In the 90s, the USA would park a few carriers in the gulf and project complete air superiority. They can't do that anymore, and now needs land bases controlled by allies who the USA openly despises.
China doesn't need to bomb places to make its will felt. It's slowly and subtly built out bases over the south sea, effectively fortifying areas that are not chinas. They have also pretty much compromised most of the telecommunications infra through the various typhoons. (I've also heard rumours that intelligence agencies are leaking like a sieve as well.)
Part of the reason that WWI happened was because a massive military power tried to crush a "primitive" opponent, they fucked it up and demanded help from its allies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cer this then dragged everyone into a massive fuckup.
> For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.
It literally lost and wasted huge amount of resources in the process. Everyone else politely nodded until insulted too much, but otherwise ignored what USA wanted. When insulted, they exchanged some words while continuing to practically ignore what USA wants.
US, in the past (eg - iraq) has shown that it can destabilize a region without any effects to the US, not even a mild price increase domestically. So this one is a big degradation from that earlier stance.
It’s not the ME countries who are profiting, because they can’t export. So it’s a net loss. (Saudi and oman win a bit, but in no comparison to the iraq kuwait loss)
The winners are mostly: Russia, Iran itself and (margibally) the US. But mostly Russia.
The biggest winner is China. Countries/people who have any common sense will switch to solar, induction stoves (replacing LPG/LNG), batteries, electric vehicles (of all kinds). China is the only supplier of solar, batteries, EVs and all things electric with everyone else being a rounding error.
But that's what has changed. Even short term solar is becoming the obvious solution. Look at countries like Pakistan and their solar hyper growth.
Everybody thought it has to be western countries (mostly europe) switching to solar first. But west might actually be last to get off fossil because they can afford it and populist politics will force fossil. It's like burning fossil for nostalgia.
Ya, look at what happened in Nepal, poor access to oil via India, who imports it themselves, but lots of hydro potential. China being next door with an actual rail and truck connection, and cheap EVs.
The developing world has the potential to achieve developed living standards for a much cheaper price, while the west rots away catering to vested interests.
Russia has banned the export of gasoline starting April 1st, because hits on infrastructure by Ukraine are causing internal shortages. They may be profiting in some other way but it’s unlikely through major exports.
Over the past few months their oil facilities have been heavily attacked. It’s hard to believe they’re actually making a big profit from this in the short term.
The US isn’t winning. The owners of us oil companies may have won a little. Commodity gamblers won a lot by knowing what Trump would say and betting before he said it.
The US government and population have lost a lot of wealth.
The Islamic regem lost all its legitimacy in Jan. Even some loyalist where angry at them but they gain support of part of the people and found a reason to exist as the defender of the country.
They will survive and become stronger particularly if they get an economic lifeline out of this peace deal.
If that's true, that's because of propaganda. Look at the oil futures contracts: the stock market bet trillions on that Iran's blocking of the strait of Hormuz is something that can be worked around in ~3 months, and we will entirely stop caring in ~1 year (stop caring = oil back below $70 per barrel)
Their army is decimated to the point that they put guns in the hands of the wives and children of killed soldiers and marched them into checkpoints and military positions, and a bunch of them ran away rather than agree to that.
Iran came in with 5 demands:
* cessation of hostilities against Iran and all proxies
* security guarantees for Iran and all it's proxies
* removal of US military bases from the middle east
* war reparations paid to the IRGC
* permanent tax on the strait of Hormuz
They are now down to zero demands. Well, down to the one demand that is the definition of a ceasefire. The only thing they want is a cessation of hostilities against Iran proper. They get to stop dying. That's it. They got a temporary ceasefire. Israel is now free to keep hammering Hezbollah. Syria is free to keep hammering Syrian "shi'a groups" and should the US want to show the Houthi's who's boss, Iran won't help them (not that Iran was ever going to help them militarily, but this implies they also won't even close hormuz again)
If this holds, everyone's going to be totally surprised at the obvious consequences:
1) Europe and even China owe a great debt of gratitude to the US (yes, really) (not that the CCPs gratitude has ever lasted more than a few months, but still)
2) Putin will be absolutely furious, since he's now betrayed by both the EU and Iran's islamists, and will go into full preparations to attack Europe. What I mean to say is, he may do something drastic. He has lost 2 allies in less than 4 months, and didn't have many to begin with. Reassert Russia's power? Russia wasn't even able to increase oil production!
(Which is yet another reason the EU will suddenly appear very cooperative with the US)
I'm curious which way Russian propaganda will turn. Will they betray Iran because they're now useless for Russia's war in Ukraine? Will they maybe tell themselves they can make Iran's islamists keep fighting? Will they push for terror attacks in Europe? I imagine there's a scene playing out in Russia, but probably not in Moscow right now with Putin doing his best "nein, nein, nein" impression and opening a window ...
It helps the discussion if you would correctly restate what has been agreed. The first obvious mistake is that the US have agreed Iran can charge tax on ships passing the strait; at 32000 ships a year and a nominal $2M, that amounts to $64B alone, doubling their revenue from oil exports and making any foreign currency they like appear in their accounts.
And no, Europe and others definitely do not owe you any debt for this catastrophic war of choice (that still, they enabled! good luck flying there without them!). You will permanently lose many of the ME states to China.
There’s a good argument that European counties should be taking Trump to court and sanctioning him personally for the damage caused by a war he started.
Not sure which world you're in, but Iran has put forward a 10-point demand plan, and it looks like the US (or rather Trump) will likely accept all of them instead of getting stuck in a quagmire before elections.
Yeah, they did. Did you compare to their original 5 point plan? Their 10 point plan sounds like they've given up removing US bases, taxing Hormuz AND the safety of their proxy armies. No "right" to nuclear bombs (sorry "power stations"). No reparation payments. No removal of US bases.
Any agreement with Iran doesn't matter anyway, because Iran hasn't held up it's previous agreements, so there's no real long term point to any agreement. I wonder if they'll let the US clean up their nuclear stockpile and their centrifuges. That is the real question that matters to the west: does the US (or someone trustworthy) get to go in and remove that shit? Does the US (or someone trustworthy) get to go in and demine Hormuz?
(oh sorry, did propagandists claim Iran didn't mine Hormuz? Well, they lied. And we could point out that that is yet another islamist warcrime ... but what's the point? Frankly it's a pathetic warcrime compared to what they do to people in Iran itself, Syria and Yemen)
> According to state media, Iran will only accept the war’s conclusion once details are finalised in line with a 10-point peace plan reportedly submitted to the White House via Pakistani intermediaries.
> The list of 10 points, published by Iranianstate media, include a number of conditions the US has rejected in the past. The plan requires:
> The lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions on Iran.
> Continued Iranian control over the strait of Hormuz.
> US military withdrawal from the Middle East.
> An end to attacks on Iran and its allies.
> The release of frozen Iranian assets.
> A UN security council resolution making any deal binding.
> In the version released in Farsi, Iran also included the phrase “acceptance of enrichment” for its nuclear program. But for reasons that remain unclear, that phrase was missing in English versions shared by Iranian diplomats to journalists.
> I'm no fan of this administration but another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases.
Oil spiked over 40% at its peak and US gas prices are up 25-35%, and that's before things got to the point where there were "real" supply issues. I don't know how you can reasonably consider this "mild".
> Actually it shows that the US could eliminate the leadership at its leisure even if it can't hand select the replacements.
Everyone and their brother has known that the US can assassinate virtually any world leader if it really wants to. The question you haven't answered is: to what end?
> I'm also not sure the powers that be in the ME hate the rising oil prices.
Notwithstanding the fact that this situation only increases the attractiveness of oil alternatives, you're missing a few points, including:
1. If oil prices rise too much, too fast, it leads to demand destruction. Nobody captures the higher profits for long because the global economy falls into recession if oil stays above a certain price point.
2. Price stability is just as important as price.
3. Significant long-term damage was done to oil infrastructure and Iran demonstrated how easily infrastructure can be effectively targeted despite all of the advantages its neighbors have in terms of American support, American defense technology, etc.
Your comment also doesn't consider the geopolitical costs of this "excursion". The administration's actions have further alienated America's strongest allies (except for Israel) and added fuel to the "America is undependable" fire. This is good news for China:
> China surpassed the United States in global leadership approval ratings last year, as Donald Trump's second administration began its term in earnest, according to a new Gallup survey.
> The polling firm reported Thursday that the median global approval rating for Chinese leadership stood at 36% in its 2025 world survey, exceeding the 31% recorded for U.S. leadership. It marked the first time in 20 years that China's approval rating topped that of the United States by more than 5 percentage points.
If we're being honest, there are no winners in war but since we live in a world that likes to have winners and losers, a loss for the US is a victory for Iran.
Not only has Iran managed to survive being battered by the most powerful military in history, it has:
1. Created a global energy and economic crisis.
2. Effectively demonstrated that it can control the Strait of Hormuz even without much naval and air firepower. In doing so, it showed that the US Navy is not capable of controlling the seas anywhere and anytime.
3. Caused the US and its allies to spend billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons systems (many of which were already in short supply) to defend against much cheaper drones and missiles.
4. Incited Trump to lash out at the European countries that have historically been America's biggest allies, accelerating the trend of America's now possibly irreparably damaged relationships with these countries.
5. Baited Trump into publicly and belligerently positioning the US as a hostile state willing to threaten war crimes/genocide to get its way.
A lot of Iran’s victory simply revolves around Trump being so incompetent. But then again any president with half a brain wouldn’t touch a war with Iran given our negative experience in the region fighting much weaker countries.
I think I broadly agree with you. Even if we accept the premise that it is not a win for anyone in a war ( there are counters here, but lets say that we accept it ), the reputational damage to US is hard to be overstated. I am not entirely certain some of it will be salvaged. That is how bad it is.
I am not a fan of Trump, but I was mostly ambivalent about most of his escapades. He clearly got really lucky with Venezuela and it went to his head.
$2MM per tanker for safe passage is an extra $100 billion a year in revenue, which is peanuts next to the world's de facto acknowledgement that Iran now has sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz and can charge whatever it wants. The ceasefire also includes lifting all sanctions on Iran, and notably says nothing about its nuclear program, which becomes de facto acceptance of its right to continue it to its logical endpoint of Iran becoming a nuclear power.
Before this started, it was impossible to imagine that Iran could achieve all this. It's hard to how this isn't a massive win for Iran.
> to the world's de facto acknowledgement that Iran now has sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz
That people thought the sovereign waters of a nation were not their sovereign waters absolutely blows my mind. Is it poor schooling, some kind of warped world view?
> That people thought the sovereign waters of a nation were not their sovereign waters absolutely blows my mind. Is it poor schooling, some kind of warped world view?
Because they are not? Oman clearly shares a part of it.
its also the sovereign waters of oman as well, its just oman outsources its military to the USA, who didn't have the ability to enforce its sovereignty.
But this was a know risk, and there are at least 20 years of plans, thoughts risk assessments for the Strait of Hormuz. Had the state department not fired everyone, or the DoD not fired all its strategic advisors, they'd have been able to tell the exec all of these problems.
1. $2MM is their initial demand, expect it to be negotiated down.
2. There is a lot of missing details. Most ships transiting the Hormuz are Asian. Will Iran also charge China, their ally, or will they get a discount? And countries like Pakistan and India who have been neutral to slightly Iran-leaning? Can the US even "sign" such an agreement on behalf of the world? As far as non-parties to the conflict are concerned, Iran's toll is literal highway robbery.
3. "Lifting all sanctions" is again Iran's initial negotiating position. Most likely, the final agreement will keep some sanctions.
> As far as non-parties to the conflict are concerned, Iran's toll is literal highway robbery.
Yes.
But before the US started this stupid war, everyone knew that Iran had strategic control over the strait, and Iran reasoned that if they were to impose a toll on ships passing the strait, the rest of the world would gang up and bomb the shit out of them, removing their strategic control of the strait. So it was kept open.
But now the US went in and bombed the shit out of them anyway, whereupon Iran discovered that despite that, the US wasn't able to secure the strait. What they previously feared turned out to be manageable. They can close the strait, and the cost of stopping them is much, much higher than the US, or any other country wants to bear.
So the rest of the world is choosing between joining the US' illegal fiasco of a war in Iran to help open the strait, or simply paying the comparably tiny toll the Iranians are asking for, in return for oil shipments resuming immediately. So far, everyone is choosing #2.
As a bonus, Iran has also discovered that they can break through the defences of the other gulf states and legitimately threaten their oil facilities, desalination plants, and other infrastructure. Previously, the mostly US-supplied missile defences they had was assumed to be 100% effective, but by testing it, Iran now knows that they're not.
And all of this because the US, in its hubris and arrogance, assumed Iran was as defenceless and vulnerable as Venezuela, and that it would work out splendidly like that time. Idiocy.
<< And all of this because the US, in its hubris and arrogance, assumed Iran was as defenceless and vulnerable as Venezuela, and that it would work out splendidly like that time. Idiocy.
This. It is hard to express the level of exasperation past few week brought. The move left US in a notably worse strategic position than when it began.
Just because there are no worthwhile violent means by which to stop Iran from putting a toll booth in international waters doesn't mean that it can do it at no cost.
Doing this is going to make Iran a global pariah and piss off its only ally, China, who has to pay 70% of the toll (ostensibly, unless they cut a deal).
Another question is, how is Iran going to enforce this?
It doesn't seem Iran still has a navy that could board ships and force them to stop without actual violence.
What happens if a tanker decides to not pay and chance it? Will Iran sink it? That would constitute an act of war (a reprise of the war). Hard to pull off politically (even if it's easy to do technically).
$2m is the current toll that Iran has already successfully charged any ships it allows. It amounts to an extra $1/barrel, so it's a trivial tax in comparison to what the supply shock is causing in fluctuations. China has already paid, and will happily pay going forward if it stabilizes the supply chain.
Expect it to go higher as negotiations cement Iran's highway robbery. Which, yes, it is highway robbery, but it's robbery no one is able to stop without invading and occupying Iran to execute proper regime change... which no one, least of all the US, is stepping up to do.
The U.S. has lost all negotiating leverage. It's been demonstrated that they're unable to militarily impose their will on Iran, and they're far more sensitive to economic disruption than Iranians are--who are, as I type this, forming human shield rings around vital bridges and facilities, ready to die if the U.S. bombs them. Negotiations are, at this point, about the U.S. coming away with some face-saving outcomes.
They're happily paying it because it is a wartime toll.
Consider also the renewed impetus for pipelines on the Arabian peninsula to bypass the strait.
Consider that China has now recognized this as a point of weakness and will be finding ways to reduce or eliminate their exposure.
There is only one permanent solution to blackmail. Shelling out the extortion money is only a temporary one. Blockading international waters is super illegal.
> Consider that China has now recognized this as a point of weakness and will be finding ways to reduce or eliminate their exposure.
China has always seen its need to import oil as a weakness and has been working on solutions to that, solutions it is now very happy to export to other countries that now recognize the threat as well. This war is a huge boon to China which probably helped it avert a recession that was otherwise going to happen this year or next.
The only real shocker is that the USA (well, the MAGA crowd) refuse to see this as a weakness. We have a way to literally make the Middle East irrelevant, and yet we’ve decided to pull back on our anemic (in comparison to China) efforts in moving in that direction.
China has understood their dependency on seaborne oil for years and been actively working to mitigate it with EVs etc. Their electricity mix is coal, renewables and nuclear with not a lot of natural gas.
International law doesn't really exist and if it did, the US and particularly Israel have committed far worse violations (including the most taboo one of all, genocide). Redrawing some borders on a nautical chart by force is minor in comparison
There are already pipelines in the Arabian Peninsula. None of those help - on the contrary, they are more vulnerable than tankers. The Houthis have already targeted the Saudi pipelines in the past.
The only possible solution would be underground pipelines but a.) sunk costs into existing pipelines, b.) capex needed is much higher, c.) you can't transport all of the oil and gas, or even a significant fraction of it through standard sized pipelines.
Saudi Arabia will invest into a port on the Jeddah side, that's for certain.
So is declaring that you won't abide by the Geneva Conventions, targeting civilian infrastructure and double tapping a girls' school, but here we are at the logical conclusion of the dumbest war in centuries.
If you consider the topology, it is way less viable.
If you go through UAE (the narrow part) you are attempting to build a canal through mountains and desert.
Any other route (the non narrow parts) would just be 3-4x the length of the Suez Canal but through a desert, but since its not sea level the whole way, with locks (which means more water... again, desert), and at the end forces you through an even narrower strait at the end (Bab-el-Mandeb). The Houthis in Yemen have blasted Israeli-affiilated ships in that strait before, and they are Iran-backed.
Also, even if any of that were done: As ACOUP pointed out, the problem is not just the strait itself. Iran controls the entire eastern coast of the gulf and could harass ships from any location there. Even if ships could somehow bypass the strait, they'd still be in danger as long as they are in the gulf.
Essentially, Iran showed it can control most of the gulf if it wants to.
You can't cross the Arabian peninsula to the Red Sea either as there's also a mountain range on the west of it.
The only viable passage would be through the center of Oman (no mountain here) but that would be a gigantic canal. And that wouldn't really solve the issue, as the Iranians could easily block the canal as long as it is within reach of their drones and ballistic missile: you just need to hit one ship in the canal to effectively block it.
Now imagine how the international community feels about the toll - “sure would be nice if Iran’s leadership was replaced so we don’t have to pay a toll for an international waterway”.
The whole situation further isolates Iran globally (they were already isolated before the war).
Now imagine how the international community feels about the US starting a war of aggression against Iran without even consulting with its allies and trading partners beforehand.
The whole situation further isolates the US globally (they were already isolated before the war due to threats of taking Greenland, making Canada the 51st state, leaving NATO, etc.).
How do you know allies and trading partners weren’t consulted? Of course they were! The US had to get overflight permission the first day.
Iran had long been a thorn in the side of Europe and the Middle East countries. There is no love lost if the US decides to attack Iran. Most US allies would welcome deposing the current Iranian regime.
The US is anything but isolated. Notice how happy Europe is now that the US is bankrolling the Ukraine war?
Don’t confuse public statements intended for local consumption with what’s happening behind the scenes. Countries will happily talk tough to keep their own people happy all the while partnering behind the scenes.
> Notice how happy Europe is now that the US is bankrolling the Ukraine war?
The US is not currently bankrolling Ukraine in the way it was in 2022–2024. Under Donald Trump, no new large aid packages have been approved, and support now largely consists of delivering previously authorised funds and equipment.
The $2m toll per strait crossing, at 120 ships a day, is going to pay dividends in perpetuity for them. Their economic situation is now actually better than it was pre-war.
> (...) another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases.
I'm afraid you are yet to experience the real impact of this war. The actual effect of closing the strait hasn't hit your wallet yet. It's a repeat of the same old tariff bullshit.
Also, Iran did inflicted heavy damage on some of the infrastructure of US's allies. You will start to feel that in a few months.
The only party that clearly stood to benefit from this event was Putin's regime. Orban is not the only vassal at his command.
You weren't paying attention because that's what the US does since decades... Just now it impacts Western countries directly (Ukraine and Iran come to mind)
I'd say more like a loss for the US than a win for Iran.
> 4. Showed everyone in the ME and the world that if anyone messes with them they’ll close the straight. Then gas prices go up. Then your own domestic pop gets pissed. Then your chances of re-election drop.
Everyone knew from the beginning that closing the strait was something Iran would do. But it is current US government that is either inept or too smart for their own good and thought with US producing surplus oil for domestic use, it will not impact them. They didn't care for the consequences and it came back to bite them.
Also, wasn't it that even if the war was stop/ceasefire oil prices will take a long time to recover? If that is true the domestic pop getting pissed might be true even with this ceasefire and it will hurt the current government in their upcoming elections.
> 3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.
More like galvanized people against a common enemy. Regime is going to come down hard on the protestors than ever before and some might find it easier to blame the power which claimed to deliver the regime change. Then Americans will talk about how Iranians hate their way of life and the attack was justified.
> thought with US producing surplus oil for domestic use
I have to assume that at least someone in the room was well aware that all oil is not created equal and that US refineries were designed from the beginning for Venezuelan and similar oil rather than US oil.
That's why I said either inept or too smart for their own good because closing of the strait was a real threat before the war and was ignored, leading to the tweet on Easter.
Even if US refineries were designed for US oil to keep domestic prices low one would have to introduce export restrictions because oil is a global commondity. Big oil will not be happy about that and it seems they have a great influence over the respublican party and Trump.
I think you're mostly right, except maybe a bit misinformed on #1. The younger Khamenei is, according to recent reports, in a very unstable condition, has likely never actually had an input on the leadership of Iran so far, and his future state is uncertain.
So I think there will be another leader elected soon.
> So I think there will be another leader elected soon.
That alone is another clear sign of Iran's ruling regime emerging as the clear victor. Not only there was no regime change but also their primary regional and global antagonists tried their hardest and completely failed to overthrow them.
Moreover, some neighboring countries who were in the US sphere of influence were very quick to fold and remove themselves from the conflict, while others saw their primary economy attacked by Iran and helplessly so.
Forget about Iranian regime's internal opposition. So did the US.
Is there any question on who emerged the clear winner?
1. A power struggle is more likely than an election. Even if an election, it would be a bit Putinesque considering the IRGC has killed 30k protesters this year, that likely included any viable opposition leaders.
2. Only Qatar, and it is speculated because it was one of 3 countries in the region not intimated by the US about the attack, and they aren't very happy about that.
This is mostly true, but I have to push back against the 30k number. That's a number that only the US regime has been touting. HRANA has verified about 7000.
> I think you're mostly right, except maybe a bit misinformed on #1. The younger Khamenei is, according to recent reports, in a very unstable condition, has likely never actually had an input on the leadership of Iran so far, and his future state is uncertain.
> So I think there will be another leader elected soon.
What does that have to do with anything? The USA (my country, sadly) provoked a far smaller nation and was proved incapable of dominance.
Trump will claim victory, but it's not what they thought they'd get.
Still looking at the details, but this morning, one of the biggest French newspapers was basically headlining (a slightly more polite version of) TACO.
Not a good image for the US around the world, including its (former?) allies, I guess.
One should never draw a redline they aren't willing to cross. Trump of all people should know this, he gave Obama shit for years over the uninforced redline with Syria over chemical weapon use.
To Trump, when someone else does something, it's worthy of reproach, but when Trump himself does it, it's the cleverest 4D chess anyone could ever imagine.
This war (not the ceasefire) is basically a loss for the USA. Many people don't yet grasp the scale of the reputational, economic, and power damage that has occurred and will continue to occur.
Just the attack on data centers has caused certain conversations in my circles that basically comes to down to some guys will try to get off of foreign clouds and into local hosting in their own countries (most seems keen for co-location hosting because of the static ip ranges & other admin sugar and reliable power; not concerned about hardware pricing as the hardware is less than 10% of the equation). All thanks to a couple attacks on data centers that we are not even hosting on.
It's very hard for me to see this war (regardless of final outcome) as anything other than a massive strategic loss for the USA. The US has spent a stunning amount of materiel and political capital to achieve nothing of lasting benefit to themselves, and have killed thousands while further destabilising and impoverishing the region. A catastrophic outcome.
It's absolutely possible for both sides in a major conflict to lose, and they've managed to do so in this case.
I disagree. Iran was about to lose. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare.
Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, pay salaries, run a business, have running water, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food, people will starve; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots bigger than the ones seen in January.
The Iranian government would have no ability to coordinate a response, and Iran would collapse within a week. The country would devolve into chaos, into paramilitary factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.
The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.
Once Iran showed it had no ability to prevent the US/Israel from doing a indiscriminate bombing campaign, it was clear the US and Israel could always win this war through this outcome.
It never had any ability to prevent an indiscriminate bombing campaign, and never did. And nobody ever thought otherwise.
It only ever had to prove it could keep the strait closed. Which it did. And now the americans are going away, and they can get back to hanging students from cranes.
The USA has failed to achieve any of its strategic goals, and is going home, defeated.
The conflict is far from over, this ceasefire is unsustainable as neither side wants to agree to the demands of the other.
A ceasefire mostly benefits the US, since it can bring in more military assets across the globe. Ships and troops are still weeks away from arriving & being able to participate in combat operations.
A negotiated settlement is preferable to total destruction of the Iranian economy, and large destruction in the middle east, by all parties involved.
I expect the conflict to resume after two weeks, or later this year, after midterms.
…except very few died. The Iranian and US casualties and entire ME casualties since the operation started combined are less than 15% of the Iranian citizens slaughtered a month before this all started.
Do we not care about deaths anymore? Avoiding war and death is a win for everyone.
They did not manage to bomb Germany, North Korea, or North Vietnam into submission and they tried for years. Winning through bombing alone has never worked.
Do not underestimate the effects of modern precision bombing, the technology moved forward (especially if we compare it with II. world war). Today it's much easier to destroy any kind of infrastructure, power plants, bridges, dams, water preparation facilities, waste treatment, cement, steel production, food silos, fuel storage, vehicle manufacturing, etc.
This is very important because, population in cities is much more dependent on infrastructure, than rural population. Rural population is mostly self sufficient. Over 60% of Iranians live today in cities, but under 20% of Vietnamese lived in cities at the time of Vietnam war. Vietnam was also strongly supported by China, with transportation using Laos and Cambodian.
So a large scale bombing of all Iranian infrastructure would probable not cause the fall of the regime, because they have the guns and can take anything they want, but the suffering and famine of Iranian people would be enormous.
Sometimes large scale bombing causes submission, for example fire-bombing of Japanese cities (atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in the scale of destruction and loss of life comparable to Tokyo fire bombing, only much cheaper in the number of airplanes).
My point is that you can't bomb a country into submission. You can use strategic air power in addition to other methods, but the bombing alone was proven again and again to fail. More often than not, it hardens the enemy's resolve.
Bombing Britain failed. Bombing Germany failed (except for dragging the Luftwaffe into a war of attrition). Bombing Japan failed on its own until Japan had no navy left afloat, and the Russians savaged their army in China. The bomb accelerated a victory achieved through other means.
In Korea, Americans levelled cities and infrastructure until there was nothing left to bomb. That did not win the war.
In Vietnam, Linebacker failed. Linebacker II bought slightly more favourable terms for the US in negotiations, but in the end, North Vietnam won.
Even the Desert Storm curbstomp would not have worked without boots on the ground.
Yes bombing of Japan was a factor in surrender, but not the only one. Destruction of much industry, destruction of navy, all their allies were defeated. There were preparations for invasion of Japan or continuous atomic bombing, if Japan would not surrender.
"Two more Fat Man assemblies were readied and scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 11 and 14 August"
"At Los Alamos Laboratory, technicians worked 24 hours straight to cast another plutonium core. Although cast, it still needed to be pressed and coated, which would take until 16 August. Therefore, it could have been ready for use on 19 August."
The rate of bomb production was one of the Manhattan Project’s most closely guarded secrets. Expected rate of production by General Groves:
"The production rate of 3 bombs per month in August was expected to rise to 5 bombs per month in November, and 7 bombs per month in December. In 1946, it could rise much higher."
"In Vietnam, the same problem complicated any effort at industrial bombing: the factories that supplied the North Vietnamese forces (both the regular PAVN and irregular NLF) were in China and especially the USSR. Moreover the population was not broadly dependent on centralized utilities (like electricity) which could be bombed."
The article tries to apply lesson from past bombing campaigns to war in Ukraine, but this don't apply because Russia could not establish air supremacy over Ukraine and could not apply large scale heavy bombing. And I hope that they never will...
No, it would achieve the three primary goals of this conflict.
It would cause catastrophic economic damage to Iran, and given how politically unstable Iran currently is (millions of people rioted earlier this year), the regime would not survive the oncoming civil unrest.
It would be a humanitarian disaster, but from the US/Israel's point of view, it would be a victory. An Iran with no electricity has no capacity for industry, and has no ability to manufacture missiles, drones, or have a nuclear program.
Without ability to manufacture missiles, Iran would be unable coerce people to buy into it's Hormuz transit toll system, and the strait would reopen.
This weakened Iran would have no ability to produce nukes, close the strait, and make missiles; for at least a decade while they recover economically.
> This weakened Iran would have no ability […], close the strait, […]
Here is where we disagree. And i think this is the only point which matters.
I agree with you that the US always had the ability to destroy Iranian civilian infrastructure. I agree with you that doing so would cause catastrophic economic damage, civilian unrest, regime overthrow etc. It would seriously disrupt their nuclear program for sure.
What it wouldn’t do is reopen the strait. As long as some ships pay the toll those monies can be used to pay the “warfighters” and their weapons. It is relatively cheap to do so. Ukraine demonstrated this with their unmanned surface vessels. This they can do even if the whole hinterland of Iran is in flames and turmoil.
In fact the more their economy collapses the more lucrative this coastal piracy “business” relatively to other opportunities becomes. People who “before the bombing” had better things to do will find that shaking down foreign ships is still doable “after the bombing”. Some of it will be out of ideology and hate for sure, destroying all the civilian infra of a country tends to whip up emotions in people. But fundamentally they can keep doing it because it is a business which pays.
And regime overthrow won’t help with this either. In the absence of a strong central coordinating force you might get multiple separate pirate outfits camping at different parts of the coast trying to take tolls. That obviously wouldn’t improve their economic success, but would increase chaos and hinder transportation even more.
In short while the USA could destroy Iran as a nation, doing so would not eliminate the threat to shipping in the region.
Iran's "toll booth" only functions because they shoot missiles at ships that don't pay up. If they didn't shoot missiles, nobody would pay. They have no legal ability to do this; the strait is split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. Iran does not have legal control over Omani waters. Actually enforcing their "toll" means firing missiles at ships in Omani waters who don't pay. It's a combination of piracy, terrorism, and an act of war (violation of Omani sovereignty).
This situation is unacceptable for every other Gulf country. It may not be dealt with in the coming weeks, but will be addressed in the coming months, in a similar fashion to how Somali piracy was neutralized.
Also, a neutered Iran would not have the capability of producing anti-ship missiles, which is the primary enforcement mechanic of this toll.
"Without ability to manufacture missiles, Iran would be unable coerce people to buy into it's Hormuz transit toll system, and the strait would reopen."
You don't need missiles to keep Hormuz closed. Cheap drones, naval mines and such are enough, and those don't require that much production capabilities, especially if you get some help from Russia. It's enough to hit a ship every now and then, which keeps the insurers away.
Even without any infrastructure IRGC could wage a guerrilla war for a long time.
In an industrial collapse scenario people in Iran, including IRGC, might have something more urgent than antagonizing ships. Things like subsistence farming.
That's not something I would cheer for. For what it's worth, this did not Germany, Japan, North Korea or Vietnam to collapse. What makes this time different?
Putting aside the fact that the humanitarian disaster you envision would not produce the simple result you expect, it's quite disturbing that you have completely glossed over the fact that destroying Iran's ability to produce electricity is a war crime.
Committing an act of genocide against a country of 90+ million people would be the death of the US as we know it.
Ah yes, a comment from the morality police. According to international law, if the electrical grid directly enables Iran's military, then it is a valid military target. In every major conflict since WWII, electrical infrastructure has been targeted. This includes WWII, the Korean war, Vietnam War, Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf wars, 2003 Iraq War, and the Russo-Ukrainian War.
So no, it's not automatically a war crime, it's a case-by-case basis.
And claims of "genocide" from are laughable and ludicrous, the target is the IRGC, and regime change. If they wanted genocide there are far more effective ways to do so.
This is a textbook definition of terrorism. That the military uses the civilian infrastructure is a justification that not even the US tried to use. This is pure terror bombing, and they admitted as much.
Russia bombing civilian infrastructure does not make it "not a war crime". The fact is, USA and Israel did committed war crimes here and planned to commit more of them.
And yes, according to international law. No, you do not get to bomb desalination plants, eletricity plans, universities, hospitals, bridges and schools and claim "it is not a war crime because soldiers in area exist".
Well yes, if cruelty is the goal, bombing civilians is cruel.
If I'm not mistaken, the Obama administration was about to accomplish every single one of those goals with a treaty, which the Trump administration cancelled. Bombing a country into accepting terms that they had already agreed to is not that impressive.
The Iranian military is very decentralised and designed specifically with American capabilities in mind. So am not sure they would collapse. And a defending force is far less dependent on logistics in the short term. Also, Iran has a culture of sacrifice.
Iran and the US exist in a state of equilibrium of opposite strategies. The US is unwilling to risk its troops and sees sacrifice as weakness but otherwise applies maximal pressure. And Iran is willing to sacrifice its citizens and sees that as noble. And outside of a black swan event there is little hope of change.
Each side sees its enemies greatest military strength as a moral weakness and will keep fighting. Whilst conversely believing that sacrifice/maximal remote force may someday work. Iranians are not going to pivot because their culture has been forged as a response to exactly this kind of pressure. Nor will America suddenly see the sacrifices of thousands of it's men as virtuous. So things probably just revert back to the same equilibrium.
The point is that America blowing up power plants and Iran absorbing casualties is just an extension of the status quo.
> The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.
That is such an incredible interpretation of the situation that basically requires you to ignore basically every economic problem being faced from this insanity currently and in the near future.
Sure, the US an Israel were just "too concerned" about the Iranian economy to do war crimes.
If the US ended up damaging power plans and desalination plants, that would mark a clear inflection point in the number of "friends" the US has militarily, economically, and politically. Sure, Israel would still be a big fan, and maybe Saudi Arabia, but otherwise the US would become a pariah.
It would be damaging to Iran and potentially hundreds of thousands or millions would die.
That's a lot of blood debts.
There is no way the US would walk away from that situation into a better outcome.
> 3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.
More like: Reminded the anti regime population that US has no interest to help them and will happily kill all Iranians and proudly destroy all of civil infrastructure.
> 5. Destabilised the whole region costing the ME lots and lots of money.
In this case, the destabilization is firmly the fault of USA and Israel.
More loss for US, as in customary US not winning fast is functionally the same as losing.
Heavy weight boxing a teen it should have brained in round 1.
Teen lands a few punches back is embarrassing.
Teen slapping heavy weights protectorates more embarrassing.
Teen surviving week 4 is like heavy weight failing to brain teen by round 7.
At this point it's looking like we're going to round 10 TKO, whoever "wins", US loses. People still going to wank over if US wins on TKO because muh K:D ratio or something, but real signal is teen's strategy was to survive hits and ultimately 10000s of heavy weight hits weren't haymaker strong enough to brain a teen. At >2% of GDP of PRC, Iran is basically teen/toddler territory that drew down significant % of US active force and munition stockpiles, so there's also layer of US losing more based on relative effort expended.
To China, the conflict is a clear demonstration of the impotency of the US war machine. Before this "military operation", one could imagine the US defending Taiwan.
Now, it's a laughable thought. It couldn't even if it wanted to.
Hundreds of regime leadership is gone. Massive destruction of infrastructure. Bombed all their neighbors who weren’t even at war with them. Pushed those same neighbors into closer partnership with Israel and the US.
None of those things matter if they survive and control the straight, which seems to be the situation. The toll revenue will be enough to rebuild several times over. They have proven that they can absolutely crush the gulf states with missiles and drones.
I think the fact that Trump accepted their 10-point plan as the basis for negotiation, instead of them accepting the American 15-point plan, makes it obvious this is America taking the loss.
And they haven’t come close to “crushing the gulf states”. Lobbing a middle at the oil facility is not “crushing”, it’s harassment. If anything the gulf states have decided to not retaliate themselves, but if they did it would be even worse for Iran.
Trump did not “accept” the 10 point plan. Not even close. It’s simply a list of demands from Iran, nobody has agreed to anything.
Real world events are conditional. Would you prefer I talk in absolutes?
Defacto Iran still controls the strait, as they have since the start of the war. If they start letting the ships through with no toll, I think that would indicate a tactical loss but strategic draw for Iran (well, the IRGC). If they don’t, it’s a strategic win. We’ll find out I guess.
The small gulf states are incredibly fragile because of their water supply. Major disruption to their power or desalinisation directly renders them largely uninhabitable.
You’re misquoting me on the 10 point plan. He accepted it as the _basis for negotiation_. Here’s direct quote from him on Truth Social:
“We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate”
Lining up multiple low probability events and talking like it’s certainty isn’t that helpful to understanding the conflict.
Iran does not “control” the strait any more than neighbor controls my front door because he threatened to stop me from using it. If the US or other naval power tried to pass it would have no issue.
Have you noticed when the Houthis did the same thing (fire on ships) last year the tone was very different? Many people noticed.
Accepting something as a “basis for negotiation” means nothing. During the Korean War the US accepted a term forcing them to leave the Korean Peninsula when peace talks started and last I checked the US is still there.
This would make sense if the regime command structure had apparently not designed itself for this exact type of conflict.
They were in a fight, took losses, and made significant gains.
They proved their planning was correct, that the distributed nature of their power grid was correct, that they are able to project force and genuinely destabilize the strait.
Things have been proven that were previously uncertain, and they have not been proven in America’s favour.
Crucially America’s ability to defend its allies was tested and found wanting. The entire conflict was of unit economics, in that a cheap 30k drone beat out billion dollar investments.
America also spent the better part of this administration alienating themselves from the one allied nation with extensive drone combat experience.
Admittedly, this is the interesting part. Ukraine via its leader apparently did try to reach US in exchange for money, but, and there stories get confused, was ignored. I have to wonder if Trump has some actual fixed winners table in his mind ( because he does not seem to follow the most optimal path ).
Yup, and it's a demonstration that the US is unable to just impose its will wherever it wants, making the US look weaker.
Failure all around.
But no doubt Trump and his people will tell the world what an amazing success the whole thing was, and how they exceeded all their goals, whatever those goals might have been.
There will be a 2 week ceasefire, western countries will move ships out of the straight, the Saudis will reroute oil, the 10 point plan is idiotic and the US will have an easy excuse to resume bombing them.
I agree with you that this is just temporary, but for entirely different reasons. I think that stock market fluctuations are making some people very very rich. It's the same game as they did with the tariffs on/off every week and it's not over yet.
I don't think we know if the ceasefire will hold or if it's another attempt by trump at strategic delay/deception, but remember that the strait carries a lot more than oil and those things cannot be transported via a pipeline.
My assumption is that, by now, Trump just wants to save face and move on to an easier target, one that can't strike back. He's been preparing the US opinion for Cuba.
So I wouldn't be surprised if negotiations just... stopped, without anything happening. Pretty much what happened, if I understand correctly, to the economic negotiations with Japan, EU, Canada, Mexico and anybody else regarding US import taxes.
> And? Reduced capacity for awhile raises prices, the Saudis can sit on some oil and have the US get rid of their geopolitical and economic rival.
That pipeline is a strike away from being out for months, if not years.
> Because the Iranian 10 point plan is so ridiculous even Trump isn't dumb enough to take it.
The whole situation is ridiculous, and Trump is overtly desperate to stop the nightmare at any cost. Calling something ridiculous is no argument, particularly when we are living in a timeline where stupidity reigns.
Ok. This is getting silly and on par with 'the straight is open; it is only closed, because Iran is blocking it' quip from Hegseth. Tensions are high, because there are trapped hips AND there is no viable alternative.
Let me articulate the thing which I believe is on many people's minds:
What is the chance the president will order a nuclear strike on Iran as this war proceeds?
We would hope the odds are vanishingly small, because doing so would be profoundly disadvantageous. But the same was true for initiating this war in the first place. The logic -- such as it is -- of some people in power may lead them to conclude once more that shock and awe can succeed. We've already struck the country with powerful conventional weapons at scale and it has not led to a weakening of Iranian resolve.
All the above said, my personal hope of course is this will never happen. I'm curious what other folks think however.
I used to attend elementary school on a military base. I didn't feel like a human shield at the time, then again I was more naive and had less life experience than I do now.
You weren’t a human shield. It would have been very easy for the US and Israel to not have blown up a school, the attack was intentional.
Notice they had 0 issues precisely striking the building housing Iranian leadership when this whole thing started. They didn’t “accidentally” hit the grocery store two blocks away.
It is amazing how readily some people believe we target civilians, often based on the words of actual terrorists.
With this particular incident with apparent US strikes on a school adjacent to a military complex, and formerly part of that military complex, you would think it must be obvious to any reasonable person that we did not knowingly target a school.
For planning Operation Epic Fury, the US military utilized the Maven Smart System, an artificial intelligence software designed to streamline the targeting process and greatly reduce the amount of personnel involved in it. Capable of producing 1,000 target packages in one hour, with the use of the system the US military said it had struck 6,000 targets in Iran during the first two weeks of the war.
...it goes on to say...
The [NYT] inquiry suggested that the school was likely targeted due to outdated coordinates provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency
Advanced rockets bolted onto mainframes guided by data from Palantir.
> For what reason would they attack a single school?
Couldn't it be to terrorise the other side while still being able to claim that it was a mistake? Remember that the school was hit by three distinct strikes.
So you think there was a conspiracy to target a school? Who do you think did it? Why? What was their goal?
I think either an intelligence failure, or a mistake or a miss is more likely. Maybe missiles don't always hit where they were meant to go. Especially if there is anti missile defences (which Iran is likely to have). Maybe Iran anti-air hit the school, or sent a US missile off course?
More than a conspiracy, they actually did attack the school - twice - about 30 minute apart (double tap).
They would have had live video feed from drones, and images sent from the first tomahawk missile for target confirmation. Yhey knew exactly what they were targeting and hitting.
Today on several news media were a story that people of Iran were called by the government and formed human shields at the bridges and power plants that Trump threatened to bomb if no deal reached by the deadline.
No it's not. International law is generally exceptionally clear that one war crime doesn't justify another, and using civilians as human shields is about as core a war-crime as war-crimes get.
> The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.
The situation in Iran is not this. The suggestion was that humans might volunteer to go to non-military sites.
As an extreme hypothetical, are humans living in their homes acting as human shields for those homes? How about people at school? How about people parading on a bridge? Does it become different if someone threatens to blow up a bridge and people parade there in response?
Eh, the quoted text, and also the literal text of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 28 [1], doesn't qualify "certain points or areas" as only "military sites". While the other side should only be attacking military sites I don't see how that could possibly justify protecting non-military sites with human shields.
> As an extreme hypothetical, are humans living in their homes acting as human shields for those homes? How about people at school? How about people parading on a bridge?
Generally speaking I read this as not, because they aren't being "used to" render those points immune from attack, they just happen to be doing so. Hypothetically if you were to rush civilians back to their homes in an evacuated town to protect it from an attack - or as you suggest organize parades on bridges that are threatened - that would seem to meet the "used to" requirement.
When Lithuania was fighting for independence from USSR civilians gathered around key government buildings to protect them. in a sense they were human shields as none of them were armed. but they did it voluntarily. this happens when you threaten total annihilation of your homeland.
Threatening total annihilation was possibly the dumbest move Trump could have made.
“ Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in the heart of a hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard."
how do you know that iranians are forced to do this now by their government and not doing this in support of their country? do you think there are gunmen taking them to the bridges?
It was a government call. I grew up in USSR and know very well how those government "calls to volunteer" work in totalitarian regimes. Especially in a wartime country where even in peacetime they would kill people even just for being incorrectly dressed.
Anyway, as i said in the other comment, it is actually not that important how all those people got there. The key thing here is that it was a deliberate government act of human shield creation.
what a coincidence i too grew up in USSR and my parents and friends were part of above mentioned human shield. And i can tell first hand that there was no coercion. just call to action.
Look at recordings from other totalitarian regimes - enthusiastic people doing government bidding. The key is deliberate act of human shield creation, not the specific way to do it.
My wife is Iranian and I know many Iranian expats, and all my in-laws are in Iran.
This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime.
Yes. People die in war. It’s sad. But most Iranians will say “whether we go to war or not Iranians are being killed” and it’s better to fight for regime change than to just accept the status quo.
Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed? Yes, people die in war, but if there’s a chance for something better than it’s definitely worth it!
Every Iranian I know thinks it’s worth it and they danced in the street when Khamenei was killed.
"This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime."
The US government is not in any way responsible for the murder of protesters in Iran. That is done entirely by the government in Iran.
The USA and Israel ARE responsible for the murder of the kids (and adults) in that school. If you are American or Israeli you can care about the murdered protesters, but it it not really your responsibility. The murdered kids are however.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing the point of my comment.
People bring up the school as a way of discouraging American military bombing Iran. It’s a way of shaming Americans, as if we are bad, making us feel guilty for bombing. Right?
What I’m trying to say is that Iranians I’ve spoken to are happy that we are bombing the regime. From their perspective, they are already being killed. The regime is dangerous to them. Bombing the regime and possibly destroying the regime is worth the risk.
So don’t be so hard on yourself. Iranians want your help. People die in wars, there is always collateral damage, but sometimes war is just. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. That’s how the Iranians I’ve spoken to feel.
> Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed?
What was so great about the American revolution anyway? It's not like it gave any average people the right to vote, and it arguably preserved slavery for an extra 30 years.
How is this in any way a counter argument to the US bombing a school? That their own government would stoop to such lengths gives free reign to foreign governments?
The idea is that incurring a few hundred civilians deaths to liberate Iranians from a regime that slaughtered them by the thousands or tens of thousands is a net positive for human life. Of course this only works as a justification if the Iranians actually are liberated front their regime, which I don't think they will.
But the justification, if the liberation actually transpires, is sound. An order of magnitude more French and Dutch died at the hands of Allied bombing and shelling in 1944. I think most agree the the upside of being liberated from Germany makes the Allied landings a net positive, though.
But to reiterate, I really doubt the revolutionary guard is going to lose control of Iran.
The ends do alter the acceptability of the means. E.g. if I offered you the means of “pay money to flip coin to make money as many times as possible” and the numbers involved were $50k if heads, lose $1k if tails and $50 buy in that’s way different if the numbers involved were $1k if heads, lose $50k if tails and $500k buy in.
If you can’t alter your reasoning to include outcomes then you will make poorer decisions.
If killing those kids was instrumental in a greater good, only then is it worth being philosophical about. From what I've seen, they were too eager with the bang bang boom boom to actually double check that it was a valid target.
The French and Dutch were members of the Allies, with Charles de Gaulle as leader of the Free-French forces and Queen Wilhelmina the head of the Dutch government-in-exile, both in London. Both wanted the allies to get the Germans out of their countries.
There is no government-in-exile calling for the bombing of Iran as a method for liberation.
Just as Laos did not call for the US to drop some 2 million tons on that country - more than were dropped on Japan, Germany and Britain during World War II - resulting in the deaths of over 200,000 people, as part of the US's ineffective attempt to "liberate" North Vietnam.
No one wants to liberate Iran. Israel just wants to continue committing genocide and apartheid without any opposition. Iran arms Hezbollah and Hamas, the main forms of Palestinian resistance. The whole point of this operation is to decimate those groups so ethnic cleansing can continue without any resistance. Israel could care less about the Irani people.
You are very naive if you think the IRGC truly killed 10's of thousands of it's own people. Israel openly talks about Mossad organizing and supporting the coup, and good old Donny has admitted they have given weapons to organized resistance.
I estimate that many of the death numbers come from armed resistance being killed by the IRGC, not ordinary peaceful protestors. I also think armed resistance killed many Irani citizens. There is obviously fog of war here. The thousands of deaths were likely inflated and obfuscated.
Look at the coups we have backed in the middle east (including formerly in Iran which is what originally led to the Islamic revolution) -- and you will see a pattern. Both US and Israel provide material support to groups like ISIS or actors like Bin Laden. An Al-Qaeda fighter is literally the head of Syria now thanks to Israel.
I don't love Hamas, IRGC or Hezbollah, I don't like their ideology. But it is myopic to think they exist in a vaccum.
I wouldn't personally do so, but arguably those tens of thousands rest at our feet considering the current government was political blowback from the US and UK regime changing Iran back in the '50s.
It's even less likely to work because Trump has already claimed, publicly, to arming the protestors. That already makes any regime change illegitimate. They're all foreign backed agitators.
Aside from the fact that the events you linked to have no connection whatsoever to why the US started attacking Iran, there is absolutely no reality or moral code in which "a government kills a couple hundred of its citizens" justifies another government on the other side of the world blowing up a hundred plus schoolchildren and other civilians.
> Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.
It's looking like this is the exact type of magical thinking of the most useless "president" ever. Meanwhile in the real world, such things take hard work.
The counter argument is missing some justification. Is it reasonable to go killing people on the hope that something good will come out of it? Is there no less violent way to achieve those objectives? Do we really think that people will organize a toppling while they're being bombed without Internet access? Do we think they'll topple the current regime for one that is less antagonistic to Israel and the US after the bombings?
When the French helped us during the Revolutionary War, they didn't shore bombard the colonists' kids because it would have been bad and counterproductive.
At most there were a couple thousand casualties from violent riots that involved armed gangs (or sleeper cells if you want to go that route).
There were not "60,000" peaceful protestors executed by the government, as Trump claimed yesterday without evidence. That is murderous propaganda, blood libel intended to deflect from the actual mass murder of civilians by American forces e.g. the Minab school.
It was a narrative specifically designed to induce comments like yours.
So we should have let Iran have nukes? How many lives would have been lost then? They certainly have no problem purposely bombing civilians in non combatant countries.
Sure, in a purely physical sense, I suppose they could launch a nuke, triggering MAD and Israel's Samson Doctrine and ending human civilization for no reason. Currently I think Israel, the US, North Korea, and Russia have a higher (though still low) risk of doing that. In that order, by the way, though I could probably be convinced to bump Russia up higher.
Nukes are not really for actual use but for deterrence so likely no lives would have been lost. Israel has nukes and they don't use them unless somebody attacks them with nukes. Same with other countries. Ideally both Israel and Iran as well as North Korea, maybe also Pakistan and India should not have nukes. And even more ideal it would be if nobody had them but the cat's out of the bag already.
They've also stated at various times that they believe first use or any use to be against Islamic law.
I don't find any of these statements to be particularly credible, but I also don't think they're going to strap the first bomb they make to the closest missile they find and immediately send it at Tel Aviv when it surely means the total destruction of the Iranian state.
What part of this war has made Iran less likely to get a nuclear weapon?
There could have been a good war in Iran. A coalition of nations going in to secure the uranium. It would have been messy. But it would have had a clean objective.
As objective yes but whose lives would be spared for this objective? Messy is relative to policies. Aren't other ways to attain this objective other than through war? I really think there were attempts and progress in that direction.
I think that would be more believable, or at least the US/Israel would be more supportable in this, if they hadn't testily insisted on terms like "obliterated" and "set back by years" several months ago. You can only cry "nuke" so many times in a year. https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...
they have a religious law against making or using them, and theyve been sitting at "they could make a nuke within a week" for the past 20 years or more
it feels like people are falling for iran's bargaining chip - they want people to think they could make one, but not actually make one
There was zero evidence they were close to a nuke. In fact, they've been alleged to be weeks away from a nuke for over 20 years. And the accusations come from the ones with the illegal nukes themselves!
Iran shouldn't have nukes, but starting a war—burning billions of dollars a day, killing kids and innocent civilians, and leveling bridges and universities—is objectively the worst possible way to prevent it.
The JCPOA under Obama actually did a solid job of constraining their nuclear development. That was the pragmatic approach, but Trump just unilaterally scrapped the deal. He doesn't have an actual strategy, maybe just "concepts of a plan".
This regime has been around for half a century. We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February? Come on. Don’t tell me you actually believe that shit.
Unless we actually invade, all this war will do is demonstrate to Iran that obtaining nuclear weapons is an existential necessity for them, and kick the program into high gear. Oh, and provide them with plenty of funding for it due to their newfound ability to collect tolls for a vital shipping chokepoint.
> We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February?
What news are you even reading? You are terribly misinformed or out of touch. Not all of it was destroyed. A lot of enriched uranium was saved. The IAEA still could not verify the stockpile's location, size, or composition due to denied access. Iran refused full inspections post-strikes.
The rest of your post is pure conjecture and nonsense.
It's pure conjecture that they are now collecting tolls from ships that transit the Strait of Hormuz? You don't think they're going to sprint for nukes at any cost now?
The guy who said their nuclear program was destroyed last summer is the same guy who says we have to go to war to stop them from developing nuclear weapons now.
Do I believe it was actually destroyed? No. Do I believe the guy who said it was? No. Do I start believing that guy now that he says there’s an imminent threat? Also no.
"As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement," Gabard wrote in an opening statement ahead of the hearing.
Joe Kent, who made big news when he stepped down on Tuesday as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Wednesday that intelligence assessments did not show Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States or was close to developing a nuclear weapon, undercutting central justifications for the military action.
Trust me, I wish it weren't the case. Nobody likes being bombed and he's now a symbol of resistance. Most of the urban middle class has always hated the mullahs and various ethnic groups have conflict with the state as a whole, but Khamanei had and has support from basically every other element of society.
Replaced by an enraged son whose whole family had been killed in front of him. Basically Iran's Ayatolah is now younger and angrier. Thanks to Trump and Israel's Trump.
Iranian people were about to topple their own regime some months ago. Now the regime is cemented again since Iran was attacked indiscriminately. Again, thank the 2 Trumps.
* The people responsible for murdering ten thousand protesters are now dead.
* The IRGC's military capability is significantly degraded.
* Their nuclear program is likely set back even further. It's hard to get real information here but we should assume that supporting facilities were high on the target list.
That's not nothing. From a strict utilitarian perspective, it's probably "worth it". Which sucks, but I haven't heard a better plan.
i dont think those are nearly as clearcut as suggested.
some of the iranian side for events that resulted in a bunch of death have been killed... while also killing a bunch mkre iranians, but have the americans/israelis that armed the protestors into terrorists and incided them to violence been killed?
i think theres enough police, mossad, and cia folks left to do that again and again until the protestors are all gone.
similarly, its blatantly obvious for everyone that the US destoryed the iranian capabilities that dont matter. iran is still capable enough to seter both putting american ships in the strait, and boots on the ground, so that degradation is not significant. optimization without profiling.
from a strict utilitarian perspective, definitely not worth it. the costs were extraordinarily expensive and havent been fully paid yet, and the profits for the US is a worse position than they started it
theres some light benefits to the gulf and ukraine in that the gulf realizes that they can spend much less on defense by buying from ukraine, but that pales in comparison to the costs paid in destroyed oil infrastructure and interceptors that could have gone to ukraine
I hope that one day humanity learns that in war there are no winners. We're all just brothers and sisters born on different corners of the planet. We share the same home.
I hope that we stop attacking one another and find peace and work together as a race to overcome our challenges.
I used to think this way, however lately I understood that all wars, I mean all of them (even those religious ones) are motivated by resources. Those resources are money, power, control. People deciding on war to begin are those who benefit from it (usually, unless they've been manipulated).
And sometimes there is crazy. But crazy I can't explain, sorry.
Yet, we all mostly understand we are people and we love each other. But then the big guys come and lead us to war. To get more gas, to get more power, to get influence. Ukraine? They threatened to become independent from Russia (influence). Afghanistan? They threatened to use gold as price factor (influence). Iran? here it might be the third factor I won't explain, but also motivation by money I guess...
I doubt scarcity has had anything to do with wars for the last 100 years, maybe even longer. It has always been about ideologies, fanaticism, and lording it over one another. Even when men lived in smaller tribes during periods of abundance, they still went around killing each other for false glory, ideology, and expansion. No economic solution can solve the problem of war and human nature.
Even if men ever colonize Mars and the wider galaxy, and resources were abundant, I doubt it would take long for wars to break out there, whether for a specific reason or none at all.
I doubt it very much that either Russian war on Ukraine or the US attacking Iran happened due do scarcity of resources.
Old folks in power want their page in history books.
Human nature is more about attacking left and right and grab other people’s stuffs. At least some humans. Part of the human gene is like that. Aggressive, invasive, relentless.
This is a lovely notion that most well adjusted people can get behind, but if you've ever had a person with narcissistic personality disorder in your life, you'll understand that they need to create conflict to emotionally regulate themselves. Unfortunately these people tend to acquire wealth and power, and are never satisfied. Then the rest of us have to deal with it.
It's times like these when most people recognise that parents in all corners of the world worry about their kids just the same.
War should never break out. But it does. We had international rules to prevent war, but they're gone. We had international rules to prevent governments deliberately killing innocent people under the guise of war, but they're gone too.
It took two world wars and roughly 80 million killed to create those rules.
You could argue about when they got destroyed. In Ukraine, in Gaza, Iran - but it's clear now that they don't exist any more.
Amen. Also, nature is awesome and we live in a period of technological plenty and instant global communication with arbitrary knowledge and decent translation available in seconds, so why are we still acting like lunatics and hating on groups?
Parents: stop teaching your children to identify with irrelevant concepts of ethno-nationalism, and instead teach them to be globalist scientists with empathy.
Nationalismus ist eine Kinderkrankheit. Die Masern der Menschheit. ("Nationalism is an infantile disease: the measles of mankind") - Albert Einstein, 1929. Who, incidentally, turned down the presidency of Israel.
"Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our two thousand years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us." - Einstein on Israel, late 1920s.
The most powerful country in the world is run by an elite class of genocidal pedophiles who also (allegedly) eat people. People in the west are fed lies through the media that those same people have full control over. We are given a false sense of freedom. Freedom of speech only protects you from those who have significantly less power than those you actually need protection from. If those people want you gone you'll disappear without trace.
It's interesting how the hackernews-biased views of the war outcomes don't align with how Iranians themselves see that. For instance you can translate from persian the following geopolitical view which will shed a totally different light on the situation to whoever depends solely on hn comments
https://x.com/i/status/2041693098833518976
This is Israel's "business as usual" stuff. Mowing the lawn, fake ceasefire, distraction, expansion and greater Israel project let's go! stuff. Stretch goal is to make Iran a failed state. Primary goal is distraction from the very real annexation of Palestinian and Lebanese territories, one war crime at a time.
Ridiculous take. Israel wants a secular Iran, not a failed state. Most Iranians don’t hate Israel. They hate the Islamic regime. But westerners just looove to support all Iranian proxies these days.
Of course, Israel is a pure white dove. For instance, they have rallies for "the right to rape prisoners" (and recently to kill them) [0]. Or to willingly mutilate peaceful protesters presenting no risk[1].
The problem is that the total lack of moral limits in Israel only forces their opponents to escalate, or accept to be treated like animals (in the case of the West Bank Palestinians). It also affects the US, since that they have to follow along with Israel' way of doing the war (mainly, war crimes).
The problem is that once a party starts to commit atrocities, all others tend to do it. Atrocities by Israel are not new, and Israel has a long history about it, since its inception:
That is the consequence of a long-term policy. Israel made sure the Palestinian authority was sidelined and helped Hamas get full control of the Gaza Strip. History did not start in October 2023.
> was the Nova music festival massacre justified resistance
Intentionally killing civilians is never justified. But this still makes Palestine/Hamas the (much) smaller genocidal terrorist in this conflict. Free people don't need freedom fighters ;).
Now, I have no horse in this race, I am not related to any of the peoples involved, and live far away. I'm just the voice that finds genocide wrong. You on the other hand look like you're happily riding the terrorist, genocidal horse. I don't expect anything from you in terms of quality debate.
no massacre is justified, but can you remind us how and where did Hamas get helicopters and tanks and all of a sudden all cars were smashed? maybe Hannibal directive handed them over their tanks
As a first step they could give back some of their illegal settlements. Then over time give back more, until they are back in UN recognized borders. That would be a start. They could also start to persecute violent mobs that chased people out of their own homes and the people in the military covering them. They could also release unjustifiably imprisoned people.
You know, things that basic human decency would demand of them.
The war started by Israel, ostensibly as a retaliation for a dispute about a bit of water, which Israel used as a pretext to invade the West Bank? What about it?
The 'both sides' thing when one side is occupying the other is pathetic.
There's only one side that needs to stop the occupation immediately, the Israeli one.
We can go from there.
This comment is exactly why there is no hope out there. Literally zero understanding of middle-Eastern geopolitics other than trite slogans.
Come on. Do you think everyone is going to suddenly start holding hands and singing kumbaya? Or more realistically, like nearly every other surrounding state it'll be the elimination and exodus of Jews and Israelis?
Hamas didn't have prior knowledge of the festival, and partygoers were also murdered by the Israeli army. And in general flattening entire cities don't leave their habitants very keen toward Israel either. It just reinforces the cycle of aggression, which allows Israel to take more land.
No it's not ok, if the goal is peace and not the achievement of the "Greater Israel" that the current religious far-right in power is pursuing, with the support of the zionist christians in the US.
That's a crazy way to defend an ongoing genocide. The scale is so different that the only way to miss it is willful bad faith.
How long and how far do you go with that justification? Does it work the other way too? Are "their" actions justified forever because of something wrong that was done to them? Can anyone in the world do to you anything and everything forever if they were ever wronged by someone born in the same general geographic area as you?
Whenever you find yourself defending any genocide, under any excuse, defending the killing of innocent children because some other guys from the same general area also killed people, you are the bigger problem and no amount of fresh accounts justifying it makes you better.
I didn't defend. I just pointed out that the "freedom fighters" in everyone's minds are raping murdering bastards and I refuse to take a moral position and support or defend them for it.
That in itself is an abhorrent position and I am disgusted at anyone who takes it.
And further extrapolation as you edited it, if a child has a gun pointing at your head and has been trained to fire it at you, which is exactly what they have been doing, then they are legally combatants. But it makes a good statistical and PR job which is just as abhorrent. Legally and statistically speakingh, children... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD2FezhJgqA
> I just pointed out that the "freedom fighters" in everyone's minds are raping murdering bastards
So, like Israeli soldiers?[0]
> if a child has a gun pointing at your head and has been trained to fire it at you, which is exactly what they have been doing
Israelis do exactly the same[1]
As long as Israelis rely on violence, war crimes and human rights violations, there can be no deescalation. We see it in the current ceasefire, where Israelis refused to stop their annexation war (and flattening) of Liban.
That sure sounds like defending the killing of children because for sure they were all holding a gun and trying to kill you. Including the babies.
If you show all the YouTube videos in the world, the moment when you find a justification to kill any innocent children is when you become irreversibly the problem.
Your second point literally makes no sense and is based on the straw man that babies are holding guns where I made no point even related to that or collateral kills (which are unacceptable). Secondarily my point is based on internationally legal definitions of combatant and evidenced with a video of combatants being trained. Not like the UN and UNICEF haven't been all over this for decades.
Don't use child soldiers and you won't get statistically significant child casualties.
It's so sad to see this ridiculous argument every time. Israel is the aggressor, the murder and the main threat to the region's peace, not the victim. This, of course, does not mean that Iran is not another threat, but its actions seem like nothing compared to what Israel is doing.
> Becker argues that a basic duality in human life exists between the physical world of objects and biology, and a symbolic world of human meaning. Thus, since humanity has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we are able to transcend the dilemma of mortality by focusing our attention mainly on our symbolic selves, i.e. our culturally based self esteem, which Becker calls "heroism": a "defiant creation of meaning" expressing "the myth of the significance of human life" as compared to other animals. This counters the personal insignificance and finitude that death represents in the human mind.
> Such symbolic self-focus takes the form of an individual's "causa sui project", (sometimes called an "immortality project", or a "heroism project"). A person's "causa sui project" acts as their immortality vessel, whereby they subscribe to a particular set of culturally-created meanings and through them gain personal significance beyond that afforded to other mortal animals. This enables the individual to imagine at least some vestige of those meanings continuing beyond their own life-span; thus avoiding the complete "self-negation" we perceive when other biological creatures die in nature.
You can find big similarities such as the promised land as the immortality vessel, heroism as a response to historical trauma and the ongoing attacks on their sovereignty, and the immortality project would be the nation-state. Becker goes on to categorize all of this similar to a mental illness. You can read the wikipedia page here, I find it very helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death
TL;DR: If you look through Becker's lens, you start to realize how stupid such wars and expansionist ideals seem. People should focus on what exists now and stop chasing projects that'd span beyond their lifetimes while making life today worse.
The only endgame I see for the region is sadly the complete and utter annihilation of all civilizations there, possibly through nuclear means.
I do not say this lightly and I say it with a deep sadness in my heart for the people of the middle east, but also with the sober realization that this is the only end of the path that is currently walked.
There's a much less grim end, probably coming at short term:
If the US stop giving unconditional blank check support to Israel, then the nuisance power of the Jewish supremacists there disappears overnight. The US popular support for Israel is now at an all time low, and the recent war may be the straw that breaks the Camel's back.
All that's needed to stabilize the region is some amount of pushback to the destabilizing country here. Iran have been a destabilizing force for the past decade, but since 2023 Israel is by far the biggest threat to the region, and it's mostly due to Netanyahu's political survival relying on the state of perpetual war he's put the country in.
Should the US put even a modicum amount of pressure to Israel (or even just declare they wouldn't support them should the EU put economic sanctions on Israel), then the current cabinet collapse, Netanyahu ends up in prison for corruption and the middle east is stable for a decade.
All of this madness is happening because the US enables a madman to escape his own judicial system through foreign wars.
What is even the point of all the flip flopping if there’s ongoing talks? I feel like the doesn’t put any real pressure on Iran, but I may be uninformed.
There are no talks or anything. Iran has no incentive to negotiate with a party as unreliable as the US is under Trump. I would literally negotiate with a dead opossum before I would continue to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner.
I mean, as much as I don’t like the Iranian government, put yourselves in their position. You have the US and Israel literally leveling the equivalent of Balfour or the White House and taking out other government officials in a decapitation strike that failed, but killed off all of the moderates. The government is then replaced by hardliners who see this attack as existential. You have little to lose at this point, so you go for broke.
Since the US seems unwilling to put boots on the ground, cannot form a coherent reason for any of this and is lead by a man who is unable to accept that he can commit errors, it degrades into a war of attrition and, in the case of Trump, influence peddling since it is clear that Israel and the Saudis would like to see Iran wiped off the map and all Trump cares about is how he can internalize it as yet another reason why he is a victim and entitled to the Nobel Peace Prize.
IMHO, I think there is tremendous pressure to, at the very least restore the Strait of Hormuz as an international waterway not subject to Iranian control or tolling, but that’s an after-the-fact thing. I think Trump simply thought it would be an easy win and play well on TV. I suspect what will happen is the US pays a massive indemnity/bribe to Iran, Iran agrees to not contest control of the Strait of Hormuz and the US looks like morons which Trump will internalize as a win that nobody will believe except himself.
> There are no talks or anything. Iran has no incentive to negotiate with a party as unreliable as the US is under Trump. I would literally negotiate with a dead opossum before I would continue to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner.
> Iran, while rejecting all the plans presented by the enemy, formulated a 10-point plan and presented it to the US side through Pakistan, emphasizing the fundamental points such as controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz in coordination with the Iranian armed forces, which would grant Iran a unique economic and geopolitical position, the necessity of ending the war against all elements of the axis of resistance, which would mean the historic defeat of the aggression of the child-killing Israeli regime, the withdrawal of US combat forces from all bases and deployment points in the region, the establishment of a safe transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz in a way that guarantees Iran's dominance according to the agreed protocol, full payment for the damages inflicted of Iran according to estimates, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions and resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, the release of all of Iran's frozen assets abroad, and finally the ratification of all of these matters in a binding Security Council resolution. It should be noted that the ratification of this resolution would turn all of these agreements into binding international law and would create an important diplomatic victory for the Iranian nation.
> Now, the Honorable Prime Minister of Pakistan has informed Iran that the American side, despite all the apparent threats, has accepted these principles as the basis for negotiations and has surrendered to the will of the Iranian people.
> Accordingly, it was decided at the highest level that Iran will hold talks with the American side in Islamabad for two weeks and solely on the basis of these principles. It is emphasized that this does not mean an end to the war and Iran will accept an end to the war only when, in view of Iran's acceptance of the principles envisaged in the 10-point plan, its details are also finalized in the negotiations.
> These negotiations will begin in Islamabad on Friday, April 11, with complete distrust about the US side, and Iran will allocate two weeks for these negotiations. This period can be extended by agreement of the parties.
When you use words like "decapitation strike that failed, but killed off all of the moderates," what do those words mean to you? With all due respect, I don't really get the Internet brain way of thinking of things. What decapitation failed? I guess, if you mean, there are still Islamic Revolution people in charge, I still can't see the point. When you say "failed" that would imply that they were literally attempting to kill literally every single member of the government at once. I don't think anyone serious would think that. Also, "failed?" I can't recall ever a decapitation happening so swiftly or so massively within the first few hours of a conflict. Also, the meat of what I wanted respond to was this idea of "killing the moderates." I get that most people here think the West and America is evil or whatever but the idea the Ayatollah and top members of the IRGC were moderate is just an affront to morality. The same people think that Trump is Hitler for doing things that 90s Democrats agreed with (even ones currently serving), would hold vigils for a truly monstrous regime. This is like some Billie Eilish "no one is illegal on stolen land" type stuff. We are talking about brutal executions for no reason at all.
decapitation was intended to result in regime change, but instead showed that the iranian system is perfectly capable of peaceable changes in power. what particularly failed is that the people the US wanted to champion as the new leaders of iran were also killed in the decapitation.
you can compare against the successful decapitation from christmas, where the US removed maduro, and championed rodriguez and now takes a cut of all venesuelan oil sales.
i think there's a reasonable argument that the ayatollah was a moderate, in a much more militant government. He's the guy that was making sure iran never built a nuke, and by observation, iran stood down after each attack the US/israel did on iran up until he was gone
"no one is illegal on stolen land" is perfectly reasonable - the american government has no actual legitimacy to control who comes and goes from land that doesnt belong to it. the various tribes do. its impractical in that the US genocided the legitimate owners and took it over by force, but its still the right and just end view. the US gets to kick people out of certain borders because it did a ton of brutal executions
> I get that most people here think the West and America is evil or whatever but the idea the Ayatollah and top members of the IRGC were moderate is just an affront to morality.
I really don’t understand this logic. I find it rather myopic and based on one’s own pain. Everything is relative, unfortunately. The idea that I would in any way condone or argue that the Iranian regime is not culpable of its own massive war crimes, grifting and other crimes against its own people is…bizarre. I am well aware of the crimes of the Iranian regime and look forward to the day it is removed, but I don’t think this is it. Even Trump admits that they killed off all of the people they thought would be more amenable to work with the US which is just a level of incompetence I can’t fathom, but here we are.
Unfortunately, in practice, moral absolutism does not exist in international relations. The evidence is right in front of your face of this fact. We could go through the litany of crimes against people that we (the US) have condoned or facilitate or been unresponsive to. The folks in Beijing have also committed unspeakable acts against their own people and others, so why aren’t we bombing them right now? Why Iran right now? Haiti is a failed state nobody seems interested in caring about. We failed to stop a genocidal massacre in Rwanda…
> When you say “failed” that would imply that they were literally attempting to kill literally every single member of the government at once.
I literally believe that Trump thought this given that he openly admitted he ignored the military and intelligence agencies telling him that this was a terrible idea. I agree that nobody rational would think this, but I argue that Trump never lies even when he says he is joking. He literally thinks as POTUS he can do whatever he wants.
But only some sort of sociopath would upend the world just to make a buck. Esp if they're already a billionaire with literally hundreds of other conflicts of interest.
Yes, markets weren't taking his "normal" market manipulation tweets seriously, so he had to go hyperbolic with the NUKE tweet. I am definitely sure Trump is not serious. That's why Iran said we will continue this discussion with complete distrust.
It is, but he is weakening the credibility of the United States in the process. Never make a threat you aren't willing to back, otherwise everyone knows you make idle threats.
It's just another military adventure ending in a disaster - probably the most humiliating in a long long time. But to your point, it's better for the US to admit defeat now, than in 2 or 3 weeks, let alone in 2 or 3 years. If a parallel can be made, Russia would have been best advised to have done the same 3 years ago.
Does this mean that Iran will have functional nukes in two weeks? Given how previous "ceasefires" turned out (blowing up their leadership), I don't think they are naive again and don't seem desperate to end it.
The access to highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium is the limiting factor for construction of nuclear weapons.
It really depends on how small and how efficient you need to make weapon, a nuclear weapon fitting inside a rocket nose cone is much more sophisticated than nuclear weapon that has to be only transportable by truck, ship or airplane.
For example, the simple design of Little Boy used on Hiroshima contained 64 kilograms of uranium, but less than a kilogram underwent nuclear fission.
"Unlike the implosion design developed for the Trinity test and the Fat Man bomb design that was used against Nagasaki, which required sophisticated coordination of shaped explosive charges, the simpler but inefficient gun-type design was considered almost certain to work, and was never tested prior to its use at Hiroshima."
So with access to highly enriched uranium (enrichment greater than 90%), a large and crude bomb could be produced in few weeks. How could they deliver it anywhere? They don't have airplanes. Truck? Speedboat?
And the agreement continued with other nations, but IAEA started raising concerns in 2019 and Iran started breaking conditions. A bunch of countries tried to reinstate it under Biden but the Iranians wouldn't do it. Maybe they would have stayed compliant, maybe not. We'll never know. What we do know is that they wouldn't continue the agreement with other parties nor recommit to it later.
Wild that the US accepted Iran's maximalist demands as starting point for negotiations. There seem to be some uncertainty around what those 10 points are - multiple versions floating around, but they all read very much like a US strategic defeat. Full retreat from region, reparations to be paid etc.
So with all the bluster we are able to roll the clock back successfully to pre Obama stage of negotiations? Essentially starting from discussing if Iran should have nuclear capability or not and then adding new stuff like Iran controlling the strait and collecting toll on it. Awesome, so much winning!
"Iran's Supreme National Security Council announced that Iran has achieved a major victory, compelling the United States to accept its 10-point plan. Under this plan, the U.S. has committed to non-aggression, recognized Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, accepted Iran’s nuclear enrichment, lifted all primary and secondary sanctions, ended all Security Council and Board of Governors resolutions, agreed to pay compensation to Iran, withdrawn American combat forces from the region, and ceased hostilities on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic Resistance of Lebanon."
"because you said <that>, I won't do <this>" is rarely an issue in these matters. What people say, and what people do, are divorced.
This isn't contract law. The WH can declare victory and stop, or declare victory and continue, or declare defeat and stop, or declare defeat and continue, or declare nothing and {stop, continue} and what the Iranian government say is not relevant. But, stopping or not stopping sending up UAV and sending over missiles and aircraft, IS relevant.
ie, this is just speech. we judge on outcomes not on words said.
[edit: that said, under this administration, the reverse is also true - "because I heard you said <this> I will now do <that> which is totally irrational, but I now have an excuse in my own mind, for what I intended doing anyway." ]
The Supreme National Security Council is quoting the agreement that Trump supposedly agreed to. And if that agreement holds, it is hard to see it as anything but a complete Iranian victory.
Keep in mind, the losers in a conflict have more of an incentive to lie than the winners. The US and Israel seem very much the losers here.
I don't really disagree, but I just want to observe there is no neutral arbiter here. There isn't some platonic ideal "he won, they lost" outcome.
What I think, is that a french metric tonne of value has been sucked out of the world economy, a lot of future decisions are now very uncertain, power balances have shifted, and none of this is really helpful for american soft or hard power into the longer term.
The Iranians have lost an entire cohort of leadership and are going to spend years reconstructing domestic infrastructure, and a rational polity. But, the IGRC has probably got a stronger hand on the tiller. Their natural Shia allies abroad are in shellshock, but still there.
I'd call it a pyrrhic victory for America, on any terms. Wrecked the joint, came out with low bodycount in the immediate short term, have totally ruined international relations (which they don't care about) and probably won't win the mid-terms on some supposed "war vote" -But who knows? Maybe the horse can be taught to sing before morning?
A lot of very fine bang-bang whizz devices got used, and they learned how much fun that is. A lot of european and asian economies learned how weak they are in energy and fertilizer and will re-appraise how to manage that, and there's a lot of fun in that. A big muscly china is watching quietly and we're pretending there's nothing to see there, and meantime the tariff "war" continues to do .. 5/10ths of nothing.
The pace of worldwide alternative energy adoption has gone up. Is that an upside?
The Iranian PR on this is like the DPRK. Except the DPRK wear Hanbok not Chador. The Iranian citizenry has been badly let down. No green revolution on the horizon.
I don't buy it. The only way this could be more humiliating for the US is if Trump agreed to do a public apology from Tehran. No way the Gulf countries and Israel would even entertain the thought.
The Gulfs would just follow whatever US wished. They also received the grim reminder that US being far away can just go at a moment notice. Iran is there for eternity figuratively speaking. They all need to learn to live together
With all due respect, I feel people that hold your views would believe it if someone told them that not only did Iran complete defeat and demoralize the U.S. war power in Iran, that Iran has actually successfully bombed the U.S. into submission and the U.S. essentially no longer exists except as a vassal to Iran. I really think there is no Anti-American narrative that is too ludicrous for people that hold this view to believe. I actually find it fascinating.
OK I guess it is pause time. US and Israel are probably restocking on whatever missiles they can get, while Iran doing the same, and Russian/China rushing stuffs to Iran through sea and railroad.
At least I got a cheaper tank of gasoline tomorrow…
There's no ceasefire until Israel stops attacking. Iran retains control over the strait, and their demands haven't changed. Nothing's new other than Iran is ready to sit at the negotiating table because Trump caved-in enough.
Is it terrorism? radicalization seems like a pretty natural human response when your family/home/community gets indiscriminately obliterated by missiles from the sky.
It will not happen. The only way Iran can enforce the fee is by actually shooting missiles at ships that don't pay. This is an act of war and terrorism; and in our current international order, is not viable solution. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf countries, will never agree to it.
Another reason it won't work -- by Iran's logic, every nation adjacent to a strait of water can levy a toll on ships that pass through.
Why doesn't the UK charge tolls on ships that pass through the English channel, and bomb them if they don't pay up?
The same logic applies to the Strait of Gibraltar (Spain, UK, Morocco) and the Strait of Malacca (Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia).
Gibraltar's political situation is what it is because this was sorted out in the Treaty of Utrecht three hundred years ago, and Europe got very tired of leaders that thought they could redraw the map at the cost of millions of lives.
Probably the best we can expect from Iran is a frozen conflict like Korea or Cyprus, that stays frozen.
I disagree. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare.
Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, run a financial economy, pay salaries, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots.
Iran would collapse, within a week. It would collapse into factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.
The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.
Once Iran showed it had no ability to prevent the US/Israel from doing a indiscriminate bombing campaign, it was clear the US and Israel could always win this war.
This is not over yet and it may just result in an established fee for each shipment through the strait to Iran. We won’t/havent hear from Israel which is the key player here. They just do what they want to do because they know the whole world will look the other way.
> How does anyone just open a strait that has mines in it in 2 weeks?
The strait has been open for weeks for friendly countries' ships that pay Iran $2M per passage through their "toll booth", an unmined route through Iranian territorial waters.
This ceasefire appears legitimize that situation. If it holds, Iran is about to make huge amounts of money on top of sanctions relief.
The strait is barely mined, at most a few dozen mines were placed. Multiple ships have transited through in Omani waters since the start of the conflict. So far none have been struck by mines.
The threat why boats do not cross are Iranian missiles / drones striking ships attempting to pass thru, without paying a protection fee. It's basically a terrorism protection fee.
Iran doesn't have legal control over the entire strait; approx half of the strait is Iranian territorial waters and the other half is Omani territorial waters.
For Iran's toll system to work, they would need to strike at ships sailing in Omani territorial waters, which is an act of war.
international law doesnt actually exist. the strait is close enough to irans borders such that they can enforce police activity, so its theirs.
the alternative is that oman and many others can also do the same thing, and the lot of states interested in trade in the area need to get together an negotiate a setup that everyone can agree to
but iran has physical control. lets call it a buffer zone for toll collection. And funny that you mention act of war like it was(would be) caused by iran.
A lot of American and Israeli degenerates here egging on the military to continue their war crimes (bombing of civilian infrastructure and civilians) in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon while simultaneously calling the Iranians evil. Anyone who points that out is downvoted to oblivion. The cognitive dissonance is real.
While you guys live in this bubble of false moral superiority, the majority of people (in the global south) have rightfully started viewing the Americans and Israelis as the real terrorists.
Any American's I've spoke to either are so sick of wars and of course don't want this or they actively oppose it.
The only people you find wanting this war is israelis and their kind. They sit back and relax while having their blackmail controlled, ancient, American politicians do all of the dirty work while sending their sons and daughters to die for isreal.
All Americans I have met had the same discourse: "I am ashamed, it's a pity Trump is in power, it's hard for us too, we don't support him", etc. I am rather sick of it.
A democracy is not an "us versus them" system, it's a closed loop. One cannot hide behind "these imbeciles votted for him and I am held hostage by their ignorance". Pros and antis Trump are equally responsible for his election.
Maybe if the US was not such an individualistic country, with growing educational and wealth inequality, half the population wouldn't have voted for exploding the status quo.
Politicians are no more corrupt than the population not impeaching them.
The US is basically in a streak of blatantly stealing resources of other countries, mafia style, and we are long past the point where the population can argue "we didnt know, we thought they had weapons of mass destruction, I am so against it".
"We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated."
The ten point plan which had previously been rejected outright? The 10-point plan which leaves Iran in an incredibly better financial position? So, apart from blowing up children, what did the US gain out of this?
> I don't think the people paying half again as much at the pump feel like it benefited them.
Since when has the current US government done anything to benefit average citizens?
The war in Iran helps those who actually matter -- the oil companies that spent 445 million dollars getting Trump and other Republicans elected in 2024.
Just pointing out that oil prices going up definitely looks like a benefit to the people the government is beholden to (which ain't the average citizen).
Giving the oil companies, some of the richest companies on the planet, MORE money is a benefit? Is that your idea of good governance? You don't think there's better uses of that money that's coming right out of your pocket and everybody elses?
That's absolutely not my idea of good governance, playing with oil prices is extremely dangerous considering that economy is strongly tied to them. Starting a useless war is crazy in the first place.
But it is more money in America (for the government / oil producers to misuse) which is a benefit from the standpoint of the government. Not sure it exceeds the losses though.
I think this 10 point plan drops the need for US to pay reparations instead relying on transit fees which will be split with Oman.
Missiles are still flying so it’s hard to say who has really agreed to what.
I’ve heard rumors that Iran has agreed to dilute its highly enriched uranium so maybe the US could count that as a win. Given they’ve demonstrated sufficient conventional deterrence they may feel that they don’t need the nukes, especially if they can get some sort of Chinese backed security guarantee. But that might be a trial balloon or wishful thinking.
Yeah, the US overplayed its hand and is in a weak bargaining position and will likely have to accept less than what it could have had. Now with TACO Tuesday who could take his maximalist carpet nuking threats seriously anymore. I hope to be wrong but I doubt the ceasefire holds.
Under Obama's plan they agreed to reduce its Uranium 97% and keep it well under weapons grade and got $2B for the assets that were seized after the revolution.
Here they stand to make $100B a year on tolling the gulf and get to keep their weapons grade Uranium that they stockpiled after Trump pulled us out of that agreement.
FWIW, money is the easiest term to agree to. We have lots and lots. I agree, it will never be called "reparations", but you can trivially structure it in a zillion ways that just look like foreign aid or debt forgiveness or whatever. The WHO forgives some loans or the UN agrees to build some infrastructure, and we coincidentally make a new fund of about the same size, etc...
Iran and US can each declare "victory". TRUMP can say he achieved his objectives, IRAN can say it "won".
What IRAN is really after is lifting the sanctions and ensuring that Israel will not attack again randomly in 2 months.
The problem is that Israel is not going to be happy about this, so I full expect another round of escalation eventually. The only way to deter this is Nuclear Weapons unfortunately and IRAN very well understood this.
No matter what the agreement says, we can be assured Israel will break it, as it has done time and time again. Why would this round be different?
Its only a 2 week ceasefire. Maybe after 2 weeks the sides stay settled down. Maybe they go back to shooting each other. I wouldn't call it over yet.
As far as the geopolitical consequences of all this, i think its still pretty unclear where the chips will fall, but whether a win or a loss for usa, i think the consequences of this war will be significant.
some people got very very rich. like rich - that their great grandkids don't have to work.
that's the price of "freedom".
both sides get to save face - Trump says they won, his cronies n himself got rich. Iran gets a better deal than before.
Israel gets rid of US bases in the Middle East via Iran.
of course the poor and downtrodden get shifted - that never changes.
Honestly? I presume Trump and Iran both gain the ability to kick the can... which they both want. That ten-point plan is 'unrealistic' but he gets to beat his cheats and it looks like both sides are 'claiming' victory here. That this isn't a workable long-term solution seems almost irrelevant. We're at a point where our bargaining frictions are so high, that we'd both rather remain in this standoff as long as possible even if we don't actually resolve it, because resolving it means serious pain on both sides, whereas the US has about a week before the pain really starts hitting consumers and investors.
"What Causes Wars: An Introduction to Crisis Bargaining Theory", by William Spaniel, PHD and professor, specializing in game-theory and specifically crisis bargaining theory: https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA
IMHO that's bad analysis. This is a VERY good solution from Iran's perspective. They stared down a superpower and won. They've gone from an international pariah and nuissance to a genuine regional overlord in a single tweet.
"Whoah there, folks. Stop your tankers please. Thanks. Last year was rough for our farmers. We're increasing tolls on the straight again. Don't like it? Come on over and bomb us again you infidel fucks. See how your precious stock market likes that."
If it holds they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel, which is why Israel will not let it hold. They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now.
I warned you specifically that this Iran war was coming and would not end up in Israel’s favor. As I stated “the Iran war is already unpopular and it hasn’t even started yet.” I understand that it is not yet over.
Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza. I see this war as a breakout attempt to fracture Iran into a failed state so that Israel would be the uncontested regional hegemony. Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support. You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it.
> Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support
This is a very Western-centric view. Step outside that gap and you'll find Israel maintains solid ties in the Emirates, India and even in Europe. In any case, on the time horizons you're talking about anything can happen. If someone wants to hold on to random hopes, I'm not going to rain on their parade.
> Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza
This doesn't make sense. Gaza was blockaded. Iran and its proxies have zero ability to blockade Israel. (Hell, Israel has an easy option if they do–bomb Kharg.)
Take Israel's nonsense in Palestinian territories and Iran's penchant for terrorist proxies out of the equation and the Middle East is more or less balanced. (Famous last words.)
> You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it
Israel isn't dumping America. If you're continuing a thread from another time, I was probably arguing that the notion that Israel existentially depends on America is nonsense. Israel depends on America to be a regional hegemon. (Probably.) But it's perfectly capable of turning its military-export machine and gas fields into sources of sovereignty. Anyone who thinks the region is anything less than transactional has emotionally wedded themselves to a cause the world isn't invested in.
We will have to agree to disagree on Israel’s long term viability without the support of the US. Perhaps if Iran was defeated but so far that has not happened.
look again at iran's peace terms - there's nothing in them about destroying israel, and this is Iran shooting its best shot.
Israel might not be able to contjnue with the genocide, expand its borders, or be a hegemon without US support, but the other powers around aren't calling to destory it or using the lack of its destruction as a bargaining chip. Israel's continued existence is pretty secured unless it falls apart from within
Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position. Saving face is great and all, but rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway.
My point is that their demands are not realistic. That the can has been kicked is good for Iran, it's also good for Trump. Conflict here is bad for both parties, the problem is there I currently don't see a way to step back from the precipice at this point.
> Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position
Iran will get a buttload of cash from China. If we're copying their kit [1] China can one hundredfold. (If Iran can keep playing its role as a heatsink for American weapons, better still.)
> rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway
As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
They lost some military hardware they couldn't have deployed anyway, they have a bunch of holes in runways that they'll fill within the week. They lost their head of state and a bunch of miscellaneous leaders, but it turns out their chain of command was robust. It's gotten stronger for the stress and unity, not weaker.
No, we have to take the L here. The USA went to war with Iran and got its ass kicked. We achieved nothing useful in the short term, and made things much (much) worse for our interests in the long term.
> As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
I agree, but want to add that the threat of hitting civilian targets is itself a war crime, so there's a pretty solid case that we already did over the last few days:
"Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." -Article 51(2) AP1 to Geneva Conventions
> threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population
If Trump's tweet meets this bar, it's a meaningless rule. The purpose wasn't to scare civilians. It was to scare Iran's leadership. What it probably wound up doing was scaring American leadership into talking the President down from his ledge.
Cool that's a nice workaround of the Geneva conventions - any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy! The law tends not to be friendly to such workarounds in my experience, especially if it's trivially easy to enact ("be in negotiations"). Or perhaps you can help me understand what distinguishes this situation in the way you suggest.
> any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy
No, I'm saying there is no evidence the threat was made "to spread terror among the civilian population." If the threshold is just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians, then the rule is meaningless. Whether it's done during negotiations is irrelevant.
I don't have a crystal ball into Trump and Hegseth's minds. But I don't get the sense the threats were aimed at the civilian population. Instead, they were aimed at leadership.
Ah. Didn't he threaten to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country? Do you not find this threat credible? I think the US military is capable of it and obviously that's a threat against the lives of civilians. But it's not a war crime if it's "aimed" at the leaders or because Trump generally bloviates something like that? Any explanation I come up with is exactly the kind of legal workaround I'm talking about.
"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will,"
> "just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians"
I think we just may be working with totally different perspectives on this since I'm struggling to see this the same way as you.
> hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
I mean there is no world policeman that’s going to stop Trump. While I agree with you on the practicality of the situation, we have been on tenterhooks all day exactly because Trump can dramatically escalate this if he wants. It’s just that that escalation will be extremely painful in all sorts of ways, especially if Iran wipes out the oil production infrastructure.
My point here isn’t to “pick a side.” I obviously think this whole escapade was unwise. My point is only to point out that the bargaining frictions point to continuing the conflict.
Iran is happier to delay because the oil crisis is about to hit America. Trump is happy to delay because he can always launch a strike tomorrow, and concessions via existing infrastructure breakdown, or improve his position with intelligence, and this may prevent a more serious oil crisis.
That means both parties see opportunity in maintaining the status quo.
The war began because the Epstein compromising material will likely be made public soon. Once that material is public it ceases to have any value to those who were holding it over various people. Those people in turn were ensuring US military support of a certain country. The logic of the war is that it had to happen now, before that material is released, because after that there is some chance the USA would no longer support said country.
The best steelman argument[1] is that it was a failed gamble. The protests of a few months back (also the improbable success in Venezuela) made them think they could topple the regime. They couldn't.
It's been clear for weeks now that the US has lost this war. The only question was how long it would take Trump to disengage and what the trigger would be.
And the answers appear to be "two more weeks" and "when one plausibly genocidal gaffe went too far and fractured his domestic coalition".
[1] Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.
> Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.
I rarely hear people use the term "steelman" while arguing in good faith. It's basically a tacit admission that you are either advancing a position that you don't actually hold (why...?), or more likely you know it's an unpopular position and you want to argue it while having plausible deniability that you may not actually hold it (which is just cowardly).
Stepping through other peoples logic to understand why they may have a position that you do not understand/agree with is sensible for sure. But if you do that in conversation with others so often that you need to preface it with a special term I'm going to be suspicious that you're just trying to obfuscate your actual opinions.
(see also: "just playing devil's advocate here, but...")
The term "steelman" arose from people who misunderstand the term "strawman". Such people coined it out of the idea thinking that a strawman was an an attempt to make an opponents argument look weaker than it is, while a "steelman" elevates it to it's highest state before attacking it.
In reality, a steelman is just another strawman. A strawman was never simply a matter of making your opponent's argument look weak, they're about making a separate argument that your opponent isn't even arguing, and attacking that to make it look like you're winning the argument while not actually addressing the opponent's actual argument/position. A steelman does the same. In other words, they're about fabricating an argument and making it look like it came from the opponent, before attempting to prove it fallacious. They're both failures in logic - a fallacy of relevance.
Trump wanted tariffs on everyone to increase everyone's operations expenses so that he can somehow enact a protectionist policy. It was repeatedly shut down by the Supreme Court. Now, even with this ceasefire you will have the new Hurmuz tax long after the insurance premiums wind down, and everyone who's heavily dependent on ME oil have increased expenses. Mission accomplished, I guess? At what cost, though.
TACO fortunately. Let's hope this is resolved. Question: what are Trump next plans, who is he going to harass now? he seems to go crescendo in the craziness. Maybe he'll calm down a bit before the mid-terms though.
Iran used to be such a great country until it was taken over by a certain religion fanatics. I wish they would Make Iran Great Again, but it does not seem feasible since they lack a 2A.
Whats the irans citizens feel about this while thing. As an outsider I see there was lot of protest against islamic regime with the killing of young girl for not covering the head or something like such.
But after trump killed the leader it seemed people rooting for islamic regime. Whats the state of people. Is there a way to know
The real winner in this war is Israel. Iran's military might is now a shadow of its former self while all the costs have been paid by someone else: American taxpayers, gas consumers around the world, Arab states. Even the political costs are on Trump.
Certainly economically. NIS-USD exchange is now 3.09 and continuing to drop, reflecting optimism.
Strategically, it remains to be seen what will happen to the nuclear material in the peace talks. If Iran emerges from the war with an intact nuclear program due to a lack of American stamina to carry through and achieve its war goals, that would be an enormous strategic defeat for Israel.
Full disclosure: Iran VS USA is just an excuse to dismantle feudalism. That is the real war. The rest are just logistics exercises. If feudalism ends all wars end.
TBH as an outsider, I am just so frustrated on Trump deciding that US invading Iran large scale is a great idea. (And why even is it involving Israel for gods sake?!)
If you guys wanted to be supportive to the Iranian protests, US could instead just selectively target some of the leadership and give the protests a push (and give the whole world a hint that US is supportive of them).
After 40 years of Iran constructing a thearchy government, the Iranians finally started having a huge protest on throwing up the thearchy government and possibly talking about a new west-friendly government.
And then Trump just decides to wholesale invade Iran with Israel?
That's just giving so much more reasons for the current government to be in power and the Iranians to hate the US and more generally the western world. It took 40 years for the Iranians to realize that there's enough problems in the thearchy system and want their more secularized country back; and then Trump just destroyed the whole premise!
Does the US just really think that they will be loved by everyone when they rage in and invade any random country? Do they really think like that? I'm just frustrated so much. How can the US be so egocentric?
if you look at the iranian response over the past month, the theocracy really hasn't played into it.
no calls to jihad, no ayatollah dorecting anything, no nothing.
as far as i can tell, the revolution is already dead. if the US had just sat around, chances are that iran would have moved towards something more like a constitutional monarchy. still the ayatollah as a figure head and religious leader, but with the rest of the power in the democratic institutions' hands
Let's not forget the road to war started in 2016 when Trump walked into the White House at withdrew from the JCPOA. He's wanted the war for years, got it, and lost it.
JCPOA was a really stupid, badly designed deal, it never placed any limits on missile or drone production. Obama wanted a deal badly, and it was rushed through negotiations without addressing this point for a quick political win.
Iran kept developing its ballistic missiles and drone program even after the deal was signed, and a decade later, Iran has hundreds of thousands of drones and 20,000+ ballistic missiles. A thousand ballistic missiles do as much damage, if not more, than a single nuke.
It also leads to the interceptor problem, namely, it is not possible to stop thousands of missiles coming towards you, and eventually you run out of interceptors and get overwhelmed.
It was a really dumb deal, and this issue was called out at the time, but nothing was done about it. It's like an agreement between Mom and two kids that are fighting. Mom tells one kid, "Okay, promise not to kick your brother!" and he agrees. So he starts learning to punch instead.
Hey now, the JCPOA was designed to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and was working effectively at doing that. That’s completely different from what Trump is demanding now, which is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear..
And Iranians are thankful he did go to war. Rather than just accept the status quo of the last 40+ years. Trump has done more to disrupt the regime than any other president.
Iranians danced in the streets when Khamenei was killed. And have felt hope for the first time in decades that they may change their government.
>Iranians danced in the streets when Khamenei was killed. And have felt hope for the first time in decades that they may change their government.
This is a dumb take, I will guarantee that more people will dance on the street if Trump, or Modi gets killed, doesn't mean it is righteous to do that.
From all reports the regime has not lost control domestically, and internationally it is now emboldened - the US tried to get rid of them and has failed, and they have demonstrated their power to disrupt the region and much of the world's economy.
I had a teacher in school who would sometimes stand at the front of the class with her hand raised and three fingers extended, announcing, “I'm going to count to three, and then you'll all be quiet!” Of course, that never worked. I never understood why she kept putting herself through that farce over and over again. Every deadline that passes without consequence is a loss of face. The same goes for Trump. He can sugarcoat it all he wants: the world sees it as a defeat. The only thing missing is him collecting shells on the beach and ordering the construction of a lighthouse.
Reality on the ground is: US has been amassing troops in tens of thousands. Their mercenary IDF is claiming territory like a field day. Market has barely capitulated (which is the only thing this admin care about).
I expect this is just Trump buying time until he launches ground invasion after two weeks of failed negotiation. You don't spend millions sending tens of thousands of soldiers and billion dollar worth of hardware to just call them back to base.
Trump will "negotiate" and then in the middle of negotiation start a ground invasion just like they did in the past while they map all the military targets for ground invasion (which is hard to when missiles flying all the time). Possibly also replenish their interceptor stocks from other regions which has been running low.
If you follow the kind of people advising him and have his ears (Witkoff, Kushner, Loomer, Levin) they are all for ground invasion.
But yeah, win for US. Oil prices will rebound giving economy the breathing time. Possibly also time to arm the insurgents to regroup for regime change.
> Trump will "negotiate" and then in the middle of negotiation start a ground invasion just like they did in the past while they map all the military targets for ground invasion (which is hard to when missiles flying all the time)
Why is it hard map military targets while missiles are flying? Don't missile launches reveal targets? And I would assume that the mapping is mostly done via satellite, which aren't affected by missiles
If Israel actually stops attacking Iran, that will be a win for the world. Will it happen? I doubt it. The last thing Netanyahu wants is a ceasefire or diplomacy. I think even if Trump tells him to stop he'll keep going.
The furniture salesman knows he's in trouble for the all the illegal gifts he has received and all the other horrific crimes he has committed. He'll hold on for as long as he can. The world be damned.
We should not make fun of both of these lying cheating idiots in charge of either faction.
Look, it's really easy to dunk on them, like super easy. This is a very dumb war and will continue to be so, we all can see that.
But both sides are in a escalate-to-deescalate trap. Neither wants to back down in order to save face. So they can only make things worse.
And things can get a lot worse.
Lots of people legitimately thought that Tehran was going to be a glowing hole by the time you are reading this. That would have been ~17 million lives wiped out. A ground war is a generation in each country that is just decimated like Ukraine is seeing. Already there has been far too much death and destruction, too many children that are now without parents, too many parents now without children.
If avoiding that means not dunking on these barbarous morons for a little while, so be it, a small price.
I know that some random internet comments are about as important as the fly on a horse's ass is to a hurricane, but it has to start somewhere.
I'm not saying we should not hold them to account. No, this mess is maybe something that will snap everyone out of it, it's already so dumb and bad. They deserve, like we all do, the best justice we can give them. And it will not be kind to either side, we all know that.
But, let them have this win. Do the best we can to encourage others to let both sides walk away from this horrible trap. If the do so scot free, hey, that's a win in all of our books.
Let Donny strut about, walk away. Stop it with the TACO nonsense. Let him feel like a big man, a winner, whatever his little pudding brain needs.
Just let the war end before it gets even more out of hand.
Before even more babies have only pictures and stories to know their father by.
Trump is now threatening CNN with legal repercussions for publishing the Iraninian government's take on this, so I think it safe to say we all lost this war.
The talks are theater. Trump is running around like a headless chicken, so it may look like a lot of "diplomacy" is happening, but if you look at the Iranian side, they remain in control over the strait, and their demands haven't changed. The fact that Iran agreed to talk is because Trump caved-in enough.
I find it a little odd when you're clarifying someone's comment and someone else wades in and replies (without even a "not the person you replied to but ..")
Look, I'm glad we're pausing this. But I'd like to understand why an article on the pause shoots right to the top, but news of a tweet from the president indicating a plan to annihilate a whole country does not see a similar rise to the top.
It's too random a process to be precisely answerable about a specific data point or two.
One could argue that this is a doing-something as opposed to a saying-something, and thus more substantive. Or perhaps people want some good news to believe in? I don't know - one can make up lots of just-so stories about these things (see paragraph 1).
Trump tweets insane things hourly. A reputable news organization announcing something actually happening with quotes from both sides confirming is news worthy.
I used to feel this way, but I think at this point you don’t need much of a brain to realize he’s a narcissist grifter that serves only himself without limit. A fellow gets tired of seeing his mouth shit all over the place. Peace/less killing is a positive break I’d much rather hear about.
The timing is really suspicious. The fact that all this opposition in internal meetings is leaked could mean two things:
1) The establishment is genuinely upset with Trump.
2) The ceasefire is a ruse and all this purported opposition is deliberately leaked to pretend that the US now really wants peace but is actually shipping ground troops to the region (at best) or manufacturing internal consent for nuclear bunker busters (at worst).
The fact that Trump posted that he considers the maximalist Iranian 10 point plan as a basis for negotiations points to 2). He has always attacked Iran during "negotiations".
Everything else aside, really relieved for the tanker crews stuck inside the Gulf, with no port that will take them, who are not-so-slowly running out of food.
The number of comments here trying to argue that this is anything other than utter humiliation for Trump and America ...
I guess I should get used to it now. At least 1/3 of Americans will be swayed at nothing and will stand behind their beloved leader, whatever happens. I wonder what will happen to the price of oil in the coming months and whether that will cause some people to change their minds.
I wonder why this post is worthy of staying on the HN front page but all the articles about Trump's threats that "A whole civilization will die tonight" got flag killed. I guess the president making genocidal threats isn't "interesting" enough to meet HN's moderation standards.
We all know he’d say something like that and that there’s a chance he’d actually do it. It isn’t really newsworthy. This isn’t the set of minds that needs to change to affect change in the short term anyway.
I don't understand enough about the US system of government. Are there any hopes of seeing Trump unseated before his term is up? If not for the astonishing damage he's doing to the western world, then only for the sheer fatigue from having every media outlet saturated by him on a daily basis.
If the Dems win the house in the midterms he will be impeached again. If there are 60 votes in the senate he will be out. Dems are unlikely to win the senate, let alone 60 seats.
It’s a bizarre situation in that US elections have such a huge impact on a world that has no say.
I really hope the democrats won’t start the impeachment nonsense showbusiness again and instead focus on actual policy that benefits people. I am very worried that Congress will go even lower and devolve into permanent investigations and impeachments while the country has actual serious problems that aren’t worked on.
I wouldn’t worry, that’s a sure thing. Next on Trump’s list is Cuba. He has to do these things now because after the midterms it’s just going to be investigations and impeachment for two years. Then the Democrats lose again because who cares about more pointless impeachments?
> It’s a bizarre situation in that US elections have such a huge impact on a world that has no say
No say (or at least, no influence) might be a bit strong given foreign election interference.
I'm sure if Britain or France or whoever wanted to, they could have their intelligence services release dirt on candidates or engage in some dirty tricks.
He's been impeached by the _house_ not by the Senate. The US Senate is extremely complicit with the administration. Something the founders did not intend
Upthread is discussing whether the Dems could flip the necessary seats to impeach and convict.
(And no, there is no way they will. It would take winning 20 out of the 22 seats, and losing none, assuming a party-line vote w/ independents siding with Dems. That won't happen. Also, the required vote in the Senate is two-thirds, not "60".)
No. Theoretically congress could impeach him, but his party has proven they will support him no matter what his crimes. Theoretically his cabinet could remove him with the 25th amendment but they are all complicit and will need pardons for themselves.
> Are there any hopes of seeing Trump unseated before his term is up?
I don't think so.
There's two routes, one improbable, one "hell freezes over" level.
The first route is impeachment & conviction. Our legislative branch is composed of two parts: the House and the Senate. The House would impeach him, and if impeached by the House, he would be tried by the Senate.
Currently, the GOP (Trump's party) has a majority of both the House & the Senate. It would require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to convict an impeached president, and I do not see the Democrats winning the necessary seats in the next election (Nov 2026). We do not re-elect every seat at every election in the Senate (they are staggered). Assuming the vote is along party lines, i.e., Dems/Indepedents vote to convict, and GOP vote to acquit, of the 22 GOP seats up for election, all but 2 would need to flip in November in order for a party-lines vote to convict. 4 of the GOP-held seats were won with 65% or higher votes in their last election. I do not see enough seats flipping, nor enough politicians cross parties lines.
The other route, which social media is for whatever reason abuzz right now with, is the 25th Amendment. It permits the Vice President & the Cabinet members to issue a declaration that Trump is unable to discharge his duties. The President himself can end such a declaration, which in this case, I would expect he would immediately do; it would then have to be contested by VP/Cabinet, at which point it would go to Congress, and both House & Senate would need a 2/3rds vote to make it stick.
Impeachment & conviction seems the far easier route, only requiring a 2/3rd vote in the Senate. (The vote to impeach is, somewhat oddly to me, a simple majority vote.)
I don’t get how congress doesn’t have the power to deny/approve this war. Dont even impeach, dont you have to get congressional approval for this stuff?
Barring something catastrophic happening, I would bet that nothing will unseat Trump until January 20, 2027, at 12:00 PM (noon).
At that point, when J.D. Vance is inaugurated, he would be allowed to run and serve for 2 additional full terms (10 years total as president).
Before that, his partial term would count as a full term, and he could only run, win and serve one additional term.
This is all based on the 22nd Amendment, which established term limits.
JD is basically Peter Thiel's manchurian candidate, and some have claimed that it's the plan all along that Trump would probably not complete his term, leaving JD as the president and presumptive nominee for future terms.
Putin also respected term limits for a while, also with a sock puppet. 8 years should be plenty of time to have the Supreme Court Jesters come up with a solution. They already pardoned Steve Bannon!
This seems extremely likely. I’m already unconvinced the elections are going to be fair this year, but I am certain an impeachment would piss the conservatives off so much there would be another red swing during 2028 elections. Then after 4 years of JD Vance we will be living in the United States of Jesus so nothing will matter much anymore.
JD being less popular that Trump is an advantage that the Democratic party can easily squander.
He is pretty popular with the base, and only needs to look more palatable than whomever the opposition puts forward to the swing voters. The fact that he's relatively boring will suppress Democratic turnout somewhat.
And in the case that Trump leaves office due to health reasons, there will be a "rally around the flag" vibe that gives him a boost.
That's not to say that he's certain to win, but he would have many advantages if he serves a partial term and seems to be tracking better.
Trump’s party runs on a platform of subservience and fear and a lot of people either eat that stuff up or else believe their vote doesn’t count. The electoral college basically keeps the populous parts of the country hostage to the rural areas. And the rural areas believe that they contribute all the taxes for all the federal programs their parents created. We’ve basically become completely demoralized as a nation since the Baby Boomers took over for their parents and we’re busy continuing the plot. It won’t be over until we pull our heads out of our butts and start building things together or we become a third-world country.
president after president has had the choice but haven't.
the best you get from that interview is that she was unwilling to say a yes or a no. probably a no, and she's not one to make decisions on a whim based on people stroking her ego
There is exactly a 0% chance of the 25A happening. It will be a cold day in hell — these people worship Trump. They're not ousting him.
Impeachment would be more likely, but an impeachment conviction still seems utterly improbable. You'd need to flip a lot of seats in November, and this country is going to have forgotten all about this set of genocidal threats well before then. There's no way the current House/Senate GOP impeach, let alone convict.
> get in contact with Doug Burgum
I have absolutely no idea why you think Burgum would ever support a 25A invocation against Trump.
I'm from North Dakota. My reps know him. I know they're all cowards and cucked by Trump, but I'm going to keep calling them, demanding they do this, and reading insane Truth Social posts to them because I don't know what else I can do.
Burgum is a fucking disgrace to this state. I wish he'd grow some balls like the cowboy character he sometimes cosplays as and stand up to Trump. I wish my cucked reps would do the same.
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't allowing them to collect a tax on transit pretty much continue to fund themselves to continue this bullshittery forever.
Weird how Iran is able to come to a ceasefire when their whole leadership has been killed times over. Who exactly does Trump think he’s negotiating with?!
I disagree. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare. China and Pakistan told Iran to come to the table, and negotiate, because they do not want a collapsed Iran.
Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, run a financial economy, pay salaries, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots.
Iran would collapse, within a week. It would devolve into factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.
The US and Israel have been sitting on this card the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.
Now reason without water, aka Israeli + GCC desalination. Iran with shit water situation is still less existentially water stressed. Iran 5% vs others 80/90%+ dependency on desalination = once Iran demonstrated survivable regional strike complex, they own the top end of escalation ladder that can take out everyone with them while coming out least harmed.
This not to mention, relative to US performance / conemps, i.e. going back to standoff munitions, there's not really enough discretionary high end munitions to take degrade all Iranian infra vs Iran has enough in reserve to take out all regional desalination. Nevermind US expending 1000s more TLAMs / JASSM(ER)s leaving it unprepared for any other near peer conflict. Reminder Iraq was 20% size of Iran, and so far US+Israel only flew ~20% of sorties via Iran than it has Iraq. Even factoring in precision munitions, US would have to expend more munitions than it has to actually cripple Iran on par with Iraq.
they dont want to do that attack, because Iran can still respond in kind, and both Israel and the US have some value in electricity, oil, and water existing around the gulf and in Israel.
if you make Iran pay that war cost ahead of time, what are you gonna negotiate for after?
Didn't the US and Israel gather intelligence during previous "talks" which ended up with senior Iranian leadership dead? It seems unlikely that this relationship would be fixed by now, and a deal would require big concessions from one side... of which one is polling real badly at home currently.
Between the threats to NATO allies, high oil prices, lifting of sanctions on Russian oil, US personnel losing their lives, military equipment losses, and broken campaign promises... I don't think this is something you just walk away from. It's still not clear why we're there in the first place; one could speculate that Trump was convinced by Israel that this operation would be like Venezuela which seems plausible because no US intelligence agencies backup the notion that Iran was developing or trying to develop nuclear weapons.
I don't know if you're implying kompromat or assassination but I think the explanation that they played into his ego and got him to do their dirty work in Iran is much simpler and makes more sense. Every President before Trump has told Israel no when they asked for "assistance" with Iran.
I'm very sure that Trump just announced the ceasefire to save face and brag that his threats worked to get the strait reopened, and the whole thing will be just a ruse to regroup for further attacks.
I can't see cooler heads in Washington agreeing to these 10 points, and Israel will certainly have something to say.
If these points are agreed, it's a catastrophic strategic defeat for the US.
They already lost most of their bases in the region (13/18 I believe), and would now have to evacuate the rest. We've learned that American military is not so mighty after all.
America's reputation as upholding a rules-based world order is in the toilet.
Iran will emerge as the dominant regional power, with global leverage and a steady extra income due to their complete and accepted control of Hormuz.
The smaller states will be scrambling to find a new international security partner, and China seems like a likely candidate.
The Petro-dollar is likely toast.
I mean if Vlad Putin himself were to direct every decision Trump has made, he could scarcely have done a better job of damaging America and disrupting the world order. Making America Grotesque Again.
Israel, I would think, would claim that Iran getting the bomb would be existential to them, so I don't think it's reasonable to think that Israel would agree to allowing enrichment.
I'm a little surprised that recognizing Israel as a nuclear power isn't in Iran's list of demands, considering how destabilizing it would be.
The CIA (lets for now ignore the alleged Director of the CIA) has for years been saying Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran has been saying for years it does not have a nuclear weapons program. Every country has the right to pursue a civilian nuclear energy program.
The IAEA said earlier this year that Iran had enriched uranium to 60%. Uranium is enriched to 3-5% for nuclear energy, and 90%+ for weapons.
Don't be silly. Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Were they actively racing to a bomb? No. (That's what the CIA was saying). Did they enrich uranium to near-weapons grade so they _could_ race to a bomb, in a matter of weeks, if they decided to do so? Absolutely.
They need one or at least the idea of one if they want to deter Israel who has 200/300 bombs. If they don't want to end up like Iraq or Syria they kind of need this.
This is when people like me comment "According to US media, Iran has been a matter of weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb for over 20 years now".
Their now dead leader wrote a fatwa against nuclear bombs (as well as chemical bombs). Probably because Saddam using US chemical bombs on more than 50000 civilians a few decades ago did radicalize him against WMD.
They definitely have a 'nuclear program'. They have a 'nuclear program' to generate energy. They are a country on this earth and have the right to do this.
Just because we play rhetorical tricks and try to equate "nuclear program" with "nuclear weapons program" does not make it true.
Building a nuclear weapon that can be carried by Iraq's missiles is relatively difficult, because miniaturizing nuclear weapons requires much more complex designs. It took the US and the USSR quite a few test explosions to achieve such a warhead.
Building a bulky nuclear weapon that fits in, say, a shipping container, is not hard if sufficient highly enriched uranium is available. That's Hiroshima level nuclear technology, the gun-type bomb.[1]
This is the difference between the "years away" and the "weeks away" estimates.
Depends on whether the the delivery method is an ICBM or a shipping container.
To be 100% fair to the GP: indeed, Iran does not currently have an active weapons program. But they do have a weapons program, but they used it so far more for leverage. The truth is nobody really knows what they would have done had they achieved the status of nuclear armed power. But given that even the mullahs understand that there is a bit of a difference between threatening to annihilate Israel and actually doing so with all of the consequences attached to that I think they would be more like Kim or Putin than say the UK or France. They would use it for even more leverage and as insurance against being attacked.
Either way: the US is quick to say who can and who can not have nuclear weapons, but at the same time the US is the only country that ever did use them and it is one of very few countries that has (implicitly) threatened their use in recent memory. The only other two countries to do so are Israel and Russia.
Or maybe they know how much more difficult it is to go from 60% to 90%+?
Iran will pursue the bomb now with triple the effort they put into it so far. As will every other crappy country that has the talent, the facilities and the money. That's a lot of countries. Because all of them see the difference between Ukraine, North Korea and Iran: if you have the bomb, they leave you alone. Kim obviously had sponsorship.
The only thing holding back an Iranian nuke tomorrow is the fact that Pakistan and Iran do not see eye to eye on a few things. But Pakistan has vowed that if Israel should ever use nuclear weapons on Iran that Pakistan would hit Israel in the same way.
Keep in mind that they are right next door to each other and have a long term relationship.
When Trump canceled the Nuclear agreement with Iran, Iran immediately started enriching uranium into ship's reactor grade, and apparently started working on a nuclear submarine.
At the same time Iran emitted a domestic law prohibiting anybody from working towards nuclear weapons. The law was in effect up to the moment Trump ordered and killed the Ayatollah, by the way.
I told ya the Ayatollah would end up keeping the gate.
Tolling all the tankers that want to pass through the straight.
The US cannot game this cockamamie new Khameini.
So unless you're a tankie you won't be thanking him later.
The Hegemon can make demands but can't avoid demand destruction.
Steal the oil from Iran, was that the plan? Just like a child abduction?
Trump doesn't have the gumption to snatch enriched uranium
nor does he have the cranium to manage prices at the pump.
Never lower, always higher. Where he sees smoke, I Cease fire.
For Nukes and Nikes Nixon hollered "Abandon gold for Petrodollars!"
The Ayatollah is now doling Trump a lashing for his trolling.
Heed Shaheeds and bleed? No need! Say "Fuck it dude" and just go bowling.
I call the orange guy many things! I believe he's an accidental president. DNC screwed up big time both times. The stakes were higher than ever, so they could have played it safe by looking at past elections, but nope. They wanted to write history, but got the other guy to do it.
Bush (reminder: a republican) screwed things so bad that the country opened to something that had never happened before - A black President.
Now, orange guy (again, a republican, see the pattern) has screwed, and I'm not sure where his bottom is, will set the country to accept again something that hasn't happened before - A Woman President; maybe a black one. There's still time until the 2028 general election.
Also, what do conservatives conserve? They conserve their brains by not using them. Don't take my word; just look at the history, what they have done so far! They are the same everywhere - be it the US or India - same hate mongering lunatics!
They're utterly embarrassed it's just that they've been persistently encouraged via their amygdalas to project their own shame and insecurities onto others, as well as to swallow insane rationales as to why even though these people are evil it's a necessary bitter pill for the worldly government to swallow in order to bring in the eternal kingdom
Iran's 10-point plan includes:
1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again
2. Permanent end to the war, not just a ceasefire
3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon
4. Lifting of all US sanctions on Iran
5. End to all regional fighting against Iranian allies
6. In return, Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz
7. Iran would impose a Hormuz fee of $2 million per ship
8. Iran would split these fees with Oman
9. Iran to provide rules for safe passage through Hormuz
10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of reparations
Iran's semi-official Mehr News Agency (via China's state news agency Xinhua[0]) claims the 10 points are:
1. U.S. commitment to ensure no further acts of aggression
2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz
3. Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights
4. Lifting of all primary sanctions
5. Lifting of all secondary sanctions
6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran
7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran
8. Payment of damages to Iran for loss in the war
9. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region
10. Cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon
Which is much different.
[0] https://english.news.cn/20260408/dd8df6148df94252aaa1d3fbb59...
The Ayatollah Booth is egg on the US's face regardless, but $2M/ship is about $1/barrel for perspective. Spot price is $95/barrel right now.
$2M/ship is $1/barrel for VLCCs, but it's a lot more for smaller ships. Practically, nobody will use a ship smaller than a VLCC with the toolbooth.
VLCCs are already 2/3 the oil traffic, but yeah, rough day to be a small ship with cheap cargo.
Israel is already breaking the ceasefire conditions. Ref: "Netanyahu: Ceasefire doesn’t cover Lebanon" https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-cease...
Israel violated the 2024 ceasefire over 10,000 times [0], not counting all the ones since Feb. 28. I guess this time they're not satisfied with having only 50 "freebies" a day.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Israel%E2%80%93Lebanon_ce...
Have Israel ever respected a ceasefire?
Territorial expansion was probably always Israel's goal of this, with a bonus of weakening a regional rival.
That is such a boring brain-dead myth. Israel has traded in territory numerous times, kicking out the settlers, handing over what was in effect working farms and buisnesses. * Sinai * Ghaza * Lebanon The result was always the same- more attacks on Israel, more fanatics taking over, more of the same horror. The peace through land strategy has never worked. Because the assailants are not interested in any form of peaceful coexistance or well beeing for their people or families. They want to wage a absolut dhijhad
Maybe they'll end up with a sliding scale fee based on ship size/capacity
$2M/ship is $100B/year at pre-war crossing rates.
For reference: This would almost triple their govts funds each year. One must also not forget that they're able to raise tolls in the future, both for monetary investment but also for negotiation purposes.
So we spent a ton of money and a bunch of people died to negotiate a much worse situation.
5D chess!
Trump cancelled the Iran deal, replaced it with nothing and now Iran has found an infinite money glitch.
Nice. I wonder what the costs of reparations would be if the ceasefire were to end the war?
Not convinced it will happen. What would prevent Saudi Arabia from retaliating and introducing a special fee on all ships coming from Iran. It's not like intercepting those massive cargo ships in a small sea is of any difficulty for a well funded military.
Geography and missiles? Iran have everything to lose and have been put in a position where they literally have to fight for their existence.
Militarily Iran is a giant and Saudi Arabia is a minnow.
Saudi Arabia has something like twice as many jet fighters than France. Even if you factor incompetence, it's not hard to hit a cargo ship or an oil production facility in absence of any meaningful air defence.
Does Saudi really want to fight an existential battle alone with Iran over 100B? probably not possible politically too.
1$/barrel - of barrels they are not producing surely ? That would make them able to levy Saudi Arabian and UAE oil and gas.
Rather than $2M per ship, it's €1.7M or 13.7M CNY per ship.
If Iran's 10 points become the basis of the peace, it ratifies Iran's sovereignty over the strait, at which point they can raise the price. It will be years before alternative routes devalue control of the strait, during which time Iran can siphon a lot of money out of passages taxes.
> 2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz
> 6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran
> 7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran
These seem remarkably outside the USes power to unilaterally agree to.
The first violates international treaties and while I'd be thrilled with the precedent as a Canadian eyeing my countries future revenue streams I doubt the rest of the world's countries are going to be happy to give up freedom of navigation through international waterways.
The second is something that can only be done by the UN security council with a majority vote and none of the permanent members vetoing the termination.
I don't actually know how the IAEA works, but it seems all but certain that that's up to their board of governors not the US.
If the US wants the IAEA to agree to something like this, especially considering the global economic impact of refusing, I imagine the IAEA could be convinced.
The JCPOA came about when the US pushed for it in 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal
It’s unlikely that Iran will get it’s demands at least all of them, and further it’s likely that this ceasefire will break no matter what.
The strait is actually not international waters. It’s shared between Oman and Iran remember (deep water shipping lanes does not exists everywhere in it as well). There was reporting of an agreement on both sides to some sort of shared booth.
Only the US would be the permanent party to vote against it which would be against which would be weird if the agree to the conditions in the first place.
IAEA are stooges, they will do what the US tells them and they’ll come up with some legitimate way of doing it.
> The first violates international treaties
Yeah, but USrAel never ratified UNCLOS. Iran is in the same boat.
Although i think they mostly recognize it as customary international law.
Nonetheless international law isn't really worth the paper its written on. The bigger thing is there are a bunch of other countries dependent on the strait that might have something to say about it.
Trump could easily agree to it and consider that “their problem”. (I think Iran realize other countries have a say as well.)
3. Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights
Among many other items this would never be accepted. This momentary cease fire is just regrouping time for everyone involved and that has always been the case for Iran.
It is acceptable, if only enriched for civilian reactors, not weapon grade what they did - and Iran was about to agree to that condition before their leadership was wiped out. If the new leadership will agree, remains to be seen. But I believe china or russia are also not strongly interested in a nuclear armed Iran.
There no feasible escalation path for the US. Trump has alienated allies and much of his anti war supporters. A forever war quagmire in a country 3x larger than Iraq is unlikely, as is carpet bombing. So what's left? A JCPOA style agreement with a Maga bumper sticker on it, with heavy concessions to Iran to prevent them from racing to a bomb, which is the best option from their pov at this point.
Carpet bombing would be a waste of munitions. Iran to your point is massive and surface level bombing would mostly take out civilians. The civilians have been through enough. Most of Irans military and religious leaders are in missile cities that are 500 meters+ under mountains of rock, the same places they are creating nuclear material. These bunkers are immune to bunker busters and nukes. That will require ground troops and likely a lot of them. How that plays out specifically I have not a clue. I can only hope that they share body-cam footage and that casualties are kept to a minimum. If there is one thing I can give Iran credit for that is building some amazing and very impressive bunkers using US dollars.
with heavy concessions to Iran to prevent them from racing to a bomb
This game has already been played out many times before. Obama unfroze 1.7 billion, Biden gave them upwards of 6 billion. All together the US has given them upwards of 60 billion to pinky promise they wont build nukes. Never pay a bully, ever. They used that extortion money to build bunkers, pay their proxy soldiers to attack Israel and all the gulf states and to work on their bunkers. There will be no more of that. Shame on anyone that falls for those shenanigans again.
Interesting. I have noticed that news about events in Iran has been markedly different within the US and outside the US for years.
The differences in the various 10 point lists have been noticed. I wonder if different lists are being produced to make each side look better to their respective populace?
Still, either way lifting sanctions seems like a win for Iran. Also seems like Iran is going to be allowed to charge a transit fee through the SoH. Trump's going to spin this as a win, but it seems like a big loss. Maybe he's just desperate enough to get out of this that he's going to let it slide?
Yeah 0% chance the US agrees to this.
The US doesn't have the cards
Have the U.S. and Iran agreed the points? Or is this two weeks to hammer them down?
Of course not. It's a framework of a framework of a framework, unilaterally suggested by Iran.
Two weeks of open Strait to nail the final version, yes.
I guess gas prices in US will cool down to pre-war price averages and the pressure not to resume aggression will be huge.
No chance. Up like a rocket, down like a feather.
and that's without considering the lost production capacity.
Two weeks of open Strait [1]
[1]: in coordination with the Iranian military [2]
[2]: with preference for Iran's friends[3]
[3]: and fees paid to Iran
It doesn't seem much different. Both involve guaranteed stop of all hostilities plus payment for what you did plus keep we Strait Of Hormuz. The only difference is how the payment for the attack goes.
Withdrawal of US troops from the region and acceptance of uranium enrichment appears nowhere in the other 10 points.
There are permanent US bases in the region.
Seriously? Those are major differences.
Even that is wildly worse than when we started the war. This is a unmitigated loss.
Either way, it's maximalist aims, not realistic aims. Negotiations will obviously converge closer to US aims since Iran has no leverage.
> Iran has no leverage.
Patently false. Else there'd be no ceasefire.
The president just went from threatening genocide to begging Pakistan to set up a deal that doesn't even have agreed-upon terms. Seems like they have quite a lot of leverage.
> 3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon
Israel says Iran war ceasefire doesn’t include Lebanon
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/08/iran-war-...
And allegedly Iran launched missiles to Israel right after that.
I’m not sure the terms of negotiation are even worth discussion. Every time this administration has negotiated with anyone on matters pertaining to Israeli interests, it’s only been a ruse to position for another attack.
My guess is that they know good and well all the marine landing craft are going to get smoked and are using a false peace to preposition the ground invasion. The ridiculous James Bond scheme they tried to pull off which resulted in us destroying a dozen of our own aircraft and, quite probably a few of our own operators was a Hail Mary inspired by too much television. That failure leaves the administration with quite the dilemma. Surrender and call it a victory, which Israel will not allow. Or repeat the Syracuse Expedition as farse.
It’s a bit depressing to think about, but my hope is that these catastrophic failures will get false allies out of the decision loop and we proceed as a more peaceful and wiser country.
> false allies
You can just say Israel. I wonder how long it will still take that Netanyahu has not US (or anyone’s at this point, except himself) interest in mind. Even Trump must be able to put two and two together at this point, no?
Trump is probably being black mailed. Epstein must have given them some really heinous footage of Trump on camera.
Oh at this point you should probably wonder not whether he gets it, but what leverage does Israel he have over him, and if it's directly from Epstein files.
What leverage could possibly Israel have that could be worse than this? https://newrepublic.com/post/207508/13-year-old-trump-accuse...
If his support from budge from him assaulting a minor sexually, Israel might have a file proving he is the antichrist, it would not matter. It’s more akin to a death cult than a political party.
> Even Trump must be able to put two and two together at this point, no?
How have you looked at the the last couple of decades of Trump and come to that conclusion? The man's a total idiot and that was even before his mental decline
He is an extremely prickly idiot that has very accute senses when somebody is crossing him over. So does any two-bit hustler. Or maybe he really did start a war just to bury the Epstein files for a brief moment, god only knows at this point.
Yikes, so basically Iran gets everything it wants. It paid a heavy price for it, but it would get so much out of this. At pre war ship rates, that toll would be ~$90B per year ($45B if split half with Oman). Iran's government generates something like $40B in income, so this would be absolutely monumental.
Posts like this from the HN community are almost surreal. Any review of the actual deal would show a two week ceasefire in exchange for the strait being open and safe while negotiations continue. This 10 point plan is just a place to start talking, no country has agreed to anything on it. How is this missed on the community here?
Who knew tech employees weren't exactly across international politics.
No it would be trivial to gain a thorough understanding of Middle East politics and the oil market for an enlightened people who were able to become foremost experts in epidemiology, molecular biology, global supply chain logistics, the war in Ukraine, semiconductor manufacturing, and many other fields entirely self-taught simply by obsessively reading social media and wikipedia.
"Infotainment" is the term I've heard to describe Reddit and other talking websites. People are looking to "win" like they do in sports or other recreational activities. It's a kind of fun that disguises itself as learning-- minus, of course, the actual work.
That's why people come here, they learn these things in the comments.
It's not the people who just come to learn though.
> This 10 point plan is just a place to start talking
Its probably not even that. PR statements for public consumption rarely reflect bargaining positions behind closed doors.
I understand this perspective a lot more. I assume they're going to haggle and work on a few items, and adjust pieces here and there. What if they at least get sanctions lifted, that would be huge, no? Going to be an interesting couple of weeks.
The community is not as sophisticated as you may perceive it to be.
Nobody knows what "the actual deal" is because we have pathological liars on both sides (well, especially pathological on one side, most just utilitarian on the other)
Iran's version of events includes the Iranian military controlling the Strait and incurring fees.
AP is reporting Iran's version as the true one.
Welcome to HN where users with little domain knowledge make comments of utter certainty about any topic under the sun.
No one has agreed to the Iran's 10 point plan, and they're not going to get all of it.
The provisional ceasefire actually goes against the Iranian proposition. Point 2 explicitly is "permanent end to the war, not a ceasefire".
Iran backed down a bit here from their maximalist aims (which is what the 10 point is).
Trump literally said he would bomb them to the stone age. It doesn’t get more maximalist than that and it was the US that backed down.
A ceasefire agreement isn't an end of war agreement.
Typically that means backing down on objectives/demands otherwise that would be the end of it.
Stone age is old news. The latest threat is that an entire civilization will die. And yes, US backed down -- TACO Trump shows up again.
TACO enjoyers always come out on top.
> US backed down -- TACO Trump shows up again.
It's stunning to me, that people still do not understand Trump's one-and-only playbook. He literally published a book about his one-and-only strategy all the way back in 1987 - yet people still freak out when he makes big demands then settles for more realistic options. The guy literally has used the same strategy over and over, and everyone acts like it's the first time every time.
It's also stunning to me the very same people that were losing their minds about threatened events immediately switch into "TACO" mode when those events don't happen.
In this situation, Trump made wild threats and demands if Iran didn't agree to a ceasefire. Iran initially rejected but then some 6 hours later accepted. The one-and-only playbook strikes again.
He did it with Xi Jinping but the Chinese immediately responded in kind.
Bullying only works against the weak.
How is it backing down when his threat was we’d do it if they didn’t agree to open up the strait, which is now open?
I don’t like the way he does things but we’ve seen Trump’s playbook enough to see what he does. Big threat, followed by the US getting some sort of capitulation from it. He then doesn’t follow through with the threat.
That’s not chickening out. That’s just negotiating with a big stick.
The strait is not open, Trump is pretending it is, to save face. Iran is charging $2M per ship, which will net them $90B and that is significantly higher than their oil revenue ($60B). Plus they get to keep their enriched uranium. Yes they lost some buildings and bridges but the strait fee is enough to rebuild. Iran is in a stronger position now than when the war started. TACO Trump lost the war.
> Iran is charging $2M per ship,
Iran wants to charge $2M per ship as part of it's ceasefire conditions - which will almost certainly be rejected since that would impact every ship/nation traversing these waters. Waters that are not owned by Iran.
> Plus they get to keep their enriched uranium.
There's 0% chance of that happening.
> Iran is in a stronger position now than when the war started.
All of Iran's senior leadership are dead. Most or all of the "second-string" leadership is dead. All but their ground-force military is destroyed.
So we go back to all out war and a closed straight when no agreement is made.
The leadership clearly doesn't matter as neither the regime has collapsed nor have moderates emerged.
Claims of destruction of "all" military are continually invalidated by the ongoing drone and missile strikes.
> which is now open?
Is it? Iran seems to be under the impression it is subject to their control.
Big stick?! More like whacking himself with a big stick.
Read up on his ‘playbook’ with russia, north korea, china etc ..
I mean, neither one did what they said they would do, if they had both done what they said they'd do, I guess we'd have nuclear war, so. (To the extent that you can't get anything consistent out of what Trump says he will do it's literally not possible, because he constantly contradicts himself.)
They also got to keep their new Ayatollah and continue with their religious government. An escalation of the war would have certainly ended with a complete regime change. Which would have been very expensive in life (Iranians) and money (Americans).
A complete regime change would probably only come with a large scale invasion, bigger than Iraq's. A huge majority of Americans don't want that.
Or with their people rising up, which is I think what the US and Israel were hoping for - though they didn’t seem to plan for a way to actually make it happen.
We will see what happens at the end of this war when people come out of their homes to a crumbling country. They could decide that enough is enough and bring in some change.
Without arms, it is probably impossible for the people to take back their country.
We take the Second Amendment for granted here in the US - but the lack of a similar thing in Iran is what will keep the civilian population under the regime's control - or else another 10k-30k+ massacre.
There was never going to be a regime change. Continuing the war meant many Americans were going to die (in addition to bankrupting the US). I'm a US citizen and very glad Iran came out on top here.
US is bankrupt to the tune of trillions already.
When you don't the money, you can't go bankrupt.
But, if you had an amazing reputation for paying your debts, and get super low interest rates because of it, and all of a sudden you change your reputation and demand for holding your debt and currency goes down, well, then that's created a massive problem for the currency that reduces everyone's quality of life drastically.
Their new Ayatollah is braindead. It's not over yet.
Nothing has been agreed yet except a 2 week ceasefire.
It depends. If it later comes out that their nuclear material was secured by the US, this is much more acceptable - it would seriously incentivize pipeline construction by making passage through the Strait more expensive. Given that closing it is really the only lever Iran has that can put pressure on the US at all, this attenuates that a great deal.
It’s not acceptable on its face, but there’s a lot going on in this conflict that isn’t making the news.
Iran has also been freely bombing Israel and US assets around the Middle East. The Zionists bit off more than they could chew and now Iran is better positioned than ever before. Not only that Iran has earned a lot of respect globally and Israel/the US has lost what little they had left.
A pipeline will circumvent Iranian tolls, but would be vulnerable to Iranian strikes in a war.
Probably a risk worth taking; defending a pipeline is much easier than escorting huge, slow-moving ships through a 24km-wide Strait laced with mines and peppered by artillery and missiles.
As opposed to a single continuous structure in a well known location, full of flammable liquids?
The US did not secure nuclear material. No one has even made that claim and it was logistically impossible.
It all sounds great. Which government? Is it a different regime? If not, why would the US concede?
> why would the US concede?
Because it has no way of achieving its objectives.
I don't think that has stopped anything so far, but I appreciate your optimism.
More accurate to say that the US is not willing to pay the price to achieve its objectives I think (depending on who/when you’re asking what exactly the objectives are of course).
Because it doesn’t have a choice. There is no path to winning this war, just ways of making larger and more complex versions of the Iraq occupation.
Depends on what you mean by "win". It would be possible to go in, topple the regime and secure the nuclear material. But only at astronomical cost and years of blowback
"Regime Change" has become a modern term for vassalization. We should not be surprised that countries with no reason to be a US vassal, and no long-term ties to the US refuse to remain vassals.
So then what would we achieve? nuclear material is cheap (10s of billions) relative to a multi-decade occupation (single digit trillions). It's undoubtedly true that Iran would revert to it's preferred form of government, geopolitical orientation, and nuclear capability once the US left.
Winning a war means achieving your political goals while preventing the enemy from achieving theirs. Most of the time, you've won the war when the enemy effectively admits they lost.
The lack of will to use sufficient force to win a war is fundamentally no different from not having that force in the first place. Both are equally real constraints on your ability to win the war.
How’d that plan work out in Iraq or Afghanistan, both much smaller, less armed countries? Decades and trillions spent, and what exactly did the US “win”?
The US won the removal of a regime in Iraq that strongly opposed Iran. </sarcasm>
Why would the US start this in the first place? Be assured that however this comes out, a “Truth” will be posted assessing it as the Greatest Deal Ever and a Total Win, end of story.
a major reason would be that they didnt think iran could selectively close the strait, and the intelligence about how not liking the current government is not the same as supporting the US
It’s been repeatedly stated by officials that we fought this war for Israel. We had nothing to gain and much to lose, and lose we did. Thankfully Israel also lost and I think this was their last chance at using the US as their attack dog.
People are looking for conspiracy theories when the truth is simple - trump did it because he thought it would be an easy quick win that will put him in the history books.
It’s not a conspiracy theory if Trump and all parties involved explicitly state this was for Israel. The simplest explanation is that they are telling the truth, which makes sense since the US had nothing to gain from this.
Netanyahu has wanted to do this for decades. If you rob a bank, you don't get to say "oh, well, my crazy friend down the pub has been saying we should rob a bank for ages, and I suddenly decided he was right"; you do have some personal responsibility.
We will see if this is all the chips that Epstein bought
> If not, why would the US concede?
Because Trump is already facing a bloodbath in the midterms and his next step is either a ground war or dropping a nuke, and both of those will ensure he not only loses the midterms but has a legitimate shot at seeing the inside of a prison cell.
Because the escalation Trump was talking about would have wrecked the ME with Iran's retaliation on desalination plants, oil infrastructure, power plants, etc. Which would have been a massive shock to the global economy, along with a large humanitarian crisis inside of Iran and it's neighbors.
The old government is largely dead. The new one has a carrot and a stick in front of them.
The new government is led by the Ayatollah Khamenei. The son of the last one, younger and out for revenge.
Knocking off Saddam gave us ISIS. These things have a way of going sideways.
> new government is led by the Ayatollah Khamenei
Let's see. It may be a military dictatorship using Khamenei, who may or may not even be in Iran, as a figurehead.
Not the military, the IRGC. Which is a religiously indoctrinated military.
So it would still be a theocracy, same as before, but now also run by people who are conditioned to believe that more violence is always a solution to any problem.
Knocking off the Taliban gave us the check notes the Taliban
The IRGC is probably more analogous to the Ba’ath party than the Taliban if we’re limiting ourself to regional comparisons
This son is reportedly in coma and in no position to rule.
Yay! We cut off two of the hydra’s heads! That always ends well.
Reported by whom?
So who has the authority to claim that Iran has agreed to a ceasefire?!
The old govt was about to be toppled by people sick of it. The US attack unified those people behind the leaders son, someone they’d not have taken before, and entrenched a new generation against the US. So far the carrot and stick has them openly mocking Trump and the US as Trump makes threat, draws line, folds yet again, repeats.
How much do you think is fair for being attacked by a superpower for no reason in illegal military action with war crimes sprinkled throughout.
Imagine it happened to you.
The US attack on Iran was wrong but don't forget that Iran loves to lob ballistic missiles at Israel civilians.
> Iran loves to lob ballistic missiles at Israel civilians
Phew and I wonder why that might be!
Yea, I do wonder, why that might be? Why is a country 1500 miles away, that doesn't even share a common border, preoccupied with the destruction of Israel to the point it invested hundreds of billion of dollars in its offensive capabilities and network of proxies on every side of Israel, had a special paramilitary wing (Quds Force) for operations inside Israel, had a public clock counting down the existence of Israel and called for the destruction of Israel on each and every opportunity?
What's the obsession with the destruction of Israel? Could it be related to the fact that an Islamic Republic of (...) could not accept a Jewish rule right in the middle of the great Muslim Ummah?
So you really can't see what the problem is that the Israelis have caused in this region, can you.
Because they have a very deep and irrational hatred of Jews that stems directly from the way the koran talks about them.
Here's a comment to the contrary from another poster which I found illuminating: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47605903
The US and Israel have killed over 3,000 civilians in this war, mostly in Iran and Jordan. Iran has killed like 30. Their attacks are literally a hundredth of what they got and we're still trying to portray them as the bad guys. Don't get me wrong, Iran sucks, but not because of this
The Shia Theocracy controlling Iran has killed thousands of civilians protesting their oppressive regime.
Iran has killed thousands of its civilians. The only reason it has only killed a few Israelis (excluding Oct 7) is because they can't easily get past Israeli defenses.
What? Iran was attacked by israel numerous times, including today. It has the right to defend itself.
If anything, it's israel here that has attacked almost all countries in the area and annexed land from them ("buffer zones").
How does shooting ballistic missiles with cluster warheads at residential areas help defend Iran?
Can you please cite the source of these ten points?
Does it include a end to Hezbollah strikes on Israel from Lebannon, Hoothi strikes on Israel? Sounds like the us just surrendered?
Trump ensured that there is absolutely no reason for any nation, not just Iran, to believe what USA says in the future. No agreements/treaties with the USA can be trusted. And not just with Trump administration, since he demonstrated clearly that he can tear any treaty/agreement that was made under different administrations as well. The United States demonstrated that it has very, very limited control over the actions of an elected president.
Do you have a source for this being the 10 points which form the basis of negotiations, rather than something released to the media to shape those negotiations?
This is not the deal. Iran had published this earlier as their list of demands, just like the US did. The reality is something in the middle of that.
Iran's 10-point plan (that no one else has agreed to)
Exactly, but Hacker News is upvoting this because it wants the US to be seen as the loser of this conflict.
Both sides in a conflict (or any negotiation) make demands that they know the other will not accept. You can't just take someone's list like that and assume that'll be the exact outcome.
Oftentimes ceasefires have agreed-upon terms.
Congratulations, Iran has won the ability to fund its politics many times over in this way and they've lost little else.
Contrast it with the JCPOA by Obama
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/joint-comprehensive-p...
Key Aspects of the JCPOA: Enrichment Limits: Iran capped uranium enrichment at 3.67% for 15 years.
Centrifuge Restrictions: Reduced operating centrifuges to 5,060 IR-1 machines for 10 years.
Stockpile Restrictions: Limited enriched uranium stockpile to 300 kg for 15 years.
Facility Redesign: Redesigned the Arak heavy water reactor to prevent plutonium production and converted Fordow into a research center.
Monitoring: The IAEA receives enhanced access and monitoring capabilities.
Sanctions Relief: UN, EU, and US nuclear-related sanctions were lifted, restoring Iranian oil sales and banking access.
So much winning.
While since Trump dropped that deal, Iran had enriched around 440kg to 60%. Nobody knows for sure where any of that is.
yep, the US fucked up by not properly ratifying the JCPOA
tearing it up and pissing all over it led directly to this quagmire
Seems reasonable given their advantageous position.
> Iran would split these fees with Oman
Hard to imagine Trump splitting any fees if he was the leader of Iran.
I can’t accept the theocratic tyrants who implement terrorism, execute their own people and slaughter them as they protest remain in charge. They should be forced out of power.
I wonder if the US had struck when momentum was high during the popular uprising, it could have being self sustaining, with arms and logistics setup to feed the resistance advance.
The delusional idea that one can affect regime change through bombing is the cause of quite a bit death and destruction throughout the world.
Maybe the problem wasn't the timing, but the fact that thousands of people were killed and millions lived in fear for the future for the past month? That's enough to cause most people to stand behind their government, no matter how reviled they might be.
The second day of the war Israel gave everyone in Tehran a day-long oil shower. Imagine cleaning that out of your kid's hair, you're not going to overthrow the government that's shooting back.
I guess you’re right. I was thinking a peoples army, armed by US logistics and calling in US air support.
But i guess you know more than i do
There was, and still is, no scenario in which US and/or Israel attacks Iran and effects regime change. Come on, we've been over this multiple times over the past few decades.
Any direct military action will galvanize population against the existential threat, not against the tyrant who's still your countryman, no matter how rotten.
If they wanted true change, grassroots support was the only way. Was, because at this point more than likely any revolution has been pushed back by a few years at least, probably decades.
I see your point. You don’t think most Iranians want freedom from tyrants? I see 90% dislike the tyrants, and 80% want Trump to eradicate them. Leveling the field for the popular revolution I hope takes over.
Source please. I think we should all get the source of these 10 points from somewhere.
Where did you get those points from? Do you have a source? The 10 points I've read in the media are different, e.g. https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2026/04/08/what-is-i...
What about the other Middle East countries involved such as the UAE and what about Europe?
Europe, thankfully, stayed out of this mess. Some countries even rejected to even give logistical support to the US.
and some (most?) countries offered support...?
Spain has held a firm line, but even others such as UK/FR have allowed use of facilities or engaged their air craft carriers or facilitated US movements.
I wonder if uninvolved nations will also be required to pay the safe passage fees.
> wonder if uninvolved nations will also be required to pay the safe passage fees
If Iran is smart (and Iran gets the fees, which remains a big if) they would exempt Spain.
Aside from Iranian allies, it seems likely.
So this would have the downstream effect of further degrading international sentiment towards US military operations in the future.
> Europe, thankfully, stayed out of this mess
Cyprus/UK [0] faced attempted strikes; the UK is running defensive sorties for the UAE [1], Qatar [2], and Iraq [3]; and British bases in Oman and the UAE were struck [4]. France has done similar actions as well [5]. The UK and France have mutual defense pacts across the Gulf as well which they need to maintain.
Additionally, Ukraine has now begun providing defensive capabilities to the Gulf States, which Iran argues makes it an active combatant [6]. By this precedent the UK and France are also active combatants against Iran.
The reality is, the Iran War and the Ukraine War are tied to the hip. If defending Ukraine against Russian drone strikes conducted by Iranian ground troops [7] and using Iranian technology [8] is critical to European security, then ending Iran's tactical support is critical as well.
Ironically, this is probably great news for Ukraine. Russia's geoint support for Iran [9] has made it easier for my peers still on the Hill to make a case to double down and enhance American support for Ukraine, as well as pulling Gulf States who were previously neutral to supporting Ukraine as well [10].
This is also why Ukraine is calling out Russian disinfo ops about the war [11]. Iran has doubled down on similar information warfare [12] and hybrid [13] operations in the UK and Mainland Europe
Frankly, we need to call a spade a spade - the Ukraine War and Iran War have merged into a single transnational war.
If you support Ukraine you cannot support Iran, and this is Ukraine's stance as well [14][15][16][17][18].
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_drone_strikes_on_Akrotiri...
[1] - https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/uk-warplanes-do...
[2] - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/is-uk-war-iran-n...
[3] - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/trump-starmer-s...
[4] - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/will-could-uk-go...
[5] - https://www.politico.eu/article/france-sends-anti-missile-an...
[6] - https://www.kyivpost.com/post/72965
[7] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/24/iranian-milita...
[8] - https://jamestown.org/dirty-business-the-russian-iranian-str...
[9] - https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/2040716892650803610
[10] - https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-deepens-gulf-securit...
[11] - https://english.nv.ua/nation/moscow-panics-as-ukraine-signs-...
[12] - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/social-media/article/iran-war-fa...
[13] - https://www.ft.com/content/adc3e954-5928-471b-b7f2-e4385bbca...
[14] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/01/10/8015528/
[15] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/06/15/7517248/
[16] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/12/20/7381481/
[17] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/11/06/7375231/
[18] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/24/7403733/
---
Edit: can't reply
> There is no particular reason to assume that the side you take in one conflict should have an impact on your stance toward another conflict
What you are describing is compartmentalization - something which you posited is false [0]
If Qatar and UAE's dual use infrastructure is within the rights of Iran to strike despite both having dealings with both Iran and the US and if Ukraine can be treated as a combatant by Iran [1], then this precedent holds for all of Iran given how they have aided and abetted Russia in Ukraine.
With the precedent Iran set against Qatar, compartmentalization no longer holds. And Ukraine's stance is that Iran is a terror state and an enemy of Ukraine [2], so frankly if you stand with Ukraine you also have to stand against Iran.
> Surely that has to be the default position. They all have a right to defend themselves and a valid claim for reparations.
Iran has been providing Russia ballistic missiles [3], drones [4], artillery [5], boots on the ground [6], ammunition [7], and other support against Ukraine.
If Iran deserves reparations from the US, then Ukraine deserves reparations from Iran. Yet Iran has doubled down in opposing Ukraine [1].
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47623496
[1] - https://english.nv.ua/amp/iran-threatens-ukraine-after-accus...
[2] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/12/20/7381481/
[3] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/11/07/7375314/
[4] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/11/03/7374835/
[5] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/03/08/7392485/
[6] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/02/17/7389742/
[7] - https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/05/7405318/
Look, if you continue down that road to GCC countries engaging Iran, then you have a multiparty nuclear armed conflict with combatants stretching from Europe to the Chinese border.
At that point it really does sound like ww3 started from the same causes as ww1 - nobody will win, nobody will know why they are fighting, and most of the fighting will be drones being slung over trenches.
> At that point it really does sound like ww3 started from the same causes as ww1 - nobody will win, nobody will no why they are fighting, and most of the fighting will be drones being slung over trenches.
Name me one war of aggression that ended up being a long term win for the aggressor.
Us revolutionary war. China taking Tibet. US Mexican war.
> At that point it really does sound like ww3 started from the same causes as ww1
My stance on this is the same as Fiona Hill's [0] and Zelensky's [1].
I'd argue the date this began was 24th February 2022 [2]
[0] - https://xcancel.com/FrankRGardner/status/2027098560647348410
[1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgj9p15y87o
[2] - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60503037
The first time I saw a graph describing relationships between various factions in the Middle East was probably in the late 90s. I remember being amused by it. It turns out that if you are a region full of conflicts, the ally of your ally is often your enemy.
On the other hand, it should have been obvious. Real-world relationships are not transitive.
There is no particular reason to assume that the side you take in one conflict should have an impact on your stance toward another conflict. At least if you are not some kind of a rationalist who values logical consistency over practical implications.
> If you support Ukraine you cannot support Iran, and this is Ukraine's stance as well
The three countries that have been attacked, including civilian infrastructure, are Ukraine, Lebanon and Iran
Surely that has to be the default position. They all have a right to defend themselves and a valid claim for reparations.
Also, another question: Do you think that World War III or something close to a global conflict will start as you mentioned that the Ukrainian-Russo War and the Iran War "have merged into a single transnational war"?
My stance is the same as Fiona Hill (former Senior Director for Europe and Russia in the US NSC and now a Defence Advisor for the Starmer administration) [0] as well as Zelensky [1].
[0] - https://xcancel.com/FrankRGardner/status/2027098560647348410
[1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgj9p15y87o
The UK's involvement is minimal and we do not see ourselves part of this war / nor want to be part of it.
And FYI I live in the UK, so I'm better placed to comment than you listing a bunch of links.
It doesn't matter what you think.
The RAF is still conducting defensive military operations in the Gulf [0][1] which Iran now treats as active combat against Iran.
[0] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrmg6x2rgxo
[1] - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/raf-personnel-become-firs...
This is was a really insightful read, thank you! Also, what are ya'll thoughts about Canada and their refusal to engage in the Middle East?
Frankly, Canada does not have the power projection capabilities needed for West Asia.
That said, Canada is best served protecting the Arctic, North Atlantic, and the North Pacific, all of which now face increased pressure from Russia and China, and threaten much of North America, Northern Europe, and Northern Asia.
This is also the stance of the Government of Canada [0][1]
[0] - https://international.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/corporate/...
[1] - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-arctic-military-exerci...
Lifting of all US sanctions on Iran
I do not see that happening.
Did we get "The Art of the Deal"'ed?
I don't think he read that book. He certainly didn't write it.
Someone is experiencing materiel gain, that's for sure.
Ok, so that won’t happen right? Israel won’t agree to #3
That's just anchoring.
Are this points for discussion or demands by Iran?
So this 10 point plan that was “not good enough” according to Trump on Monday 6th April, now as the deadline looms, it’s suddenly “a workable basis” for negotiations?
Frankly if Iran get nothing more than a complete lifting of sanctions this would be a massive climb down for the US.
Trump's rhetoric was all bluster, he actually had no leverage and was unwilling to pay the cost to continue the war (mostly in terms of cost to himself). He needed an offramp and this was it.
Right.
So basically complete American surrender. And America accepted this deal.
Iran if they have any sense should be prepared for a massive self defense and counter attack. "Talks" from the USA and Israel have a precedent of being attacks and invasions.
If there's one thing that's pretty clear, it's that the Iranian government is quite aware of this and of how the US acts. The US government, on the other hand, seems oblivious to anything about how the Iranian government acts.
The US government seems to be pretty oblivious to how it itself acts, expecting them to understand another country's motivations is so many steps beyond that.
I am honestly surprised and shocked to admit but Iran is the sanest and least immoral side in this conflict and it's not because my views of Iran improved or changed much. I couldn't imagine I'd be saying such a thing a few years ago.
Why would the US accept these terms? They could just keep crippling Iran’s infrastructure and fuel supply and more until their new leadership fractures. Is this entirely about midterm elections?
We could have done that, but Donny Two-Scoops had to go and threaten them with total destruction. That limited his options greatly.
Source please. Please provide the source for that plan.
It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror. The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive. If winning and losing is the way you are framing this, instead of thinking about the humans that these actions affect, then we all have lost.
It is possible to deplore the human cost, while also looking at the reasons why such conflicts occur, and what the goals of those involved are.
In a war, usually both sides lose.
That doesn’t align with the perspective of actual Iranians I know.
There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.
That aligns with conversations I’ve had with Iranians friends in the US and family members within Iran who want the regime destroyed so there is a chance of removing the Islamic theocracy that governs the country currently.
My general impression is many people want the regime destroyed, which seems clear from talking to people but also just all the protests. I haven't asked but I'm skeptical they are for things like attacking of every bridge, railroad, and power plant (which are important civilian infrastructure). The threat was specifically that their "whole civilization will die tonight"
I will tell you exactly what my Iranian wife said when I asked her about people congregating on the bridges after Trump said he’ll bomb them: she said (paraphrasing) “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters”.
The country is basically on the verge of civil war. The reason it’s not is because the anti-regime forces are disorganized with no clear leader, have no weapons, and rely on internet to organize.
> “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters”
Even those regime supporters are civilians. This is literally advocating for a war crime.
Sad that my comment got flagged, this is a major problem with hacker news - censorship of comments that prevent people from hearing all perspectives.
The point of my comment was to give a first-hand conversation with an actual Iranian.
You can react to it any way you want, but the point of my comment was to show how some Iranians are actually thinking. And yes, many Iranians want regime change and they see the supporters of the regime as the enemy.
The regime hangs protestors by the way.
Yes, many Iranians want regime change, but that's not going to happen by bombing everything in the country, and Trump isn't willing to send troops. I'm not sure what your point is actually.
I was responding to a comment about bombing bridges.
I quoted an actual conversation i had with an Iranian where they said essentially “go ahead and bomb the bridges”. That got flagged for some reason.
I’m simply trying to surface conversations I’ve had with Iranians. So often these Internet conversations occur in a bubble.
My point? I guess there’s this idea that Iranians are disgusted with Trump’s comment today. That hasn’t been my experience at all. My wife is Iranian. I’m connected to a large Iranian expat community. They are very pro Trump because of the war. The initial reaction I saw was disappointment with the ceasefire. They want continued pressure on the regime, and they feel that a cease-fire works against that.
“War crime” is all but meaningless. They happen in every war and the only side that gets prosecuted for them seems to be the losers.
"Corruption" is all but meaningless. It happens in every society and the only people that get prosecuted for them seem to be people outside the elite. /s
I don't think holding such views is helpful.
Besides, a few people have been prosecuted for war crimes while being on the winning side (or by their own side), some examples:
William Calley (US), convicted for his role in the 1968 My Lai massacre, in which American troops killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese civilians.
Donald Payne (UK), for abuse and death of an Iraqi detainee.
Charles Graner (US), sentenced to 10 years in prison for the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.
However, we can agree those are very few and far between, compared to all crimes committed. But it's more useful to condemn them and advocate for more accountability than to claim it's useless anyways and normalize calls for more crimes.
Sure but that response about the people is entirely ignoring the vastly larger issue of does she (or, more importantly, people actually in Iran) want every single power plant bombed because that is what the threat was (also all bridges and some railroads). This is talking about the country being without power and stable food or water infrastructure for the foreseeable future and a lot of normal people dying (not particularly regime supporters)
My impression is that people don’t take Trump‘s words literally. Trump often exaggerates and plays word games. If you take every statement from Trump literally you’re going to be constantly triggered.
But even so, I think the response you’ll get from most anti-regime Iranians is “go for it, if it may let us get our country back”.
Iranians who wants the regime overthrown are very conflicted right now. They see their country being destroyed, but they also hate the regime and want a revolution.
They literally feel that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. They want that destroyed, so they’re thankful that Trump is attacking it.
How far should Trump go? I just saw news reports that Iranian expats and anti-regime Iranians were disappointed with the cease-fire. That aligns with the initial reaction from my family and the Iranian expats that I know.
So it’s a complicated answer… Do Iranians want all their infrastructure destroyed? If it would guarantee the regime was defeated I think most would say yes.
I have never seen any diaspora have more contempt for their own people than Iranians. Thankfully more recent diaspora in the US are both more level-headed and diverse (coming not just from Tehran and a few other major cities but many other places and ethnic groups). I know an Azeri Iranian who was nothing but contempt for the regime (especially after thousands of protesters were murdered) but is horrified by what the US/Israel has been doing.
Diaspora communities are never representative of their home country. This is something I know from my own community, since selection bias leads to a very particular (and privileged) set of people with the means to emigrate, almost universally from a single ethnic group that is less than 11% of the total population. Perhaps you should consider whether the Iranians you know are representative of the Iranian population as a whole.
I would agree that there is some bias amongst expats, I think that’s a fair point.
I think saying diaspora “never represent” their home countries is an exaggeration.
All the Iranians in the US I know are first generation immigrants who have been here maybe 5-20 years. I’m not talking about second generation Iranians. They all still have family in Iran. And their views do not differ from their family.
My mother-in-law is the most anti-regime person I know, and she lives in Tehran. A bomb recently exploded nearby and broke all the windows in her house. But life goes on, Iranians are extremely resilient.
> All the Iranians in the US Maybe thats the only demographic in the US? They are anti-regime and must clear interview at US consulate, can't exactly get into US if you are pro-regime?
Is your wife one of those crazy monarchists? I don't have any preference for the current theocratic dictarorship vs monarchical dictarorship. If they want to be en enslaved people I see no point what the change in figurehead does. I hate monarchies and see no reason to support her kind. I'd fully support any side that wants a proper democracy for iran.
Purely historically too of course the USA and Israel are rhe last people whose words I'd trust about wanting to bring "freedom" to a country. The only thing they are experts at are toppling democracies and installing dictators, including in Iran itself.
No, she’s not a monarchist, and she’s actually very uncomfortable with people referring to “prince” Reza Pahlavi.
I think she understands that every movement needs a leader, so she’s ok with Mr. Pahlavi leading that, i.e. a constitutional assembly. But beyond that she doesn’t recognize the monarchy
That's much better then. And I personally am just very wary of any entity claiming they will "just" be a king for a while and cede power given how dictatorial the last pahlavi was.
Your wife doesnt live in iran im assuming? She wont risk her child being killed in preschool by a tomahawk, or having to live without electricity or transportation or drinking water because trump bombed it?
As someone from and in a thirdworld country, these expats can be even more arrogant and psychopathic than the imperialists they live under
My in-laws all live in Iran. My wife has many aunts, uncles, and cousins. I don’t even know how many people - it’s probably 20 to 30 people at least. All in Tehran.
My mother-in-law is the most anti-regime person I’ve met.
I gotta say, that's really fucked up. Like, I'm Russian, I hate what Russia is doing, I think support for Putin in Russia is far higher than it has any right to be, but I'd never casually throw out a "bomb them all, they're all complicit." I think people with these sorts of opinions need therapy.
I think that makes sense.
My impression is that Iran is much closer to a civil war than Russia is. It’s very polarized.
You have to put yourself in the mindset of someone against the regime. They feel that their country was hijacked by an islamic theocracy.
This is a regime that forces little girls to cover their body. Dancing and singing in public is illegal. Protesters are hanged.
My wife was sent home from school as a kid because her headband didn’t properly cover her forehead. At the age of 30 my wife still has trouble wearing shorts because she is self-conscious about showing her legs.
This is the kind of mental trauma that women have to recover from after leaving Iran. And I’ve only skimmed the surface.
There is zero sympathy from the anti-regime side for those who support the theocracy.
The other side (regime) publicly state “execute them all” and the response is “bomb them all”. To be clear, I’m not agreeing with the sentiments and agree that bombing the infrastructure is awful, just stating my observation of the state media vs opposition voices.
I have friends in the US that want the US government destroyed, there are people in the southern US that think the south won the civil war. Who cares?
Every government in all of human history has had its detractors and supporters, more detractors probably exist in expatriated communities, their existence does not really prove anything.
I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that anti-regime Iranians are a minority?
I’m not sure if we have good statistics on this. So everyone may have a different perspective.
All I can say is this: I’m married to an Iranian woman, and through her I’ve met many Iranian expats, and I’ve talked to her family members within Iran.
I think you’ll find that Iranian expats are pretty unanimously against the regime. That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody.
Thousands of protesters were killed opposing the regime. And that’s just the latest protest.
This is a regime that will kill women who don’t cover their hair correctly. Dancing and singing in the street is illegal.
Don’t be concerned on behalf of the regime. This is a just war supported by Iranians. You are on the right side of history to kill people who hang protestors and force little girls to cover every part of their body.
>That’s millions of Iranians. My in-laws who lives in Tehran are anti-regime, along with every single person on my wife’s side of the family: aunts, uncles, cousins. Everybody.
How do you square this with the absolutely massive pro-government rallies that we've seen all across Iran for the entire duration of the conflict? Millions of Iranians opposed to the regime, in a country of 90 million+, might still be a fringe minority.
If you asked some American expat their thoughts on MAGA, and they responded "China should bomb MAGA rallies so we can be free from the Republican party, my whole family in the US agrees".....that person would be considered a fringe lunatic, even if Trump's regime has record-low approval like it does now (and rightly deserves, I hope he is impeached and jailed).
We have limited data on this. There have been surveys, but survey data isn’t always very accurate.
Here was one survey that showed 81% disapproval of the Islamic Republic: https://gamaan.org/2023/02/04/protests_survey/
In a country of 90 million, if the regime has 20% supporters, that’s 18 million supporters.
Tehran population is 9 million, 20% of that is 1.8 million.
So it’s easy to understand why you might see videos of hundreds or thousands of regime supporters in the streets. That doesn’t mean they’re the majority.
Hey man, 60% of americans disapprove of the current government, that doesn't mean they want to nuke Washington DC.
All I can tell you is to go talk with Iranians. I don’t know where you live, but every major city has an Iranian expat community.
All I’m trying to communicate is the conversations that I’ve had with my Iranian wife, her expat friends, and my in-laws in Tehran.
Mint Press News has a good article about why Gamaan's methodology is unsound:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/gamaan-iran-polling-regime-cha...
Thanks, I hadn’t seen that article before. Interesting read.
My take is that GAMAAN likely overstates the opposition, but all surveys on Iran are imperfect, not just GAMAAN.
I know Pew has done surveys in Iran, but didn’t directly ask if people support the regime.
I personally believe that the opposition group is larger than the regime supporters. I think there’s enough data to infer that.
But I’ll also admit that there’s probably a sizable percentage of ambivalent/non-revolutionary Iranians who would just be satisfied with a better economy.
I trust the people who are close to this more than what you hear on the news. My guess is 90%+ of the readers here know nothing of Iranians except what they read or hear on the news.
How many of you have been to Iran, have family members there, etc? I'm guessing very few.
the No Kings movement doesnt seem to care about Ayatollahs
Those people didnt lose faith in the US after it bombed a preschool? At one point you have to wonder if this is good versus evil or evil versus evil
I will respond to your comment honestly. I have literally talked about this topic with actual Iranians.
The Iranians I’ve spoken to feel that the ends will justify the means.
They believe that people will die either way, protesters are dying right now. So if they can destroy the regime, then it will be worth it.
I have a serious problem with calling 100+ schoolgirls who - at best - got instantly dismembered by a bomb and didnt suffer (too much) and at worst were crushed to death or bled out from shrapnel wounds "evil"
Was one of them BBC, who quoted one Iranian resident as saying they were ok with the US nuking Iran, and then quietly removing that bit from the quotes with no note that the article was edited?
Destroying infrastructure and making live hell for normal people does not remove the regime. When will people learn that air-wars don't magically change governments?
Also, the Iranians you likely hear, are not representative. I don't think most people who depend on energy and water don't want that infrastructure destroyed.
> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.
And how he would do that, exactly?
Good question. From the conversations that I’ve had with Iranians, it’s unclear. The regime is too embedded. There’s no easy answer. Killing Mojtaba would be a good start.
Anti-regime Iranians are basically holding onto any sliver of hope that they can regain their country.
Of course, it’s all very unlikely, but I can’t help sympathizing with them. I think their cause is just. I think a non-theocratic Iran that could rejoin the global economy is a dream worth fighting for.
Wasn't killing his father a good start? If it wasn't, why would killing him make a significant difference?
I'd love to see a democratic Iran, but this was was utterly pointless and counterproductive.
It was a great start. Iranians celebrated his death, which made me happy.
I think one idea is that if you can kill enough regime leaders, perhaps a moderate leader may emerge?
Or perhaps there may be a military coup? Which may be a lesser of two evils?
The Iranians I’ve spoken to don’t feel like it was counterproductive. They actually feel like Trump has done more than any other president to damage the regime.
What’s the alternative? More economic sanctions? The status quo of the last 40+ years has accomplished nothing.
Anti-regime Iranians want action. They want us to make a move. We killed a lot of regime leaders and destroyed their military capability. That’s something. Now we have to see how that chess move played out.
Your perspectives of Iranians seems to be too biased, given also that you have partner from Iran and confess that you "only" talk to their inlaws and friends.
The Iranian diaspora is more divided on the matter than you think [1], and given your background, you're probably in the bubble of the diaspora that wouldn't mind sending threatening messages to anyone not being completely aligned with anti regime stance.
It's like someone marrying a deep south confederate flag waving MAGA American, moving there, and judging from talking to their friends and their hate for everything not MAGA, conclude that every American is like this. Or same scenario but California and liberals.
[1] https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/on-unity-fragmentation-i...
I’ve never sent threatening messages to people, and would never do that, so I’m not sure what that’s in reference to?
I’ve responded to this idea of bias in other threads.
I’m open to the idea that I’m perhaps biased by my wife, her friends, and my in-laws.
I’ll admit that it may be a little hard for me to accept that given that I’ve been to so many Iranian celebrations, and met so many different people, and heard the same perspectives again and again. I feel that what I’ve conveyed on hacker news in my comments does reflect truly the conversations I’ve had.
Most importantly, my goal in making these comments is to surface what actual Iranians are thinking.
Many Iranians in the US are afraid to speak out because they have family in Iran, or they’re here in the US on a visa. They fear that if they speak up, they’ll never be able to go home and see their family again.
As a US citizen, who is connected with the Iranian community, I feel it’s my duty to surface these conversations I’ve had.
My apologies if it came off as I was accusing you or your wife for sending threatening messages. That wasn't the intent
It was (supposed to be) a reference to the content of the linked material:
>Individuals and opposition groups took it upon themselves to allege relationships between diaspora Iranians and the Islamic Republic and guided their followers to conduct purity tests that sought to target, silence, and excommunicate anyone with whom they disagreed, labeling them as apologists or agents of the Islamic Republic for having called for reform in years past (now deemed too soft on the Islamic Republic), or for being unwilling to name the then-nascent protest movement a “revolution” or, in more extreme cases, for being unwilling to support regime change by any means necessary.
And a comment about the fact that you and your close Iranian relatives and friends probably hold the anti regime views strongly, and so does many (especially the ones that had to flee the revolution, or the childrens of) of their friends. I'm not questioning that fact, but pointing out that it's quite obvious that your friends and relatives probably wouldn't hang around the Iranians with different views.
It's not the only group and in a political climate like the Iranian diaspora, individuals (or groups) with opposing views or nuanced views are often silenced relentlessly.
It's simply unavoidable dynamics: iranian diaspora strongly wanting regime change are also not the ones that have to carry the blunt of that cost (they're outside Iran already), but reap most of the benefits. They're also spreading that message on platforms in countries that have an incentive to push for that message (USA, Israel) so the discourse will be highly amplified around anti-regime rethoric. The fact that it's not their house that is being bombed, also means that there aren't really any counteracting weight put on any potential opposing discourse, the discourse will maintain or go more extreme in is anti-regime rethoric going even more "any means necessary" route.
The Iranians against the regime inside Iran, I would assume, have a more nuanced view now. They might be against the regime, but not to the point they're willing to sacrifice their children, neighbors, and society collapsing Libya or Syria style. So they're probably less "any means necessary" about regime change.
I think that’s fair. You’re probably right that the diaspora is more anti-regime than people inside Iran.
I will say that my in-laws live in Tehran, and last week a bomb blew up near their house, and the shockwave broke all the windows in the house.
They had been seeing lots of bombs dropped onto Tehran, but this was the first one near their house.
My mother-in-law is very anti-regime and was actually in the streets during the protests. I don’t think that’s changed at all since the war.
It’s hard to speak for all Iranians. I wish we had better surveys and statistics to understand public opinion.
Source please. How to get informed opinion on what the actual iran people feel.
It seems from new media the support for khameni family has increased after the leader was killed.
My wife is Iranian, so I’m connected with a large Iranian expat community, and all my in-laws are in Tehran.
The best recommendation I can give you is to connect with your local Iranian community
I’m not sure where you live, but every major city has one. You will experience great food and great parties and great dancing.
Iranian expats love to dance because dancing and singing in public is illegal in Iran. So they do it as a big middle finger to the Islamic republic.
> They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.
Did they also want Trump to destroy the whole civilization and have the country back to stone age like he claimed he would do?
Don't know why this is downvoted, people must forget that the weeks leading up the war, Iran was pulling the plug on the internet and shooting regime protestors in the street.
It seems Trump and Israel expected an internal revolution once the bombing started, but it doesn't seem that manifested.
> There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.
Most of them realized their mistake:
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/01/...
Iranians hoping that war and death will save them are chasing a gruesome mirage. The US has successfully liberated exactly one country by regime change since 1945: Panama in 1989. Every other intervention has either supported a rebellion (secession) instead of a revolution, or it has ended in failure (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somalia) or a prolonged civil war (Iraq, Libya, Yemen). Anyone hoping for such a fate to befall their own country is morally compromised.
Calling Iranians who are against their current government “morally compromised” is real reprehensible for someone sitting in an armchair. Hoping foreign power can help overthrow the domestic lord is nothing new. That’s literally how the U.S. gained its independence with French military assistance.
And to your point, US interventions saved South Korea, Kuwait, Grenada, Bosnia, in addition to Panama. The legacy of Vietnam is complicated with the country rejecting communism, becoming capitalistic, and embracing the U.S. in recent years. This is in stark contrast to countries like North Korea. We don’t know how Iraq and Venezuela will turn out in the current timeline either.
Even more problematic though, is the fact that many of the US interventions happened in countries at the brink of free fall. These are failed states who are more likely to experience turmoils with or without the U.S.. Yes, civil wars can be worse than dictatorship. But that’s one of many possible outcomes. Avoiding all changes due to the fear of the worst potential outcome is weirdly privileged view. Kurds in Iraq can attest to this. Iraq has become much better for them nowadays because the Saddam era was pure hell. They were desperate and any alternative was thought to be better.
However, I don’t think intervention in Iran necessarily serves the US interest to begin with. So sure, I agree with you that the U.S. really shouldn’t waste more time in Iran.
Looks like an interesting article, but it’s paywalled. Would love to read it. Do you have a different link or can you summarize it?
From my conversations with Iranians, they know regime change is a long shot. But what are they to do?
Anti-regime Iranians literally feel like that their country was hijacked by an Islamic theocracy. 40+ years of status quo has done nothing to change that.
So yes, they enjoy seeing the regime being bombed. Do they really expect a revolution? Maybe the tiniest sliver of hope in their heart believes in it. But that’s better than nothing.
Trita Parsi recently stated in an interview that he has data showing the support for regime change among the Iranian diaspora has significantly increased from 5% to around 30% but only a minority of them accept the 'at all costs' premise: https://youtu.be/dUyJubRB-ek?si=9wl8pc3sEgTrDlql
> then we all have lost.
Yes, we have lost sound leadership and stability. Pakistan has brokered the cease-fire in a war started by the US for no good reason. The current US administration was supposed to be non-interventionist.
It is hard to watch the grim spectacle of the US fallen to the point of simultaneously making despicable threats to destroy another country and sending love and best wishes at election-time to Hungary's anti-EU, pro-Russian Orban.
> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive.
That’s not the reason. The US is an occupied government.
It's a win.
The largest military the world has ever known was recklessly used towards a foe against decades of internal warning not to go there. People on both sides who didn't ask for this war paid with their lives.
High gas prices might have been a great cause for it ending, but the win for the world is that a escalation towards WWIII was averted, and that even idiotic leaders have learned that the world is a complex system and there's no such thing as a far away war anymore.
I actually think it is important to talk about winning and losing, more so when the overwhelmingly stronger party loses.
> even idiotic leaders have learned
Call me a cynic, but if you are dumb enough to start the war in the first place you are too dumb to learn any lesson.
> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people
So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades
> It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror
Its because you're such a better person than them, wow, incredible. Nobody else knows what war is.
Pinning this right here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack
I don’t see how the majority of comments paint this as a victory for Iran. Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships? I guess I’m missing something. War sucks but in this case Iran is a shell of the threat it was a month ago.
1. Nuclear sites are not "in rubble", uranium is very much intact. They attempted to extract some of it with the failed F15 mission and had to scrap it (oversight by CIA) near Isfahan.
2. Leadership KIA doesn't matter, IRAN has a decentralized leadership, not a top down one.
3. Military apparatus is intact, majority of missile cities are still operating, over 1M IRGC forces mobilized with many more men willing to sign up.
4. Strait of Hormuz is fully under control of IRAN, "impotent threat of attacking ships" (even though IRAN has much more power) is more than enough to control it.
6. No regime change, IRGC is stronger than ever
7. Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf
8. Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded (we'll see what the actual numbers are after CENTCOM releases them finally)
9. Sanctions lifted on Russia, helping them majorly profit. China is still collecting cheap oil.
10. Israel took heavy damage, losing many interceptors as well.
11. Brent 100$+ for 40 days, causing major global issues.
To be fair, US did manage to kill 170 kids on day 1 and bomb bridges, hospitals, universities and civilian areas.. so I guess that's a "win" for you?
The reality is far more nuanced, and not clearly a win to Iran. We saw how degraded their military capabilities became when they couldn't capture a pilot on their own land for nearly 48 hours. We also saw that the number of rockets that they used "in total" has only just recently reached the number they used in the June war last year with Israel.
Diplomatically, we saw Lebanon, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia expelling Iranian diplomats (some even threatening war with Iran). And the entire gulf region unite against Iran. All while Iran's allies were mostly passive.
It's quite likely that Iran would need to deal with the mess both internally (as the power grab in the leadership vacuum could take place), and externally with the neighbors it bombed. Iran needs to make it appear as a win internally, and that's something that would affect any long term agreement.
Regardless, whether it's a win to ETTHER side remains to be seen when a more permanent agreement is signed. If for example Iran actually manages to impose a fee on passing ships, then that's a major achievement for Iran, and could create a dangerous pretendant for other regions (like the strait of Malacca in Indonesia, Bab El-Mandeb and even the South China sea.
>We saw how degraded their military capabilities became when they couldn't capture a pilot on their own land for nearly 48 hours
This is a such a armchair opinion. One country has the location information and other has vast forest and mountains. How it took 48 hrs for US is a eye opening scene for rest of the world. Multiple trillion of defense budget still a minion.
The only thing really destroyed is the image of the west and particularly it’s leader the US. Whatever you view of Iranian acts, even wars have laws related to portionality that has been broken.
Also if there ever was an ounce of internal resistance then this war have probably galvanized the population and is aligning everyone to common cause of working on the build up of particularly their national security.
Perceptions are fickle, and that includes the local population. There are many cases of countries the US bombed whose population later became strong supporters of the US.
All policy aimed at preventing nuclear Iran has one goal: buy time. I think it is hard to argue that time has not been bought (though how much and whether the price was right is another question). The only semi-stable long term option is a friendly Iranian government. The IRGC's main purpose is to occupy Iran, so anything that makes them weaker, less stable and more decentralized improves the odds of successful internal revolt in the long run. It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.
The threat of the strait closure has always been a major factor in Iran policy from all relevant nations, it is just now explicit. It's hard to take the Russia point seriously when the war forced both Russia and Iran to shift resources form the Ukrainian theater to the Persian Gulf; it seems to be close to a wash. It's also kinda silly to gas up using interceptors for their intended purpose as "heavy damage" or catastrophize about rounding errors in damage to USA assets, while simulatenously writing off the total effect of all USA/Israel actions as inconsequential.
Disruption to global fossil fuel supply chains was also a goal of this war, so I am not sure you should list it as a negative. In the current state of the world, USA interests and global economic interests are becoming increasingly decoupled, and one shouldn't assume they are automatically aligned.
Also this has probably done more to hasten the world's weaning off fossil fuels than any action by any other government.
IRGS domestic propaganda has always been that US is a military murderous malevolent regime, mercilessly going after their land and their children.
With just a little bit of propaganda spin, or even without it, US just proved to the entire Iranian population that IRGS was right all along.
This should strengthen or even harden their regime as they will have new generation of hardliners join the movement.
This is like 1930s Germany kinda thing. Who won or lost is semantics at this point, the regime is free to spin it any way they want, and will have quite the support to do it.
> All policy aimed at preventing nuclear Iran has one goal: buy time.
Buy time to do what?
>It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.
It's not hard for me to see. It's very similar to the situation in Ukraine. They have suffered losses but I can only imagine that their morale and confidence is through the roof. Conversely, the population must feel that there is no hope of getting rid of them. The cavalry sounded the horns but mostly rode into the river.
>Disruption to global fossil fuel supply chains was also a goal of this war
..what?
I am not convinced that a population that just recently had 30k people die in a revolt is gonna immediately rally around their oppressors after a foreign power kills 2k. I have yet to see compelling evidence that formerly IGRC-hostile segments of the population have switched alleigances. It is possible. But one could also imagine an exhausted population that is tired of a goverment they despise putting a target on their backs. The Iranians I personally know suggest that the second idea is more true, but it is anecdotal evidence with heavy selection bias. Another factor is that Iran has an unstable food and water supply, and people who lack food and water tend to focus their anger on whoever is closest that has food and water.
The Trump administration is actively interested in the dissolution of the current global economic order. This is why they are relatively unbothtered by the global economic shock that is a Strait of Hormuz closure, whereas the globally-oriented neoliberal administrations of the past wanted to avoid this at all costs.
> All policy aimed at preventing nuclear Iran has one goal: buy time. I think it is hard to argue that time has not been bought (though how much and whether the price was right is another question).
Given that Iran has been one week/one month/one year away from acquiring nuclear capabilities since 2014 - first Trump Presidency, and they are not any closer a decade later this "buying time" rhetoric is nothing short of "Iraq has WMD" level of absurdity.
> Iran has been one week/one month/one year away from acquiring nuclear capabilities since 2014
Not disagreeing, but Bibi is saying this since 1980s. Now he found US leader stupid enough to believe these tales.
It is not jist Bibi, but also the IAEA and other international organizations. And at least the last 5 US administrations. I suppose they could also all be in Israel's pocket though.
Iran's 60% enriched uranium stockpile is really not up for debate. Iran is happy to tell everyone that they have it. With the proper equipment, 60% can go to 90% in a single month. So the question is how advanced is the Iranian infrastructure for the final enrichment step, and (less commonly talked about) how ready they are to actually make a fission bomb out of that material. The latter task is not considered to be very hard, North Korea did it after all, so the main focus has been on the former. There does seem to be some decent information that the centrifuge array has been under active development at various points, and has been consitently, actively targetted by Mossad/CIA for at least the past 20 years or so. For example, Stuxnet was a joint CIA/Mossad operation that begain in 2005 and continued through both GWBush and Obama.
Unfortunately, even with some nice bribes from Obama, Iran was always a little cagey with the IAEA inspectors, and officially kicked them out in 2021. So after that, the only sources for the state of Irans nuclear infrastructure information effectively became Iran itself and Mossad.
> It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.
It's not really that hard to see - if you open your eyes.
If you refuse to do that, to the point where you see nothing but the hint of a silver lining in every carcinogenic cloud, then yeah I guess things must look pretty silvery.
It’s a nation of 90 million people. Now that basically every facet of society has been hit by a single common enemy, they will galvanize and it won’t matter what name IRGC or whatever you give it they will start to work in unison for common security and deterrence.
Yes - but OP would need to take off their blinkers to see any of that.
As long as they refuse to do that, they can keep claiming this war was a big cool success.
> They attempted to extract some of it with the failed F15 mission
This is fake Iranian propaganda. It makes no logical sense. The force sent to extract the F15 officer (approx 2 C130s of equipment) is far to small to retrieve tons of nuclear material stored at Isfahan.
> Military apparatus is intact
No, the IRGC is struggling. After weeks of bombardment, they are unable to provide food or basic supplies for its own army. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202604074692
Sources said that over the past 72 hours, operational forces have faced acute shortages of basic supplies, including edible food, hygiene facilities and places to sleep.
Recent strikes on infrastructure and bases have left many Guards and Basij personnel sleeping in the streets, and in some areas they have had access to only one meal a day.
According to informed sources, some personnel were forced to buy food from shops and restaurants with their own money after expired rations were distributed.
At the same time, disruptions affecting Bank Sepah’s electronic systems have reportedly delayed the salaries and benefits of military personnel, fueling fresh anger and mistrust within the ranks.
Iran International had previously reported similarly dire conditions in field units, including severe shortages of ammunition, water and food, as well as growing desertions by exhausted soldiers.
Even in the Guards’ missile units, which have historically received priority treatment, sources reported serious communications failures and food shortages. They said commanders were continuing to send only technical components needed to keep missile systems operational, rather than food or basic individual supplies for personnel.
> majority of missile cities are still operating
Missile launch volume is down ~90% from the beginning days of the war.
> Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf
Iran has taken $150-200 billion dollars in damage, to its assets, and also economy.
Their entire missile manufacturing supply chain was destroyed, with the destruction of both the Parchin Military Complex and Khojir Missile Production Center, they have no ability to produce more. The Iranian missile problem was one of the primary causes of this conflict.
Both the Mobarakeh Steel & Khuzestan Steel factories have shut down. They are responsible for 1% of Iran's GDP, and billions of dollars of profits which fund the Iranian economy.
If there were no ceasefire, Iranian power and petroleum facilities would be destroyed today. Both sides do not want this to happen, because it would set back the Iranian economy by a decade, and cause an enormous humanitarian crisis.
It is not possible to run a modern economy without fuel or electricity.
> Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded
Iran lost its entire air force, and navy; losses are far higher on the Iranian side than US/Israeli.
So far, the US/Israel have not lost any ability to continue combat operations; they can maintain this level of bombardment for months.
It is not possible to run an advanced economy, capable of manufacturing missiles and drones at scale, under perpetual bombardment.
I basically believe you're right, but I can't wrap my head around this: How is it that they still have any control at all of the strait after all of this? Is their significantly depleted missile force enough of a threat as long as they have any credible capability whatsoever left?
Iran "controls" the strait by shooting missiles at any ship that passes through without paying them a protection fee. This includes ships that pass through Omani waters, which it has no legal control of. It's terrorism, and also an act of war.
Iran built thousands of fast-attack speedboats which patrol the strait, get up close, fire a few missiles, and quickly return. This video gives a good explanation of their strategy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKJHaODzP-0
This can be mitigated by the US/Gulf Countries, with a large number of airplanes / drones patrolling the Iranian shore, and preventing these boats from launching.
But we've been bombing them for a month... They hide the boats in caves or something? (I'm really trying to learn here, not trying to argue)
Yes, Iran built underground caves specifically to store their attack speedboat fleet. The US and Israel bombed the entrance to one on Qeshm Island multiple times, and it's unknown how many boats are still functional.
More information here https://news.sky.com/story/iran-unveils-underground-naval-ba...
Hard to believe the video when they use all AI generated clips.
The straight is narrow enough that they could use artillery to hit the ships in it.
And for US and/or Israel to prevent it, they would have to occupy the correspondingly wide strip of Iranian coast. At which point we're talking about a massive ground invasion (and of course then the same artillery would be firing at those troops, so you can't really just stop there either).
Or, you know, counter-battery systems and hundreds of patrolling drones.
During Desert Storm, US batteries returned fire before enemy rounds even hit apogee.
> This is fake Iranian propaganda. It makes no logical sense. The force sent to extract the F15 officer (approx 2 C130s of people) is far to small to retrieve tons of nuclear material stored at Isfahan.
And how does it make any logical sense to send 100+ spec ops guys in two big planes to rescue one (1) guy in a remote mountainous location? That's begging for >1 casualties and PoWs in situation which would otherwise be capped at 1. Mickey mouse nonsense.
It's far more logical that there was a different operation planned, one that would actually require hundreds of special ops guys, like securing a strategic site. And just because two planes were "stuck in the mud" doesn't mean there weren't more involved or planned to be.
> And how does it make any logical sense to send 100+ spec ops guys in two big planes to rescue one (1) guy in a remote mountainous location?
I’m a former Air Force officer, and can attest that this is in fact a long-term standing policy. “Never leave a man behind” exists because if we didn’t have that policy, pilots would be too risk averse to fly the missions aggressively.
Check out the “Notable Missions” section for a few very public examples over the past decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_search_and_rescue
Love it! Thanks for the context.
It's one of the reasons the US military is so good. As a soldier, you know they will come for you, behind enemy lines, so you can fight like hell, knowing that your fellows have your back.
The gains in morale can not be underestimated.
Below answered well, but if you were that 1 guy, wouldn't you want 100+ spec ops looking for you?
> No regime change, IRGC is stronger than ever
Pretty sure they've seen better days
1. Why pretend like you have any insight into the state of Iranian uranium? Just immediately makes you unreliable.
2. Ah yes, "supreme leader" doesn't sound "top down" at all
3. If by "still operating" you mean, not shooting missiles out of fear of getting destroyed. Sure. But that's silly.
4. For now. But very unlikely to last, imo.
6. "IRGC stronger than ever" is an insane take. How could they be stronger than before this war? They aren't. Again, shows that you're completely unreliable on this subject
7. "Millions of dollars" haha. Oh no, not millions with an "M"!
8. Sure. But how are you going to downplay the damage to Iran and then emphasize the damage to the US when they are many orders of magnitude different? Like, surely you don't think the damages are at all comparable
9. So long as Iran has oil to sell, yes
10. K.. again, playing up damages that are orders of magnitude less than what Iran has sustained
11. True
You seem to be very confident in your understanding of what is currently going on in Iran, despite the fact that you no longer live there. Obviously the IRGC has the internet turned off for a reason. They want to be able to control the narrative. And if it were all roses like you're making it out to be, they would personally be paying the internet bill of every Iranian to spread the word. Yet instead, they silence your people.
And do you really want to bring up the school, as tragic as it was, after your government slaughtered like 30,000 of its own citizens days before that? Motes and beams and all that.
you seems very confident about 30k casualties propagated by western media. all we, in the south east, see from west media and leader are just lies and hypocrisy
yikes
Wars are about objectives. The USA managed to accomplish none of its objectives. Iran forced USA to concede and call for ceasefire before US could achieve objectives. That’s the definition of defeat. Iran won by not losing and holding out.
Iran has more leverage at the end of this war than it did at the start. Iran has proven that it has the capability to catastrophically disrupt global economy.
That analysis requires discovering what the US’s objectives were. Not sure we can…
Discovering? It was announced a thousand times, maybe you dismissed because none of them were easily achievable?
Opening the Strait, renouncing nuclear program, renouncing ballistic program, regime change. Even Israel will be forced to retreat from Lebanon.
Iran won by choking the Strait and telling USA and Israel they could endure far longer than their aggressors could endure a few missiles and domestic support drop.
A Pakistani-made taco was not in my radar for today.
Opening the Strait was not a goal of this action; the Strait was open before this war started. They are trying to sell as a win a return to the status quo ante.
I think you will find that Biden closed the straights and that it was going to be reopened and China was going to pay for it. (/s?)
I dismissed them because the president and the Pentagon could not seem to articulate the objectives of the war in a way that was cohesive with one another.
Also,the Strait was open before the war.
Yeah obviously opening the strait wasn’t an objective. I think what you’re suggesting is that the mentioned reason - denuclearization of Iran - is unlikely to be the real reason, which may have been something like distraction.
> Opening the Strait
So the US started a war with an objective to open the Strait which only closed due to the war they started.
Can you explain what you mean here mate?
How on Earth was opening the straight an objective of this war, when the straight was open before the war.
It's like Russia declaring that Russian control of Moscow is an objective of the war with Ukraine.
> renouncing nuclear program,
If that was the objective, the US should be declaring war on the guy who scrapped the Iran nuclear deal, because it was accomplishing just that.
I explained the primary cause of this war here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47684632
This war is happening today, to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today. The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. They cannot fight a nuclear one. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.
That is why we have this conventional war happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future.
This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next.
> This war was unavoidable btw, it was going to happen sometime this year or next.
Iran was, as per the latest reports I've read, complying with terms and not enriching uranium to weapons-grade or close to weapons-grade. Are there credible reports suggesting otherwise?
Those reports are old. IAEA inspectors have not been able to access any of Iran's nuclear facilities since the start of the 12 day war on June 13, 2025. Currently, nobody knows what Iran is doing with their nuclear material.
If only there was an agreement in place to help with that. Oh wait, that got canned by someone when started this nonsense.
What do you make of Netanyahu claiming that Iran was weeks from a nuclear bomb, 20-30 years ago?
What do you make of US/Israel assassinating the supreme leader that had declared a fatwa against nuclear weapons?
> This war was unavoidable btw
Wars of choice, thousands of miles away from the nearest US city, are extremely avoidable, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Although it might reflect actual considerations of Israel and, by extension, the US, that's ultimately a very unreasonable take. Iran might not have been trying to build nuclear weapons in the past, as they claimed. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. In contrast, Iran will try to build nuclear weapons in the future with certainty. They'd be insane not to try now, after having been bombed for weeks in an illegal war of aggression against them and having been threatened with massive war crimes and genocide.
The main one was stayed to be regine change. That didnt happen
Some might argue that the US's (or the POTUS's) objective was simply to disrupt the financial markets.
This sounds like goalpost moving. Like if you fail to acheive regime change, just say whateber the consequences of your failure were had been your objectives from the start. According to "some" who might "say"
You speak like you and I discussed this before, and you remember where the original goalposts were.
Many analysts suggested that the attack was a smoke-and-mirrors, and the actual goal has always been financial. Similar to the tariffs story. According to that opinion the outcome of the attempt is irrelevant. Regardless of whether the regime have changed or not, the goal is still achieved.
And that benefits them… how?
Not sure, but any event, positive or negative, will benefit those who know the exact timing in advance.
A lot of stuff leaked today:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
Well if the objective was just about distracting from some domestic issue, then maybe it doesn't matter from Trump's perspective.
[flagged]
What action can Iran take today that they couldn't take a year ago? No one who has been paying attention should be surprised that Iran can shut down the straight. It has been a known factor for decades.
They have less leverage. The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival, when they never have had to before. That is a position of weakness, not strength.
>The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival
That is not their most powerful card. Their most powerful card is mining the Strait of Hormuz and taking out all GCC desalination and oil infrastructure. That would result in a global depression, and probably end the Gulf countries as we know them.
Destroying the gulf states would dramatically reduce the importance of the Strait, which would make mining it or otherwise shutting it down somewhat pointless anyway. It is a bit of mutually assured destruction, but the USA is probably in the best position of anyone to weather that storm.
I suppose it is more powerful in an absolute sense than just temporarily shutting down the Strait, but like Russia's nukes, I think the threat is more useful than the play itself. Unless they are just looking to take others down with them.
Maybe recession but not depression. Oil prices have been this high before.
> What action can Iran take today that they couldn’t take a year ago?
Remove of sanctions, ability to monitize traffic through the strait, guarantees against aggression and a cessation of military bases in their region. IMO, a much stronger position than they were in a year ago.
More leverage with less conventional firepower? Objectives of reducing conventional military threats and nuclear weapons seem less now, no?
1. The strait had freedom of navigation before, now Iran controls it.
2. It was suspected Iran would shut the strait in a conflict. Its ability to enforce the closure was question. Iran has now proven it can enforce control of the strait and American can’t do anything about it.
3. The negotiation plans mentions nothing of denuclearization. Iran doesn’t even need a nuclear deterrence now they have proven that closing the strait works so well.
4. The regime didnt collapse, leader replaced by the more hardline son. Command and control continued to function despite attempted decapitation.
5. Iran inflicted billions of dollars worth of damage to US assets forcing US soldiers to flee and reside in hotels.
6. Despite taking a pounding by America for over a month they can still target and destroy local targets as retaliation as they proved yesterday by striking large Saudi petrochemical plant and striking in the heart of Israel.
US soldiers get hotels when fleeing? Wtf lol
You keep making comments making it sound like you have a better view of the world than the people you're responding to, but just making personal attacks. The person you're responding to, for that specific point, is referring to: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/troops-iran-h...
“Flee and reside in hotels” not equal to relocate and continue mission. The major operational staff at these bases still work there. Support was relocated not fleeing.
Iran looks like it will get a toll on Strait traffic. This money, plus even a partial lifting of sanctions, will be a windfall.
Any Iranian leadership whose brains are not made of sawdust will use that money to race to a nuclear weapon. Clearly, we are in an era where the only reliable nuclear umbrella is locally sourced and homegrown. Expect a dominant geopolitical theme to be proliferation as every state that feels somewhat threatened boots up a nuclear weapons program. From ~9 states today, we should expect to see ~30 within the next 10-15 years.
> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships?
* Which doesn't mean much nowadays: see Ukraine, and the perseverance of the Taliban who eventually got their way.
* Are you talking about now? Or last year when everyone was told that the nuclear program was obliterated? If it was then, why was there a second round of attacks in this year? And it's not like the existing stockpiles of enriched uranium vanished.
* As Ukraine has shown, you can have a defence industry in people's basements churning out 4M drones per year that can do a lot of damage.
* Yes, the past leadership was KIA. And new people were put in place who are more hardliner hawks than what was taken out. So how is a more hawk-ish regime a "win" for the US?
* An "impotent attack" that has kept several thousand ships sidelined in the Gulf? That has caused fuel (petrol, diesel, kerosene, LNG) prices skyrocket? That have caused helium (needed in chip manufacturing, MRIs, etc) prices to triple? If that's "impotent" I would hate to see effective.
Perhaps stop taking the administration's claims at face value. Their army has not been destroyed. They continue to launch missiles daily and have been extraordinarily successful in targeting US/Israel radar and defensive assets throughout the region. They have suffered air force and naval losses, but if you look back at analysis from before the war started, exactly nobody considered the Iranian air force or navy to be of any strategic significance. Iran operates on a distributed military structure rather than a centralized command, so the assassination of senior political and military leaders is not the crippling blow the US expected it to be.
And really, that expectation is itself stupid. Suppose the US got involved in a hot conventional war with another superpower, and in the first week they killed the President, the vice President, a bunch of Representatives and Senators, and a bunch of senior figures at the Pentagon. Would the US just fold, or would it fill those positions via the line of succession, declare a national emergency, and fight back vigorously? You know the answer is #2, and the idea that other countries might do the same thing should not be a surprise. It appears the US administration has fallen into the trap of believing the shallowest version of its own propaganda about other countries, and assuming that Iran was just like Iraq under Saddam Hussein but with slightly different outfits.
The Iranian strategy is basically Mohammed Ali's Rope-a-dope: absorb punishment administered at exhausting cost (very expensive munitions with limited stocks) while spending relatively little of their own (dirt cheap drones with small payloads but effective targeting, continually degrading the aggressor's radar visibility and military infrastructure). The one limited ground incursion so far (ostensibly to rescue an airman, but almost certainly a cover for something else) resulted in the loss of multiple heavy transport aircraft, helicopters, and drones at a cost of hundred$ of million$.
In your hypothetical scenario of the US losing its political leadership, we would probably be better off.
The companies with billions on the line didn't seem to think Iran's threats to attack ships were impotent.
Their military capabilities are diminished in the short term, but if their ability to impose a toll on the Strait of Hormuz holds then that's a massive win for Iran in the medium/long term. A mere $2M per ship represents 10% of Iran's GDP. They would become the only country in the world to impose a toll on international waters, and they would have established a defensive deterrent almost as effective as having a nuclear bomb.
They took on the most powerful military ever seen and lived to tell the tale. It's hard to spin that as a loss for Iran.
Hormuz isnt international waters. Its split between iran and oman, as woukd the toll be in irans proposal
Hard to spin your supreme leader and all your generals and military commanders being flattened as a win.
The thing to remember about Iran is it's a country run by religious fanatics. Ask a secular democracy if they would trade the lives of most of their political and military leaders for a 10% boost to GDP and they would look at you like you're insane. Ask 86 year old Ali Khamenei if he would trade dying from an Israeli bomb landing on his house for Iran establishing a stranglehold on global oil trade and securing $100 billion in annual toll revenue, and he would have been ecstatic.
Yes, we basically pressed a magic button that eliminated two layers of leadership (as well as hundreds if not thousands of civilians). Now, what strategic objectives have we accomplished?
Call it a draw then. Which is crazy against the world superpower. And terrible for the US
do they matter if everyone else gets incredibly rich after?
the US killed an old man and his family, and also a bunch of people who'd already written all of their handoff docs
Not really that hard when the alternative is the regime collapsing and/or giving up their nuclear program?
In most wars, everybody loses.
The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils. And by those standards they seem to be succeeding.
So now we have a pointless war that has resulted in thousands of dead with no tangible benefit to anybody, except of course those cronies of the administration doing insider trading.
This is not pointless. It exists to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.
Most people do not comprehend this conventional war is happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future.
You think Iran's takeaway from this will be that they don't need nukes?
They always wanted nukes. So this war doesn't change already strong resolution to get them but can reduce resources available for this.
Hitting desalination plants across the gulf isn't much better than a nuclear war. If anything, the takeaway from this conflict is that nobody is ready for even the modest number of conventional ballistic missiles produced by an impoverished and dysfunctional state.
> It exists to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
That's just ridiculous. Nobody can predict the future, so trading uncertain war in the future for a certain war today is completely irrational. (And for the same reason, the war today is unlikely gonna be easier than the war tomorrow.)
Besides, Iran has avoided having nuclear weapon, because it causes too many civilian casualties, and that's against their beliefs. In this, they're more civilized than Americans (and Europeans), despite that this might be considered to be an irrational view by barbarians like you.
I think you're just coping with the fact that this war was utterly pointless, destructive for almost everyone in the world, and a poor attempt to increase power by a small group of people.
You've got the wrong premise. Iran was actively developing nuclear weapons, and officials even admitted to it when interviewed.
https://www.memri.org/tv/former-iranian-majles-member-motaha...
Former Iranian Majles member Ali Motahari said in an April 24, 2022 interview on ISCA News (Iran) that when Iran began developing its nuclear program, the goal was to build a nuclear bomb. He said that there is no need to beat around the bush, and that the bomb would have been used as a "means of intimidation" in accordance with a Quranic verse about striking "fear in the hearts of the enemies of Allah."
"When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb,” former Iranian politician Ali Motahari told ISCA News. “There is no need to beat around the bush,” he said.
Read the last two lines of that interview. Khamenei interpreted Islam as forbidding even building the bomb, and he is the moral authority on this, like it or not.
Japan could also have built a nuclear bomb, but chose not to. They decided that out of nothing else than their moral beliefs.
You simply don't want to accept than other cultures can be (in some respects, and even regardless of what individuals think on average - that's probably similar for large enough groups) more ethical than your own.
Iran enriched over 450kg of uranium to at least 60%.
There's no need for anything over 5% for powerplant use. They were preparing HEU for weapons; whether those weapons were to be built now or in 20 years is irrelevant.
Yes, I agree, except it's not irrelevant whether they built functional nuke or not, because this is used as a justification for war. (Not to mention, as a justification for war, "they could have built a nuke" is even more barbaric than "they have built a nuke".)
Still, that doesn't counter the fact they didn't actually make a nuclear bomb out of the material, nor the fact that their highest moral authority banned them from doing that, so it doesn't do anything to disprove that culturally they are more civilized (in that respect).
(Maybe an example from a corporation would clarify this better - the fact that there is a group of people in it doing things unethically doesn't mean that the company as a whole condones this behavior, even if structurally - how the corporation or capitalist society is constructed - might lead to some people doing it internally off the books. But once it is known to the CEO - the highest moral authority in a corporation, if he is not to be implicated in this, he must tell them to stop.)
It's frankly just moving the goalpost in an attempt not to accept your own barbarism. Is your culture OK with using nuclear weapons, even in self-defense? If yes, how do you dare to judge?
Per international agreements, it was their right. The idiotic thing about this argument is that now everyone knows they want nukes and that not having ones is strategic mistake. Because Iran and Ukraine did not have one. Meanwhile, countries with nukes are safer.
> The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils
clearly not, they had an already planned goal to remove the american ability to impose sanctions, and implemented the plan, while sufferjng a ton of losses to personel and materiel.
this is a major improvement from where the US could impose sanctions and states would comply. surviving iranians are in a much better position now than before the war
I think the nature of war has changed. A slow moving swarm of drones, will keep large Aircraft carriers well outside the range of their fighter jets.
A nation can swarm an aircraft carrier with a 1000 drones, each costing about 40k USD. Only a few are needed to seriously damage the carrier. Not to mention ballistic missiles.
In this scenario, does a US massive, slow moving aircraft carrier possibly carrying hundreds of billions of assets really work ? Can the US meaningfully project power with these?
In this scenario, who holds more power or leverage ?
An aircraft carrier can project power within 500 miles. The idea is to use a few of these to knock out the air power of the opposing nation, basically airfields, missile stockpiles, factories, power infra, etc. And then drop in a ground invasion force.
Does this now work? I dont think so. 10 drones can be launched from the back of a truck.
The US Navy has quite a few more tricks up its sleeve apart from aircraft carriers. Just one publicly known that immediately comes to mind: amphibious assault ships, which can launch/land F35s.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tripoli_(LHA-7) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCMSKTxgQI4
A bunch of drones can’t be sent to knock out the American president and all its top generals and intelligence agents.
QED
No need to swarm the carriers. Support craft are far more vulnerable, absolutely required, and low in numbers at this time.
> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed
How are they still firing missiles and downing aircraft?
> is an impotent threat of attacking ships?
All the ships stuck in the Gulf probably didn't consider the threat impotent.
On the other side: what more can the US do? Target civilian infrastructure? There is no appetite for getting stuck with boots on the ground, and everyone (including Iran) knows this.
You're probably right that it won't a win for anyone. If some of the points includes removing sanctions from Iran, it might be a huge win -- for Iran, or at-least it's population.
This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
> is an impotent threat of attacking ships?
It not that impotent. Attacking civilan targets in the age of drones is not that hard - a small motor boat with explosives or a shahed style drone is all you need. And to keep the strait closed they don't need to attack all ships. Even 0.1% probability of an attack (maybe even 0.01%) is enough to halt the traffic. And they don't need to sink the ship - a fire on board is enough to create an unacceptable security risk for tankers and LNG carriers.
It was a while since Houthis attacked any ships and yet traffic via Suez is still 60% down from what is was befor attacks started in 2023. Because the risk of an attack is not zero.
They've frustrated the biggest military on the planet to the point of issuing expletives. It's a huge moral win. Symbolism matters more than anything else in these situations.
Asymmetric warfare shouldn't be measured on the metrics of conventional warfare. Iran can continue to cause enormous economic pain for the world without any of that.
Agree with same comment as above.
> This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
But we can eliminate 90% of senior leadership at any time. How do they measure that cost?
One facet of guerilla element asymmetric warfare is to just do without that whole reliance on hierachy.
You arguably can't run gorilla large-scale manufacturing. There are obvious limits to what you can achieve when the opposition can run decapitation strikes every few months.
China and russia can. And they can send that shit to iran through pakistan and the caspian
You gotta bet china and russia loved what happened here
and now you're into mesh logistics and distributed supply from outside backers in interesting terrain with long borders.
> Iran can continue to cause enormous economic pain for the world without any of that.
should every non-Western country be subsidizing all consumer fuel costs?
> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA
the same thing the media keeps asking trump: what do these things matter?
there's a meaningful change to iran's negotiating position basically forever into the future: the US cannot impose sanctions without also banning states from using the strait, and its clear what states will choose between the two. I still dont think they care about nukes, but now they can keep enriching as much uranium as they want to 60% and they can use that as a negotiation chip for something else.
the US and israel are not nearly the threats they were a month ago, not just iran has paid the costs of war
the real problem for iran is that now they actually have to deliver good stuff for their citizens - for all the western bluster, its still a democracy, and they do have to hydrate their population
We'll see if gas prices go down I suppose?
> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled
According to whom? POTUS claimed to have done this back in June 2025.
Stop watching Fox. You are completely misinformed on global politics.
It's not clear to me they are much less of a threat than they ever were, but it's also not clear to me they were ever much of a threat.
They did everything they could in this war, didn't they, and apparently it didn't do too too much? (other than the economic damage of closing the strait, which seems to be what worked). But I think they could probably keep doing everything they've been doing still? (including controlling the strait).
You think the US could destroy the regime, but has not? Can you explain? How would this work?
> Iran is a shell of the threat it was a month ago.
That's why it is crippling the entire world's economy and demanding concessions bigger than the status quo ante bellum, with the US powerless to stop it. Because it's no threat.
> 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
> impotent threat of attacking ships
You've been paying attention to what's happened over the last few weeks and you qualify that threat as impotent? That impotent threat basically brought the rest of the world to it's knees.
Cost of insurance for ships did.
They hit like 20 ships, people died. That’s why insurance went up. Literally the US navy will not go near the strait due to the ballistic missile threat.
And why did the cost of insurance for ships rise?
Uncertainty.
Yes, of mines and fiery death.
in 2 years they'll have 100x the drone production and chinese anti ship missles
In 2 years Hormuz will not matter potentially. You can’t win with the same strategy twice.
With battery tech going the way its going in two years how far do you think these drones will fly? Enough to hit all surrounding countries and cause chaos. There is also the Al bab whatever its called strait as well to shutdown.
I worry this war has only made things worse in every regard and pulling out at a time like this is also bad. The reason no one wanted to get into this position is because it takes some fucked shit and some pain to get out properly.
That's asymmetric warfare basically. The regime is more or less intact. There are no US booths on the ground. And Iran just demonstrated it can majorly disrupt international energy markets by blocking the strait of Hormuz more or less indefinitely. With a major power like the US seemingly unable to prevent that or put a stop to it militarily.
Painting this as a victory for Iran would be a stretch. But they definitely did not lose either.
This is something that keeps on happening to the US. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are all conflicts where the US won militarily and then had to withdraw anyway. Vietnam is still ruled by the communists, Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban once more, and the regime in Iraq is nominally Iran supported and not exactly on the best of terms with the US either. This conflict seems to be a repeat of past mistakes. The US went in, bombed the shit out of stuff for a few weeks and only then steps back to literally think "Now what?!". It could have done that a few months ago and saved us all the trouble of having to deal with this BS.
Painting this as a US victory is also quite a stretch. Iran never really posed a credible military threat beyond its borders. Nor did Afghanistan or Iraq. I think China might consider this a win though. And they definitely pose a non trivial military threat. Some historians might end up arguing the US took some long term strategic hits here for essentially very little meaningful gains. And we'll see in November how Republicans fare on the economic aftermath of what you might describe as a gigantic cluster f** at this point.
I think you are right. Leadership vacuum will not resolve by itself: Iran either will go democratic way or into some internal fights (this one more probable IMHO).
I don't think its a victory for either Iran or the US.
Iran suffered a lot of losses in terms of people and widescale destruction of infrastructure.
But the US lost too, we come out of this war looking much weaker and more chaotic than we did going in, not to mention the amount of money we poured into it while accomplishing nothing (nothing we destroyed in Iran was a threat to us until we bombed them in the first place).
iran paid costs they expected to pay beforehand, but the result of negotation is that they dont need to give the concessions they were previously willing to give.
thats a pretty clear win. they paid a heavy cost for it sure, and war is expensive, but as a negotiation tactic goes, doing the war was a success
Have you missed the lessons of the last 25 years of US involvement in the middle east I guess?
And the US / Israel demonstrated that Iran has their balls in a vice.
Win some lose some.
Well it's all settled then! Guess the show's over. Everything will be fine from now on. What else can be done to avoid the Epstein files?
We threatened to invade Cuba unless they "make a deal", whatever that means.
Probably be the next Venezuela, except they help us against drug dealers, so I'm not sure what lies will be told to justify this one.
1) Trump threatens stone age for Iran if they don't open the strait.
2) Iran agrees to open the strait if they're not attacked.
What happened here is they caved under Trump's threat but they're going to make it look like they're opening the strait on their terms, while Trump will make it look like they're opening the strait on his terms (which actually makes more sense, because if they didn't open the strait we'd have probably started bombing them)
And Iran's military hasn't been destroyed, they still control the strait. How do you explain that if they don't have a military?
And destroyed a school full of children too.
Before the war, Ships passed freely through the strait, and Iran did not profit from it.
US gas was affordable, keeping not only passenger vehicle fuel low, but farming costs and groceries/ transporting goods in US.
Trump then claims Iran is dangerous and building nukes and is a threat, despite IAEA reports to the contrary.
At Geneva, Iran offers to hand over all their uranium. Trump refuses.
Hours later trump starts bombing Iran.
Iran closes the strait to choke US economy.
US fuel costs skyrocket affecting CPI basket.
Trump demands they open the strait, and makes threat if they don’t.
Iran now says “okay, we will open it if u stop bombing us but now we will charge 2million fee for vessels passage”.
Now US fuel remains high, an additional fee is in place, and Iran keeps their uranium.
No regime change. No uranium shift. Just a major inflation spike to the US (and global) economies. Oh, and Iran gains full control of the strait.
Art of the deal
We already attacked Iran twice during "talks," is there any indication that we mean it this time, or are we just going to bomb them again while negotiations are ongoing?
This will be the one ceasefire that Israel respects?
They underestimated Iran's unique mix of capabilities and strategy. It's not that Iran is undefeatable but it seems that the price is going to be far too high both globally and especially regionally for the tiny coalition of Israel and the US to succeed in the long term.
I think it says something that the US paid such a high price to try to produce a "viral military campaign" video of a Uranium heist. Straight out of the cold war. The palatable options must be steadily dwindling.
> tiny coalition of Israel and the US
This coalition is "tiny" insofar NATO & the GCC (well, apart from Bahrain and the UAE) refused to join the attacks, despite Iran's transgressions. The US could wage this war for many years all alone, and force the GCC to watch as the region burned. I guess, Trump's administration isn't willing to go as far as the current Israeli leadership may have hoped or wanted. That said, the war could very well still flare up, if the events from past 2 years following "talks" are any indicator.
Building coalitions is slow, deliberative work. Not a skills match for this administration, whatever your assessment of their overall aptitude is.
Ceasefires are not in place until they are in place. Before they are in place, war is still ongoing. Discussing a ceasefire does not mean there is a ceasefire currently.
I have a Naive question, "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"
> "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"
It gives the parties more room to manoeuvre with regards to the give and take that is often/usually necessary when it comes to negotiating. If you demand X at one point, but revert so you can get Y, then the absolutists will be outraged (either actually or performatively) that you are being "soft" and "weak", etc.
There are a lot of people who think in zero-sum, winner-take-all ways, which is generally not how the world of foreign relations works. And modern-day outrage machine will create more difficult situations if you give here and take there (ignoring the fact that the other side gives there and takes here in return) even though it may be necessary to get a result (even it it's not perfect).
Because most world leaders are actors. They put on a show to get elected or retain power. They don't want to look weak and want to spin the final outcome to their favor. That can include one side allowing the other to take credit for an idea that wasn't their's.
I mean...we have body cams for police..
That's beside the point.
Because Trump’s war caused massive oil price hike, destabilised energy supply for the whole world, was extremely unpopular even amongst Maga and Iran regime showed that to beat them into submission you would have kill 92 million people making Trump a Hitier-level war criminal and US a global pariah.
It will be very difficult for Trump to start his war again. He is not thinking about US or even his supporters at this point, but his own legacy, but he is too dumb to understand when Israel and his own staff are lying to him.
That’s why Iran has a very strong position to go to the negotiations. You also killed all the more sensible people in the regime, so there’s only hardliners left. There is nothing to win US or Trump, everything to lose. Iran on the other hand only has to sit tight.
This is how a nation stops being a super power and an empire falls.
Better article with text: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/07/trump-iran-w...
> Israel will also agree to the two-week ceasefire, Axios reported, citing an Israeli official, adding that the ceasefire would enter effect as soon as the blockade of the strait of Hormuz ceased
There’s the catch.
The US is one thing but there is no possible way Israel will stop bombing. They will openly say they will, and continue to do so. It just gives them more breathing room to calculate bigger and more serious strikes. Israel has literally nothing to lose. The US is taking all the heat for any actions in Iran. Israel and Iran are mortal enemies, one can not continue to exist while the other lives, this is how they view it. Iran wants Israel erased, Israel wants Iran erased. This isn't going to stop until one of them suffers catastrophic damage.
I believe from what I have heard and read that Israel will likely only stop if US formally withdraws military support in a sense that they stop supplying weapons (?)
If the war (population displacement / genocide / ethnic cleansing, you can call it however you want to) in Gaza has taught the world something is that the current Israeli regime is visceral and they clearly think they are above any international conventions. Of course they will not stop bombing any of its neighbors until we 1) stop funding and 2) start sanctioning them for their war crimes.
I wonder if regime change could help alleviate the tensions in the region.
> Israel has literally nothing to lose.
Israel has a lot to lose, the question is only how much of the lost will be replaced by american taxpayers' money. They're almost out of anti-air interceptors, the war they started in lebanon is going badly and iran still has tens of thousands of drones left. There's also hamas and hezbollah and more and more of the world is turning against them, be it in proper politics or even mundane stuff like the eurovision.
And it's not just the aljazeera and similar media, the israelis said it themselves: https://www.timesofisrael.com/zamir-said-to-warn-cabinet-tha...
If we have to choose, it seems the world would be better off without Israel committing genocide
Israel can do better, but Israel committing genocide is not the fact legally.
The strict definition of the Geneva conventions does not include forced displacement but in some parts of the world that is included in the definition of. And legality is a matter of tribunal and none has been held so far.
You are mixing war crime and genocide IMHO.
It is a fact factually, however.
I could witness a murder and the murderer committing murder would still not be a fact legally. It's still a fact.
Murder and genocide is not the same. Genocide has strict definition.
So does murder.
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" followed closely by the bestseller "If I Did It: Confessions of the Genocider"
Israel seems likely to do anything they can to start things up again.
They dont have to do anything but wait. Its only a 2 week ceasefire.
When Trump says his healthcare plan or infrastructure plan come “in two weeks” it means never.
Usually Israel does not even wait a day to break a ceasefire.
They already have
They will try for a last minute "false flag" to bait the US to think that Iran broke the ceasefire first as always.
To Downvoters: You do understand that it was Israel that attacked first right? They are not happy with this provisional ceasefire agreement.
Ok, I've switched the link above to that and put the submitted URL in the toptext.
If there are other good links, we can add them.
They will stop bombing as soon as Iran comes back to the situation for which it was bombed.
Yes, seems a bit of a gap between US and Iranian opinions on the state of the strait. US says "open it", while Iran has for some time claimed it is open - only subject to conditions. Then, as you mention, the Israelis talk of an end to the blockade.
I foresee a possible relaxation of conditions on the strait by Iran while keeping their hand on the lever providing substantial leverage during any actual negotiations. I also note that it seems the US are considering Iranian demands - not the other way around. Even with that, Trumps' toughest negotiations may be with the Israelis.
Yep. No way they’re opening the Strait of Hormuz until the US/Israel gets the fuck out of Iran.
They’re not in Iran. Both countries have announced an end to offensive operations in the past half hour or so.
I thought it was only for two weeks? Unless I'm missing some big news.
And no way US stops bombing them unless they open the strait (I say US because Israel doesnt care about the strait).
I think such an agreement is plausible. Trump really cares about oil prices, and i imagine Iranian leadership would really like to stop being bombed.
There is no military solution to open the strait. The fact is that Iran is not unarmed children of Gaza. Iran has capability to hit back. Iran can set alight the gulf states and cripple the world economy. You can’t bomb your way through everything.
> There is no military solution to open the strait.
There is no cheap & fast military solution. There are certainly military solutions if you are ok with it taking a while or costing a lot of lives.
> Iran has capability to hit back
They have demonstrated they can make the surounding countries miserable. They arent capable of actually getting a military victory.
Which is why a deal is plausible. USA doesnt want to spend (in money and lives) what it would cost to open the strait. Iran demonstrates it can hit back enough to be annoying but not enough to force a victory. Sounds like neither side is exactly capable of "winning" (without us spending more than it wants), so a deal sounds plausible.
I can't figure out what was even USA goal in this war ? they have said everything and it's contrary, so there is no way to know if they won or if they lost. I guess it's a smart move.
But on the other hand,
Iran still has enriched uranium, nuclear facilities and now they even have put in the agreement a recognition of Iran's right to seek nuclear technology.
Iran missiles.. they still shoot them and there is nothing to prevent them to build more. They are going to get a big cash-flow with that control of the Detroit, recognized in the 10 point agreement.
Iran government has not been replaced. I'd say it's even stronger now that it 'won' the war (that's the way they're going to show it on national television) and they even asked to get UN sanctions lifted. That will bring them some legitimacy back.
What other usa war goal were proclaimed ?
I vaguely remember a national security thing where Iran was going to bomb America. I guess the war didn't prevent that because Iran did kill American soldiers and caused billions of $ in loss.
Iran goal on the other hand ?
Destroy the evil American ? They weren't going to anyway.
Survive ? I guess they did.
And now the population that was supporting their government is even more radicalized.
> Iran government has not been replaced. I'd say it's even stronger now that it 'won' the war (that's the way they're going to show it on national television) and they even asked to get UN sanctions lifted. That will bring them some legitimacy back.
That's the thing, winning depends on your goals.
Iran's goal was to survive as a country, and the autocratic theocracy that rules it to stay in charge. Not only it managed that so far, but it now effectively controls the flow of all exports going through the gulf. It is an actual victory.
US' goals were unclear. A lot was said. Regime change? Stop Iran's nuclear program? Stop its support to proxies in the region? Take Kharg Island? None of that was done. It was a deafeat.
Israel's goal is murder. It murdered a lot of people during this war. Double points for murdering children. I think Israel can also claim victory here.
This is basically a win for Iran.
1. They replaced the decrepit Khameini with a much younger and more formidable Khameini.
2. “Pulled a Ukraine” vs the US showing defiance and have now rallied any wavering regime supporters against the American and Jewish “devils”.
3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.
4. Showed everyone in the ME and the world that if anyone messes with them they’ll close the straight. Then gas prices go up. Then your own domestic pop gets pissed. Then your chances of re-election drop.
5. Destabilised the whole region costing the ME lots and lots of money.
I'm no fan of this administration but another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases. Actually it shows that the US could eliminate the leadership at its leisure even if it can't hand select the replacements. I'm also not sure the powers that be in the ME hate the rising oil prices.
Again, not a fan of the situation and while I think it is the US's loss I do not really see how it is a win for Iran.
That's not a US specific strength though, anybody with the ability to strike someone with shorter range than theirs can do that. I.e. Netherland can destabilize South America through attacking Panama and its very unlikely that Netherlands will be bombed.
Sure, when US Brazil etc. are pissed off enough, Netherland can just TACO like the US did.
China and Russia can do the exactly same thing to Iran too and Iran won't be bombing Moscow or Beijing either.
It might demonstrate madness though, which in same cases can be useful.
This is an insane take. Why would Netherlands do this when America exists? And even if they didn't rest on their laurels and let America do it, they would not be able to establish a kill chain the way USA can, and so they would need American support. And even if they forewent the support, they would be denounced on the global stage and suffer massively economically. You are massively underestimating just how much liberty USA has to say YOLO and do whatever it wants.
Russia has established that it cannot in fact do this! That is why the two week special operation has gone on for so long.
China? It remains to be seen.
For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.
> Why would Netherlands do this
Maybe the Dutch are willing to risk it all to annoy the libs so they will elect and transfer all the power to a complete clown and attempt to make some money on the stock market and betting sites in the process.
I don't think parent is arguing that is a wise or prudent thing to do, but merely that violence is very much accessible to the state as an option. Just because it is not exercised with reckless abandon like, especially more recently, in the case of US, does not mean it suddenly does not exist.
<< For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.
You are wrong in general on this point. European countries in general have a long and exciting history of imposing its will upon others ( unilaterally and not ).
> For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.
I don't think that is a correct take away.
assuming that this ceasefire holds (big fucking if) it proves that the US is unable to defend it's self and allies against sustained drone attack.
Part of the reason why the middle east's US allies are allied is the implicit deal that they won't fuck with the oil supply, and the US will protect them against their enemies.
In the 90s, the USA would park a few carriers in the gulf and project complete air superiority. They can't do that anymore, and now needs land bases controlled by allies who the USA openly despises.
China doesn't need to bomb places to make its will felt. It's slowly and subtly built out bases over the south sea, effectively fortifying areas that are not chinas. They have also pretty much compromised most of the telecommunications infra through the various typhoons. (I've also heard rumours that intelligence agencies are leaking like a sieve as well.)
Part of the reason that WWI happened was because a massive military power tried to crush a "primitive" opponent, they fucked it up and demanded help from its allies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cer this then dragged everyone into a massive fuckup.
> For now the best assumption is that USA is in a league of its own when it comes to imposing its will on other nations.
It literally lost and wasted huge amount of resources in the process. Everyone else politely nodded until insulted too much, but otherwise ignored what USA wanted. When insulted, they exchanged some words while continuing to practically ignore what USA wants.
US, in the past (eg - iraq) has shown that it can destabilize a region without any effects to the US, not even a mild price increase domestically. So this one is a big degradation from that earlier stance.
And that’s before you compare to the damage bin laden did with 20 people and a million dollars
American has been getting weaker and weaker for 25 years.
It’s not the ME countries who are profiting, because they can’t export. So it’s a net loss. (Saudi and oman win a bit, but in no comparison to the iraq kuwait loss)
The winners are mostly: Russia, Iran itself and (margibally) the US. But mostly Russia.
The biggest winner is China. Countries/people who have any common sense will switch to solar, induction stoves (replacing LPG/LNG), batteries, electric vehicles (of all kinds). China is the only supplier of solar, batteries, EVs and all things electric with everyone else being a rounding error.
I've been waiting for people to have common sense in this domain for decades. The short term always wins
But that's what has changed. Even short term solar is becoming the obvious solution. Look at countries like Pakistan and their solar hyper growth.
Everybody thought it has to be western countries (mostly europe) switching to solar first. But west might actually be last to get off fossil because they can afford it and populist politics will force fossil. It's like burning fossil for nostalgia.
Ya, look at what happened in Nepal, poor access to oil via India, who imports it themselves, but lots of hydro potential. China being next door with an actual rail and truck connection, and cheap EVs.
The developing world has the potential to achieve developed living standards for a much cheaper price, while the west rots away catering to vested interests.
China also benefits that demonstrated its influence (by persuading Iran to negotiate) and from its supply of cheap Iranian oil:
https://x.com/shanaka86/status/2041682779948380317
Russia has banned the export of gasoline starting April 1st, because hits on infrastructure by Ukraine are causing internal shortages. They may be profiting in some other way but it’s unlikely through major exports.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/ru...
Over the past few months their oil facilities have been heavily attacked. It’s hard to believe they’re actually making a big profit from this in the short term.
The US isn’t winning. The owners of us oil companies may have won a little. Commodity gamblers won a lot by knowing what Trump would say and betting before he said it.
The US government and population have lost a lot of wealth.
The Islamic regem lost all its legitimacy in Jan. Even some loyalist where angry at them but they gain support of part of the people and found a reason to exist as the defender of the country.
They will survive and become stronger particularly if they get an economic lifeline out of this peace deal.
If that's true, that's because of propaganda. Look at the oil futures contracts: the stock market bet trillions on that Iran's blocking of the strait of Hormuz is something that can be worked around in ~3 months, and we will entirely stop caring in ~1 year (stop caring = oil back below $70 per barrel)
Their army is decimated to the point that they put guns in the hands of the wives and children of killed soldiers and marched them into checkpoints and military positions, and a bunch of them ran away rather than agree to that.
Iran came in with 5 demands:
* cessation of hostilities against Iran and all proxies
* security guarantees for Iran and all it's proxies
* removal of US military bases from the middle east
* war reparations paid to the IRGC
* permanent tax on the strait of Hormuz
They are now down to zero demands. Well, down to the one demand that is the definition of a ceasefire. The only thing they want is a cessation of hostilities against Iran proper. They get to stop dying. That's it. They got a temporary ceasefire. Israel is now free to keep hammering Hezbollah. Syria is free to keep hammering Syrian "shi'a groups" and should the US want to show the Houthi's who's boss, Iran won't help them (not that Iran was ever going to help them militarily, but this implies they also won't even close hormuz again)
If this holds, everyone's going to be totally surprised at the obvious consequences:
1) Europe and even China owe a great debt of gratitude to the US (yes, really) (not that the CCPs gratitude has ever lasted more than a few months, but still)
2) Putin will be absolutely furious, since he's now betrayed by both the EU and Iran's islamists, and will go into full preparations to attack Europe. What I mean to say is, he may do something drastic. He has lost 2 allies in less than 4 months, and didn't have many to begin with. Reassert Russia's power? Russia wasn't even able to increase oil production!
(Which is yet another reason the EU will suddenly appear very cooperative with the US)
I'm curious which way Russian propaganda will turn. Will they betray Iran because they're now useless for Russia's war in Ukraine? Will they maybe tell themselves they can make Iran's islamists keep fighting? Will they push for terror attacks in Europe? I imagine there's a scene playing out in Russia, but probably not in Moscow right now with Putin doing his best "nein, nein, nein" impression and opening a window ...
It helps the discussion if you would correctly restate what has been agreed. The first obvious mistake is that the US have agreed Iran can charge tax on ships passing the strait; at 32000 ships a year and a nominal $2M, that amounts to $64B alone, doubling their revenue from oil exports and making any foreign currency they like appear in their accounts.
And no, Europe and others definitely do not owe you any debt for this catastrophic war of choice (that still, they enabled! good luck flying there without them!). You will permanently lose many of the ME states to China.
There’s a good argument that European counties should be taking Trump to court and sanctioning him personally for the damage caused by a war he started.
> Europe and even China owe a great debt of gratitude to the US
Absolutely not, USA actions harmed Europe and Europe knows it.
> Putin will be absolutely furious, since he's now betrayed by both the EU
In what alternative universe?
Not sure which world you're in, but Iran has put forward a 10-point demand plan, and it looks like the US (or rather Trump) will likely accept all of them instead of getting stuck in a quagmire before elections.
Yeah, they did. Did you compare to their original 5 point plan? Their 10 point plan sounds like they've given up removing US bases, taxing Hormuz AND the safety of their proxy armies. No "right" to nuclear bombs (sorry "power stations"). No reparation payments. No removal of US bases.
Any agreement with Iran doesn't matter anyway, because Iran hasn't held up it's previous agreements, so there's no real long term point to any agreement. I wonder if they'll let the US clean up their nuclear stockpile and their centrifuges. That is the real question that matters to the west: does the US (or someone trustworthy) get to go in and remove that shit? Does the US (or someone trustworthy) get to go in and demine Hormuz?
(oh sorry, did propagandists claim Iran didn't mine Hormuz? Well, they lied. And we could point out that that is yet another islamist warcrime ... but what's the point? Frankly it's a pathetic warcrime compared to what they do to people in Iran itself, Syria and Yemen)
Did you bother reading the actual plan, or are you too MAGA to do so?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/08/iran-10-point-...
> According to state media, Iran will only accept the war’s conclusion once details are finalised in line with a 10-point peace plan reportedly submitted to the White House via Pakistani intermediaries.
> The list of 10 points, published by Iranianstate media, include a number of conditions the US has rejected in the past. The plan requires: > The lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions on Iran. > Continued Iranian control over the strait of Hormuz. > US military withdrawal from the Middle East. > An end to attacks on Iran and its allies. > The release of frozen Iranian assets. > A UN security council resolution making any deal binding.
> In the version released in Farsi, Iran also included the phrase “acceptance of enrichment” for its nuclear program. But for reasons that remain unclear, that phrase was missing in English versions shared by Iranian diplomats to journalists.
> I'm no fan of this administration but another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases.
Oil spiked over 40% at its peak and US gas prices are up 25-35%, and that's before things got to the point where there were "real" supply issues. I don't know how you can reasonably consider this "mild".
> Actually it shows that the US could eliminate the leadership at its leisure even if it can't hand select the replacements.
Everyone and their brother has known that the US can assassinate virtually any world leader if it really wants to. The question you haven't answered is: to what end?
> I'm also not sure the powers that be in the ME hate the rising oil prices.
Notwithstanding the fact that this situation only increases the attractiveness of oil alternatives, you're missing a few points, including:
1. If oil prices rise too much, too fast, it leads to demand destruction. Nobody captures the higher profits for long because the global economy falls into recession if oil stays above a certain price point.
2. Price stability is just as important as price.
3. Significant long-term damage was done to oil infrastructure and Iran demonstrated how easily infrastructure can be effectively targeted despite all of the advantages its neighbors have in terms of American support, American defense technology, etc.
Your comment also doesn't consider the geopolitical costs of this "excursion". The administration's actions have further alienated America's strongest allies (except for Israel) and added fuel to the "America is undependable" fire. This is good news for China:
https://en.sedaily.com/international/2026/04/05/china-overta...
> China surpassed the United States in global leadership approval ratings last year, as Donald Trump's second administration began its term in earnest, according to a new Gallup survey.
> The polling firm reported Thursday that the median global approval rating for Chinese leadership stood at 36% in its 2025 world survey, exceeding the 31% recorded for U.S. leadership. It marked the first time in 20 years that China's approval rating topped that of the United States by more than 5 percentage points.
Not really in disagreement with any of this. I'm just pushing back on "this is a win for Iran".
If we're being honest, there are no winners in war but since we live in a world that likes to have winners and losers, a loss for the US is a victory for Iran.
Not only has Iran managed to survive being battered by the most powerful military in history, it has:
1. Created a global energy and economic crisis.
2. Effectively demonstrated that it can control the Strait of Hormuz even without much naval and air firepower. In doing so, it showed that the US Navy is not capable of controlling the seas anywhere and anytime.
3. Caused the US and its allies to spend billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons systems (many of which were already in short supply) to defend against much cheaper drones and missiles.
4. Incited Trump to lash out at the European countries that have historically been America's biggest allies, accelerating the trend of America's now possibly irreparably damaged relationships with these countries.
5. Baited Trump into publicly and belligerently positioning the US as a hostile state willing to threaten war crimes/genocide to get its way.
Can also add: made it clear that hosting US air bases on your territory is a liability, not an asset
A lot of Iran’s victory simply revolves around Trump being so incompetent. But then again any president with half a brain wouldn’t touch a war with Iran given our negative experience in the region fighting much weaker countries.
I think I broadly agree with you. Even if we accept the premise that it is not a win for anyone in a war ( there are counters here, but lets say that we accept it ), the reputational damage to US is hard to be overstated. I am not entirely certain some of it will be salvaged. That is how bad it is.
I am not a fan of Trump, but I was mostly ambivalent about most of his escapades. He clearly got really lucky with Venezuela and it went to his head.
$2MM per tanker for safe passage is an extra $100 billion a year in revenue, which is peanuts next to the world's de facto acknowledgement that Iran now has sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz and can charge whatever it wants. The ceasefire also includes lifting all sanctions on Iran, and notably says nothing about its nuclear program, which becomes de facto acceptance of its right to continue it to its logical endpoint of Iran becoming a nuclear power.
Before this started, it was impossible to imagine that Iran could achieve all this. It's hard to how this isn't a massive win for Iran.
> to the world's de facto acknowledgement that Iran now has sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz
That people thought the sovereign waters of a nation were not their sovereign waters absolutely blows my mind. Is it poor schooling, some kind of warped world view?
> That people thought the sovereign waters of a nation were not their sovereign waters absolutely blows my mind. Is it poor schooling, some kind of warped world view?
Because they are not? Oman clearly shares a part of it.
its also the sovereign waters of oman as well, its just oman outsources its military to the USA, who didn't have the ability to enforce its sovereignty.
But this was a know risk, and there are at least 20 years of plans, thoughts risk assessments for the Strait of Hormuz. Had the state department not fired everyone, or the DoD not fired all its strategic advisors, they'd have been able to tell the exec all of these problems.
1. $2MM is their initial demand, expect it to be negotiated down.
2. There is a lot of missing details. Most ships transiting the Hormuz are Asian. Will Iran also charge China, their ally, or will they get a discount? And countries like Pakistan and India who have been neutral to slightly Iran-leaning? Can the US even "sign" such an agreement on behalf of the world? As far as non-parties to the conflict are concerned, Iran's toll is literal highway robbery.
3. "Lifting all sanctions" is again Iran's initial negotiating position. Most likely, the final agreement will keep some sanctions.
> As far as non-parties to the conflict are concerned, Iran's toll is literal highway robbery.
Yes.
But before the US started this stupid war, everyone knew that Iran had strategic control over the strait, and Iran reasoned that if they were to impose a toll on ships passing the strait, the rest of the world would gang up and bomb the shit out of them, removing their strategic control of the strait. So it was kept open.
But now the US went in and bombed the shit out of them anyway, whereupon Iran discovered that despite that, the US wasn't able to secure the strait. What they previously feared turned out to be manageable. They can close the strait, and the cost of stopping them is much, much higher than the US, or any other country wants to bear.
So the rest of the world is choosing between joining the US' illegal fiasco of a war in Iran to help open the strait, or simply paying the comparably tiny toll the Iranians are asking for, in return for oil shipments resuming immediately. So far, everyone is choosing #2.
As a bonus, Iran has also discovered that they can break through the defences of the other gulf states and legitimately threaten their oil facilities, desalination plants, and other infrastructure. Previously, the mostly US-supplied missile defences they had was assumed to be 100% effective, but by testing it, Iran now knows that they're not.
And all of this because the US, in its hubris and arrogance, assumed Iran was as defenceless and vulnerable as Venezuela, and that it would work out splendidly like that time. Idiocy.
<< And all of this because the US, in its hubris and arrogance, assumed Iran was as defenceless and vulnerable as Venezuela, and that it would work out splendidly like that time. Idiocy.
This. It is hard to express the level of exasperation past few week brought. The move left US in a notably worse strategic position than when it began.
Just because there are no worthwhile violent means by which to stop Iran from putting a toll booth in international waters doesn't mean that it can do it at no cost.
Doing this is going to make Iran a global pariah and piss off its only ally, China, who has to pay 70% of the toll (ostensibly, unless they cut a deal).
Another question is, how is Iran going to enforce this?
It doesn't seem Iran still has a navy that could board ships and force them to stop without actual violence.
What happens if a tanker decides to not pay and chance it? Will Iran sink it? That would constitute an act of war (a reprise of the war). Hard to pull off politically (even if it's easy to do technically).
$2m is the current toll that Iran has already successfully charged any ships it allows. It amounts to an extra $1/barrel, so it's a trivial tax in comparison to what the supply shock is causing in fluctuations. China has already paid, and will happily pay going forward if it stabilizes the supply chain.
Expect it to go higher as negotiations cement Iran's highway robbery. Which, yes, it is highway robbery, but it's robbery no one is able to stop without invading and occupying Iran to execute proper regime change... which no one, least of all the US, is stepping up to do.
The U.S. has lost all negotiating leverage. It's been demonstrated that they're unable to militarily impose their will on Iran, and they're far more sensitive to economic disruption than Iranians are--who are, as I type this, forming human shield rings around vital bridges and facilities, ready to die if the U.S. bombs them. Negotiations are, at this point, about the U.S. coming away with some face-saving outcomes.
They're happily paying it because it is a wartime toll.
Consider also the renewed impetus for pipelines on the Arabian peninsula to bypass the strait.
Consider that China has now recognized this as a point of weakness and will be finding ways to reduce or eliminate their exposure.
There is only one permanent solution to blackmail. Shelling out the extortion money is only a temporary one. Blockading international waters is super illegal.
> Consider that China has now recognized this as a point of weakness and will be finding ways to reduce or eliminate their exposure.
China has always seen its need to import oil as a weakness and has been working on solutions to that, solutions it is now very happy to export to other countries that now recognize the threat as well. This war is a huge boon to China which probably helped it avert a recession that was otherwise going to happen this year or next.
The only real shocker is that the USA (well, the MAGA crowd) refuse to see this as a weakness. We have a way to literally make the Middle East irrelevant, and yet we’ve decided to pull back on our anemic (in comparison to China) efforts in moving in that direction.
Willing or not, the Hormuz toll will be paid for many years to come.
Thanks, Donald. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues
China has understood their dependency on seaborne oil for years and been actively working to mitigate it with EVs etc. Their electricity mix is coal, renewables and nuclear with not a lot of natural gas.
International law doesn't really exist and if it did, the US and particularly Israel have committed far worse violations (including the most taboo one of all, genocide). Redrawing some borders on a nautical chart by force is minor in comparison
There are already pipelines in the Arabian Peninsula. None of those help - on the contrary, they are more vulnerable than tankers. The Houthis have already targeted the Saudi pipelines in the past.
The only possible solution would be underground pipelines but a.) sunk costs into existing pipelines, b.) capex needed is much higher, c.) you can't transport all of the oil and gas, or even a significant fraction of it through standard sized pipelines.
Saudi Arabia will invest into a port on the Jeddah side, that's for certain.
So is declaring that you won't abide by the Geneva Conventions, targeting civilian infrastructure and double tapping a girls' school, but here we are at the logical conclusion of the dumbest war in centuries.
Looking at the map, wouldn’t a suez canal type construction be viable somewhere on that peninsula?
Look at a topographic map instead, this is a mountain range that goes up to 1934m.
Ships aren't going up there in this century.
If you consider the topology, it is way less viable.
If you go through UAE (the narrow part) you are attempting to build a canal through mountains and desert.
Any other route (the non narrow parts) would just be 3-4x the length of the Suez Canal but through a desert, but since its not sea level the whole way, with locks (which means more water... again, desert), and at the end forces you through an even narrower strait at the end (Bab-el-Mandeb). The Houthis in Yemen have blasted Israeli-affiilated ships in that strait before, and they are Iran-backed.
Also, even if any of that were done: As ACOUP pointed out, the problem is not just the strait itself. Iran controls the entire eastern coast of the gulf and could harass ships from any location there. Even if ships could somehow bypass the strait, they'd still be in danger as long as they are in the gulf.
Essentially, Iran showed it can control most of the gulf if it wants to.
https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/
You can't cross the Arabian peninsula to the Red Sea either as there's also a mountain range on the west of it.
The only viable passage would be through the center of Oman (no mountain here) but that would be a gigantic canal. And that wouldn't really solve the issue, as the Iranians could easily block the canal as long as it is within reach of their drones and ballistic missile: you just need to hit one ship in the canal to effectively block it.
Why dig a whole canal when you could just set up a pipeline for much less money?
Now imagine how the international community feels about the toll - “sure would be nice if Iran’s leadership was replaced so we don’t have to pay a toll for an international waterway”.
The whole situation further isolates Iran globally (they were already isolated before the war).
Now imagine how the international community feels about the US starting a war of aggression against Iran without even consulting with its allies and trading partners beforehand.
The whole situation further isolates the US globally (they were already isolated before the war due to threats of taking Greenland, making Canada the 51st state, leaving NATO, etc.).
How do you know allies and trading partners weren’t consulted? Of course they were! The US had to get overflight permission the first day.
Iran had long been a thorn in the side of Europe and the Middle East countries. There is no love lost if the US decides to attack Iran. Most US allies would welcome deposing the current Iranian regime.
The US is anything but isolated. Notice how happy Europe is now that the US is bankrolling the Ukraine war?
Don’t confuse public statements intended for local consumption with what’s happening behind the scenes. Countries will happily talk tough to keep their own people happy all the while partnering behind the scenes.
> Notice how happy Europe is now that the US is bankrolling the Ukraine war?
The US is not currently bankrolling Ukraine in the way it was in 2022–2024. Under Donald Trump, no new large aid packages have been approved, and support now largely consists of delivering previously authorised funds and equipment.
That’s a funny way of saying the US is still bankrolling the Ukraine war.
> so we don’t have to pay a toll for an international waterway
I don't think it was international. I think it was 50% Iran's and 50% Oman's.
The $2m toll per strait crossing, at 120 ships a day, is going to pay dividends in perpetuity for them. Their economic situation is now actually better than it was pre-war.
$2 split between Iran and Oman...
The US have been removing leaders for decades.
> (...) another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases.
I'm afraid you are yet to experience the real impact of this war. The actual effect of closing the strait hasn't hit your wallet yet. It's a repeat of the same old tariff bullshit.
Also, Iran did inflicted heavy damage on some of the infrastructure of US's allies. You will start to feel that in a few months.
The only party that clearly stood to benefit from this event was Putin's regime. Orban is not the only vassal at his command.
“Mild commodity price increases” - I’ll try to remember the OP’s comment in July.
Inflation tends to be a ratchet, not a wave. But that’s too complicated for the below-average voter…
You weren't paying attention because that's what the US does since decades... Just now it impacts Western countries directly (Ukraine and Iran come to mind)
Also, I would expect Iran cultural influence to continue to grow in its region. And they now have the strait toll as a new source of revenue.
Note that it is also a win for Israel, so far. They are still invading Lebanon with no plans to stop.
And a clear loss for the US who literally got nothing from that whole thing and triggered a massive global crisis
I'd say more like a loss for the US than a win for Iran.
> 4. Showed everyone in the ME and the world that if anyone messes with them they’ll close the straight. Then gas prices go up. Then your own domestic pop gets pissed. Then your chances of re-election drop.
Everyone knew from the beginning that closing the strait was something Iran would do. But it is current US government that is either inept or too smart for their own good and thought with US producing surplus oil for domestic use, it will not impact them. They didn't care for the consequences and it came back to bite them.
Also, wasn't it that even if the war was stop/ceasefire oil prices will take a long time to recover? If that is true the domestic pop getting pissed might be true even with this ceasefire and it will hurt the current government in their upcoming elections.
> 3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.
More like galvanized people against a common enemy. Regime is going to come down hard on the protestors than ever before and some might find it easier to blame the power which claimed to deliver the regime change. Then Americans will talk about how Iranians hate their way of life and the attack was justified.
> thought with US producing surplus oil for domestic use
I have to assume that at least someone in the room was well aware that all oil is not created equal and that US refineries were designed from the beginning for Venezuelan and similar oil rather than US oil.
That's why I said either inept or too smart for their own good because closing of the strait was a real threat before the war and was ignored, leading to the tweet on Easter.
Even if US refineries were designed for US oil to keep domestic prices low one would have to introduce export restrictions because oil is a global commondity. Big oil will not be happy about that and it seems they have a great influence over the respublican party and Trump.
Oh I expect its a very real possibility that the oil industry would just be nationalized if push came to shove.
[delayed]
I think you're mostly right, except maybe a bit misinformed on #1. The younger Khamenei is, according to recent reports, in a very unstable condition, has likely never actually had an input on the leadership of Iran so far, and his future state is uncertain.
So I think there will be another leader elected soon.
> So I think there will be another leader elected soon.
Maybe not soon. The power now has shifted from mullah to IRGC commanders and they likely will want to keep it while having Khamenei as a figurehead.
> So I think there will be another leader elected soon.
That alone is another clear sign of Iran's ruling regime emerging as the clear victor. Not only there was no regime change but also their primary regional and global antagonists tried their hardest and completely failed to overthrow them.
Moreover, some neighboring countries who were in the US sphere of influence were very quick to fold and remove themselves from the conflict, while others saw their primary economy attacked by Iran and helplessly so.
Forget about Iranian regime's internal opposition. So did the US.
Is there any question on who emerged the clear winner?
Is this an AI comment?
1. A power struggle is more likely than an election. Even if an election, it would be a bit Putinesque considering the IRGC has killed 30k protesters this year, that likely included any viable opposition leaders.
2. Only Qatar, and it is speculated because it was one of 3 countries in the region not intimated by the US about the attack, and they aren't very happy about that.
This is mostly true, but I have to push back against the 30k number. That's a number that only the US regime has been touting. HRANA has verified about 7000.
> I think you're mostly right, except maybe a bit misinformed on #1. The younger Khamenei is, according to recent reports, in a very unstable condition, has likely never actually had an input on the leadership of Iran so far, and his future state is uncertain. > So I think there will be another leader elected soon.
What does that have to do with anything? The USA (my country, sadly) provoked a far smaller nation and was proved incapable of dominance.
Trump will claim victory, but it's not what they thought they'd get.
The 'what does that have to do with anything' attack, yes quite effective at making yourself appear inquisitive and collaborative, and open-minded. /s
Still looking at the details, but this morning, one of the biggest French newspapers was basically headlining (a slightly more polite version of) TACO.
Not a good image for the US around the world, including its (former?) allies, I guess.
What's à good image of the US nowadays ? Artemis maybe. That's all.
Wait for re-entry.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582043
Would a better image be destroying the power plants and water desalination of 90M people?
One should never draw a redline they aren't willing to cross. Trump of all people should know this, he gave Obama shit for years over the uninforced redline with Syria over chemical weapon use.
To Trump, when someone else does something, it's worthy of reproach, but when Trump himself does it, it's the cleverest 4D chess anyone could ever imagine.
We are in an era of clickbait; mainstream media tends to be sycophantic to the views of its readers.
This war (not the ceasefire) is basically a loss for the USA. Many people don't yet grasp the scale of the reputational, economic, and power damage that has occurred and will continue to occur.
Just the attack on data centers has caused certain conversations in my circles that basically comes to down to some guys will try to get off of foreign clouds and into local hosting in their own countries (most seems keen for co-location hosting because of the static ip ranges & other admin sugar and reliable power; not concerned about hardware pricing as the hardware is less than 10% of the equation). All thanks to a couple attacks on data centers that we are not even hosting on.
The US foreign policy has perfected the art of turning a stream of tactical victories into a strategic defeat.
They used to spend years to do that, now they managed to do it in just over a month.
Let’s discuss this again in two weeks. I suggest.
This ceasefire will defuse the global economy’s tensions. That’s its sole purpose.
It’s unlikely they’ll find enough common ground for a lasting agreement.
The real winners are those psychic commodities/future traders and the arms industry. Again.
It's very hard for me to see this war (regardless of final outcome) as anything other than a massive strategic loss for the USA. The US has spent a stunning amount of materiel and political capital to achieve nothing of lasting benefit to themselves, and have killed thousands while further destabilising and impoverishing the region. A catastrophic outcome.
It's absolutely possible for both sides in a major conflict to lose, and they've managed to do so in this case.
> much younger and more formidable Khameini
Formidable?
more crazy then his father is what i hear
guy has spent his whole life being labeled as a monster simply for being born. I'm sure that causes a guy to develop some sort of complex.
He's likely in a coma or already dead.
I disagree. Iran was about to lose. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare.
Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, pay salaries, run a business, have running water, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food, people will starve; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots bigger than the ones seen in January.
The Iranian government would have no ability to coordinate a response, and Iran would collapse within a week. The country would devolve into chaos, into paramilitary factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.
The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.
Once Iran showed it had no ability to prevent the US/Israel from doing a indiscriminate bombing campaign, it was clear the US and Israel could always win this war through this outcome.
It never had any ability to prevent an indiscriminate bombing campaign, and never did. And nobody ever thought otherwise.
It only ever had to prove it could keep the strait closed. Which it did. And now the americans are going away, and they can get back to hanging students from cranes.
The USA has failed to achieve any of its strategic goals, and is going home, defeated.
The conflict is far from over, this ceasefire is unsustainable as neither side wants to agree to the demands of the other.
A ceasefire mostly benefits the US, since it can bring in more military assets across the globe. Ships and troops are still weeks away from arriving & being able to participate in combat operations.
A negotiated settlement is preferable to total destruction of the Iranian economy, and large destruction in the middle east, by all parties involved.
I expect the conflict to resume after two weeks, or later this year, after midterms.
…except very few died. The Iranian and US casualties and entire ME casualties since the operation started combined are less than 15% of the Iranian citizens slaughtered a month before this all started.
Do we not care about deaths anymore? Avoiding war and death is a win for everyone.
They did not manage to bomb Germany, North Korea, or North Vietnam into submission and they tried for years. Winning through bombing alone has never worked.
Do not underestimate the effects of modern precision bombing, the technology moved forward (especially if we compare it with II. world war). Today it's much easier to destroy any kind of infrastructure, power plants, bridges, dams, water preparation facilities, waste treatment, cement, steel production, food silos, fuel storage, vehicle manufacturing, etc.
This is very important because, population in cities is much more dependent on infrastructure, than rural population. Rural population is mostly self sufficient. Over 60% of Iranians live today in cities, but under 20% of Vietnamese lived in cities at the time of Vietnam war. Vietnam was also strongly supported by China, with transportation using Laos and Cambodian.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-livin...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-livin...
Iran is even now under sever water crisis.
https://www.wri.org/insights/iran-war-water-crisis-middle-ea...
So a large scale bombing of all Iranian infrastructure would probable not cause the fall of the regime, because they have the guns and can take anything they want, but the suffering and famine of Iranian people would be enormous.
Sometimes large scale bombing causes submission, for example fire-bombing of Japanese cities (atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in the scale of destruction and loss of life comparable to Tokyo fire bombing, only much cheaper in the number of airplanes).
https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01171/
My point is that you can't bomb a country into submission. You can use strategic air power in addition to other methods, but the bombing alone was proven again and again to fail. More often than not, it hardens the enemy's resolve.
Bombing Britain failed. Bombing Germany failed (except for dragging the Luftwaffe into a war of attrition). Bombing Japan failed on its own until Japan had no navy left afloat, and the Russians savaged their army in China. The bomb accelerated a victory achieved through other means.
In Korea, Americans levelled cities and infrastructure until there was nothing left to bomb. That did not win the war.
In Vietnam, Linebacker failed. Linebacker II bought slightly more favourable terms for the US in negotiations, but in the end, North Vietnam won.
Even the Desert Storm curbstomp would not have worked without boots on the ground.
I'm just rehashing a better post on this exact topic: https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...
The destruction of Japan and Germany was much more extensive than Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World...
Yes bombing of Japan was a factor in surrender, but not the only one. Destruction of much industry, destruction of navy, all their allies were defeated. There were preparations for invasion of Japan or continuous atomic bombing, if Japan would not surrender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Shot
"Two more Fat Man assemblies were readied and scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 11 and 14 August"
"At Los Alamos Laboratory, technicians worked 24 hours straight to cast another plutonium core. Although cast, it still needed to be pressed and coated, which would take until 16 August. Therefore, it could have been ready for use on 19 August."
The rate of bomb production was one of the Manhattan Project’s most closely guarded secrets. Expected rate of production by General Groves:
"The production rate of 3 bombs per month in August was expected to rise to 5 bombs per month in November, and 7 bombs per month in December. In 1946, it could rise much higher."
https://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html
As is written in: https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...
"In Vietnam, the same problem complicated any effort at industrial bombing: the factories that supplied the North Vietnamese forces (both the regular PAVN and irregular NLF) were in China and especially the USSR. Moreover the population was not broadly dependent on centralized utilities (like electricity) which could be bombed."
The article tries to apply lesson from past bombing campaigns to war in Ukraine, but this don't apply because Russia could not establish air supremacy over Ukraine and could not apply large scale heavy bombing. And I hope that they never will...
No, it would achieve the three primary goals of this conflict.
It would cause catastrophic economic damage to Iran, and given how politically unstable Iran currently is (millions of people rioted earlier this year), the regime would not survive the oncoming civil unrest.
It would be a humanitarian disaster, but from the US/Israel's point of view, it would be a victory. An Iran with no electricity has no capacity for industry, and has no ability to manufacture missiles, drones, or have a nuclear program.
Without ability to manufacture missiles, Iran would be unable coerce people to buy into it's Hormuz transit toll system, and the strait would reopen.
This weakened Iran would have no ability to produce nukes, close the strait, and make missiles; for at least a decade while they recover economically.
> This weakened Iran would have no ability […], close the strait, […]
Here is where we disagree. And i think this is the only point which matters.
I agree with you that the US always had the ability to destroy Iranian civilian infrastructure. I agree with you that doing so would cause catastrophic economic damage, civilian unrest, regime overthrow etc. It would seriously disrupt their nuclear program for sure.
What it wouldn’t do is reopen the strait. As long as some ships pay the toll those monies can be used to pay the “warfighters” and their weapons. It is relatively cheap to do so. Ukraine demonstrated this with their unmanned surface vessels. This they can do even if the whole hinterland of Iran is in flames and turmoil.
In fact the more their economy collapses the more lucrative this coastal piracy “business” relatively to other opportunities becomes. People who “before the bombing” had better things to do will find that shaking down foreign ships is still doable “after the bombing”. Some of it will be out of ideology and hate for sure, destroying all the civilian infra of a country tends to whip up emotions in people. But fundamentally they can keep doing it because it is a business which pays.
And regime overthrow won’t help with this either. In the absence of a strong central coordinating force you might get multiple separate pirate outfits camping at different parts of the coast trying to take tolls. That obviously wouldn’t improve their economic success, but would increase chaos and hinder transportation even more.
In short while the USA could destroy Iran as a nation, doing so would not eliminate the threat to shipping in the region.
Iran's "toll booth" only functions because they shoot missiles at ships that don't pay up. If they didn't shoot missiles, nobody would pay. They have no legal ability to do this; the strait is split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. Iran does not have legal control over Omani waters. Actually enforcing their "toll" means firing missiles at ships in Omani waters who don't pay. It's a combination of piracy, terrorism, and an act of war (violation of Omani sovereignty).
This situation is unacceptable for every other Gulf country. It may not be dealt with in the coming weeks, but will be addressed in the coming months, in a similar fashion to how Somali piracy was neutralized.
Also, a neutered Iran would not have the capability of producing anti-ship missiles, which is the primary enforcement mechanic of this toll.
"Without ability to manufacture missiles, Iran would be unable coerce people to buy into it's Hormuz transit toll system, and the strait would reopen."
You don't need missiles to keep Hormuz closed. Cheap drones, naval mines and such are enough, and those don't require that much production capabilities, especially if you get some help from Russia. It's enough to hit a ship every now and then, which keeps the insurers away.
Even without any infrastructure IRGC could wage a guerrilla war for a long time.
In an industrial collapse scenario people in Iran, including IRGC, might have something more urgent than antagonizing ships. Things like subsistence farming.
That's not something I would cheer for. For what it's worth, this did not Germany, Japan, North Korea or Vietnam to collapse. What makes this time different?
Japan: Not without total defeat on every front
Turning Iran into another Afghanistan would not have been a win for anyone with a memory longer than the last two election cycles.
Putting aside the fact that the humanitarian disaster you envision would not produce the simple result you expect, it's quite disturbing that you have completely glossed over the fact that destroying Iran's ability to produce electricity is a war crime.
Committing an act of genocide against a country of 90+ million people would be the death of the US as we know it.
Ah yes, a comment from the morality police. According to international law, if the electrical grid directly enables Iran's military, then it is a valid military target. In every major conflict since WWII, electrical infrastructure has been targeted. This includes WWII, the Korean war, Vietnam War, Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf wars, 2003 Iraq War, and the Russo-Ukrainian War.
So no, it's not automatically a war crime, it's a case-by-case basis.
And claims of "genocide" from are laughable and ludicrous, the target is the IRGC, and regime change. If they wanted genocide there are far more effective ways to do so.
This is a textbook definition of terrorism. That the military uses the civilian infrastructure is a justification that not even the US tried to use. This is pure terror bombing, and they admitted as much.
Russia bombing civilian infrastructure does not make it "not a war crime". The fact is, USA and Israel did committed war crimes here and planned to commit more of them.
And yes, according to international law. No, you do not get to bomb desalination plants, eletricity plans, universities, hospitals, bridges and schools and claim "it is not a war crime because soldiers in area exist".
Nobody with any slight acquaintance with history could believe any of these.
Well yes, if cruelty is the goal, bombing civilians is cruel.
If I'm not mistaken, the Obama administration was about to accomplish every single one of those goals with a treaty, which the Trump administration cancelled. Bombing a country into accepting terms that they had already agreed to is not that impressive.
The Iranian military is very decentralised and designed specifically with American capabilities in mind. So am not sure they would collapse. And a defending force is far less dependent on logistics in the short term. Also, Iran has a culture of sacrifice.
Iran and the US exist in a state of equilibrium of opposite strategies. The US is unwilling to risk its troops and sees sacrifice as weakness but otherwise applies maximal pressure. And Iran is willing to sacrifice its citizens and sees that as noble. And outside of a black swan event there is little hope of change.
Each side sees its enemies greatest military strength as a moral weakness and will keep fighting. Whilst conversely believing that sacrifice/maximal remote force may someday work. Iranians are not going to pivot because their culture has been forged as a response to exactly this kind of pressure. Nor will America suddenly see the sacrifices of thousands of it's men as virtuous. So things probably just revert back to the same equilibrium.
The point is that America blowing up power plants and Iran absorbing casualties is just an extension of the status quo.
> The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.
That is such an incredible interpretation of the situation that basically requires you to ignore basically every economic problem being faced from this insanity currently and in the near future.
Sure, the US an Israel were just "too concerned" about the Iranian economy to do war crimes.
Yes? How is it a misinterpretation?
If the US ended up damaging power plans and desalination plants, that would mark a clear inflection point in the number of "friends" the US has militarily, economically, and politically. Sure, Israel would still be a big fan, and maybe Saudi Arabia, but otherwise the US would become a pariah.
It would be damaging to Iran and potentially hundreds of thousands or millions would die.
That's a lot of blood debts.
There is no way the US would walk away from that situation into a better outcome.
> 3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.
More like: Reminded the anti regime population that US has no interest to help them and will happily kill all Iranians and proudly destroy all of civil infrastructure.
> 5. Destabilised the whole region costing the ME lots and lots of money.
In this case, the destabilization is firmly the fault of USA and Israel.
Parable of the sun and the wind..
More loss for US, as in customary US not winning fast is functionally the same as losing.
Heavy weight boxing a teen it should have brained in round 1.
Teen lands a few punches back is embarrassing.
Teen slapping heavy weights protectorates more embarrassing.
Teen surviving week 4 is like heavy weight failing to brain teen by round 7.
At this point it's looking like we're going to round 10 TKO, whoever "wins", US loses. People still going to wank over if US wins on TKO because muh K:D ratio or something, but real signal is teen's strategy was to survive hits and ultimately 10000s of heavy weight hits weren't haymaker strong enough to brain a teen. At >2% of GDP of PRC, Iran is basically teen/toddler territory that drew down significant % of US active force and munition stockpiles, so there's also layer of US losing more based on relative effort expended.
To China, the conflict is a clear demonstration of the impotency of the US war machine. Before this "military operation", one could imagine the US defending Taiwan.
Now, it's a laughable thought. It couldn't even if it wanted to.
This is in no way a win for Iran.
Hundreds of regime leadership is gone. Massive destruction of infrastructure. Bombed all their neighbors who weren’t even at war with them. Pushed those same neighbors into closer partnership with Israel and the US.
Now the regime is severely weakened.
None of those things matter if they survive and control the straight, which seems to be the situation. The toll revenue will be enough to rebuild several times over. They have proven that they can absolutely crush the gulf states with missiles and drones.
I think the fact that Trump accepted their 10-point plan as the basis for negotiation, instead of them accepting the American 15-point plan, makes it obvious this is America taking the loss.
That’s a whole lot of “ifs”.
And they haven’t come close to “crushing the gulf states”. Lobbing a middle at the oil facility is not “crushing”, it’s harassment. If anything the gulf states have decided to not retaliate themselves, but if they did it would be even worse for Iran.
Trump did not “accept” the 10 point plan. Not even close. It’s simply a list of demands from Iran, nobody has agreed to anything.
Real world events are conditional. Would you prefer I talk in absolutes?
Defacto Iran still controls the strait, as they have since the start of the war. If they start letting the ships through with no toll, I think that would indicate a tactical loss but strategic draw for Iran (well, the IRGC). If they don’t, it’s a strategic win. We’ll find out I guess.
The small gulf states are incredibly fragile because of their water supply. Major disruption to their power or desalinisation directly renders them largely uninhabitable.
You’re misquoting me on the 10 point plan. He accepted it as the _basis for negotiation_. Here’s direct quote from him on Truth Social:
“We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate”
Lining up multiple low probability events and talking like it’s certainty isn’t that helpful to understanding the conflict.
Iran does not “control” the strait any more than neighbor controls my front door because he threatened to stop me from using it. If the US or other naval power tried to pass it would have no issue.
Have you noticed when the Houthis did the same thing (fire on ships) last year the tone was very different? Many people noticed.
Accepting something as a “basis for negotiation” means nothing. During the Korean War the US accepted a term forcing them to leave the Korean Peninsula when peace talks started and last I checked the US is still there.
This would make sense if the regime command structure had apparently not designed itself for this exact type of conflict.
They were in a fight, took losses, and made significant gains.
They proved their planning was correct, that the distributed nature of their power grid was correct, that they are able to project force and genuinely destabilize the strait.
Things have been proven that were previously uncertain, and they have not been proven in America’s favour.
Crucially America’s ability to defend its allies was tested and found wanting. The entire conflict was of unit economics, in that a cheap 30k drone beat out billion dollar investments.
America also spent the better part of this administration alienating themselves from the one allied nation with extensive drone combat experience.
Admittedly, this is the interesting part. Ukraine via its leader apparently did try to reach US in exchange for money, but, and there stories get confused, was ignored. I have to wonder if Trump has some actual fixed winners table in his mind ( because he does not seem to follow the most optimal path ).
Yup, and it's a demonstration that the US is unable to just impose its will wherever it wants, making the US look weaker.
Failure all around.
But no doubt Trump and his people will tell the world what an amazing success the whole thing was, and how they exceeded all their goals, whatever those goals might have been.
There will be a 2 week ceasefire, western countries will move ships out of the straight, the Saudis will reroute oil, the 10 point plan is idiotic and the US will have an easy excuse to resume bombing them.
I agree with you that this is just temporary, but for entirely different reasons. I think that stock market fluctuations are making some people very very rich. It's the same game as they did with the tariffs on/off every week and it's not over yet.
I don't think we know if the ceasefire will hold or if it's another attempt by trump at strategic delay/deception, but remember that the strait carries a lot more than oil and those things cannot be transported via a pipeline.
Reroute where? Nonsense. If that was the case then the tensions wouldn’t be this high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Crude_Oil_Pi...
Tensions are high because of all the trapped ships. Not because there's no alternative.
The Saudi & UAE pipelines combined can only carry around 9mbpd and are already maxed out, compared to an average of 20 through the Strait.
And? Reduced capacity for awhile raises prices, the Saudis can sit on some oil and have the US get rid of their geopolitical and economic rival.
Again, short term goal is to clear out the stranded ships and the war can resume.
Because the Iranian 10 point plan is so ridiculous even Trump isn't dumb enough to take it.
My assumption is that, by now, Trump just wants to save face and move on to an easier target, one that can't strike back. He's been preparing the US opinion for Cuba.
So I wouldn't be surprised if negotiations just... stopped, without anything happening. Pretty much what happened, if I understand correctly, to the economic negotiations with Japan, EU, Canada, Mexico and anybody else regarding US import taxes.
But there's no oil to gain in Cuba, no stock market interests, and no pushing from Israel. So, why would he do that?
> And? Reduced capacity for awhile raises prices
That oil is being consumed somewhere, countries/industries will face shortage (in addition to the price increase).
> And? Reduced capacity for awhile raises prices, the Saudis can sit on some oil and have the US get rid of their geopolitical and economic rival.
That pipeline is a strike away from being out for months, if not years.
> Because the Iranian 10 point plan is so ridiculous even Trump isn't dumb enough to take it.
The whole situation is ridiculous, and Trump is overtly desperate to stop the nightmare at any cost. Calling something ridiculous is no argument, particularly when we are living in a timeline where stupidity reigns.
That has a capacity of 7M barrels a day, so not an alternative. It'll lessen the blow a tiny bit but that's all it does
Ok. This is getting silly and on par with 'the straight is open; it is only closed, because Iran is blocking it' quip from Hegseth. Tensions are high, because there are trapped hips AND there is no viable alternative.
Wait until you hear about the Houthis.(or the fact that the pipeline is only a small fraction of the capacity of the strait).
All the proxies Iran arms is a good argument for continuing to attack them.
Why isn't Iran doing more? It seems like they are pandering to the USA when they have the moral high ground.
Moral high ground? They lost it long ago when they were hanging people for being gay and sponsoring terrorist groups.
First thing is something US wants to do and they've done the other a lot.
Let me articulate the thing which I believe is on many people's minds:
What is the chance the president will order a nuclear strike on Iran as this war proceeds?
We would hope the odds are vanishingly small, because doing so would be profoundly disadvantageous. But the same was true for initiating this war in the first place. The logic -- such as it is -- of some people in power may lead them to conclude once more that shock and awe can succeed. We've already struck the country with powerful conventional weapons at scale and it has not led to a weakening of Iranian resolve.
All the above said, my personal hope of course is this will never happen. I'm curious what other folks think however.
No chance. A nuclear strike on Iran won't achieve anything that a large number of conventional strikes would.
You're assuming the current president operates on rationale. He simply would love to be the guy who uses a tactical nuke.
How much would you wager? It's easy to to say what you're saying because it's popular.
If you watch action and not social media bs, the probability is close to 0%.
Wouldn't*
I'm putting this[0] here just as a reminder of how horrible things can be and for basically nothing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack
I used to attend elementary school on a military base. I didn't feel like a human shield at the time, then again I was more naive and had less life experience than I do now.
You weren’t a human shield. It would have been very easy for the US and Israel to not have blown up a school, the attack was intentional.
Notice they had 0 issues precisely striking the building housing Iranian leadership when this whole thing started. They didn’t “accidentally” hit the grocery store two blocks away.
For what reason would they attack a single school? Some strikes being well some doesn't mean others can't be mistaken.
Some Israeli’s believe that they should kill the children of their enemies:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netany...
“Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Maybe an extremist Israeli put together that particular target list?
Same reason they're attacking universities, medical research labs, power stations, bridges, hospitals, paramedic teams, civilian rescue teams...
It is amazing how readily some people believe we target civilians, often based on the words of actual terrorists.
With this particular incident with apparent US strikes on a school adjacent to a military complex, and formerly part of that military complex, you would think it must be obvious to any reasonable person that we did not knowingly target a school.
Yet here we are.
Who are these actual terrorists you speak of?
From the Wikipedia article...
For planning Operation Epic Fury, the US military utilized the Maven Smart System, an artificial intelligence software designed to streamline the targeting process and greatly reduce the amount of personnel involved in it. Capable of producing 1,000 target packages in one hour, with the use of the system the US military said it had struck 6,000 targets in Iran during the first two weeks of the war.
...it goes on to say...
The [NYT] inquiry suggested that the school was likely targeted due to outdated coordinates provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency
Advanced rockets bolted onto mainframes guided by data from Palantir.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven#Technology
> For what reason would they attack a single school?
Couldn't it be to terrorise the other side while still being able to claim that it was a mistake? Remember that the school was hit by three distinct strikes.
So you think there was a conspiracy to target a school? Who do you think did it? Why? What was their goal?
I think either an intelligence failure, or a mistake or a miss is more likely. Maybe missiles don't always hit where they were meant to go. Especially if there is anti missile defences (which Iran is likely to have). Maybe Iran anti-air hit the school, or sent a US missile off course?
article mentions that this was triple tap. i doubt that missiles missed three times hitting same spot.
More than a conspiracy, they actually did attack the school - twice - about 30 minute apart (double tap).
They would have had live video feed from drones, and images sent from the first tomahawk missile for target confirmation. Yhey knew exactly what they were targeting and hitting.
Today on several news media were a story that people of Iran were called by the government and formed human shields at the bridges and power plants that Trump threatened to bomb if no deal reached by the deadline.
https://www.ms.now/news/iran-youths-protect-power-plants-sau...
Sounds like a blatant violation of all the conventions and a war crime.
It’s hard to imagine that international law actually intends to consider civilians hanging out as “human shields” at civilian sites to be a war crime.
No it's not. International law is generally exceptionally clear that one war crime doesn't justify another, and using civilians as human shields is about as core a war-crime as war-crimes get.
I tried to look it up: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97#ti...
> The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.
The situation in Iran is not this. The suggestion was that humans might volunteer to go to non-military sites.
As an extreme hypothetical, are humans living in their homes acting as human shields for those homes? How about people at school? How about people parading on a bridge? Does it become different if someone threatens to blow up a bridge and people parade there in response?
Eh, the quoted text, and also the literal text of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 28 [1], doesn't qualify "certain points or areas" as only "military sites". While the other side should only be attacking military sites I don't see how that could possibly justify protecting non-military sites with human shields.
> As an extreme hypothetical, are humans living in their homes acting as human shields for those homes? How about people at school? How about people parading on a bridge?
Generally speaking I read this as not, because they aren't being "used to" render those points immune from attack, they just happen to be doing so. Hypothetically if you were to rush civilians back to their homes in an evacuated town to protect it from an attack - or as you suggest organize parades on bridges that are threatened - that would seem to meet the "used to" requirement.
(Good discussion though)
[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...
> Article 28 - Prohibition of using human shields
> The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
https://youtu.be/u7J3_EX7rQk
I think this was done voluntarily as a demonstration of sacrifice and nationalism.
When Lithuania was fighting for independence from USSR civilians gathered around key government buildings to protect them. in a sense they were human shields as none of them were armed. but they did it voluntarily. this happens when you threaten total annihilation of your homeland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events
Threatening total annihilation was possibly the dumbest move Trump could have made.
“ Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in the heart of a hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard."
Sun Tzu
These civilians did this without government coercion. Big difference.
how do you know that iranians are forced to do this now by their government and not doing this in support of their country? do you think there are gunmen taking them to the bridges?
It was a government call. I grew up in USSR and know very well how those government "calls to volunteer" work in totalitarian regimes. Especially in a wartime country where even in peacetime they would kill people even just for being incorrectly dressed.
Anyway, as i said in the other comment, it is actually not that important how all those people got there. The key thing here is that it was a deliberate government act of human shield creation.
what a coincidence i too grew up in USSR and my parents and friends were part of above mentioned human shield. And i can tell first hand that there was no coercion. just call to action.
It said it was call of the government. Bloody authocratic government. A call you can’t refuse.
That’s certainly not the vibe I got from that video, nor the several others I’ve seen of Iranis at power plants and bridges.
Look at recordings from other totalitarian regimes - enthusiastic people doing government bidding. The key is deliberate act of human shield creation, not the specific way to do it.
My wife is Iranian and I know many Iranian expats, and all my in-laws are in Iran.
This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime.
Yes. People die in war. It’s sad. But most Iranians will say “whether we go to war or not Iranians are being killed” and it’s better to fight for regime change than to just accept the status quo.
Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed? Yes, people die in war, but if there’s a chance for something better than it’s definitely worth it!
Every Iranian I know thinks it’s worth it and they danced in the street when Khamenei was killed.
"This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime."
The US government is not in any way responsible for the murder of protesters in Iran. That is done entirely by the government in Iran.
The USA and Israel ARE responsible for the murder of the kids (and adults) in that school. If you are American or Israeli you can care about the murdered protesters, but it it not really your responsibility. The murdered kids are however.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing the point of my comment.
People bring up the school as a way of discouraging American military bombing Iran. It’s a way of shaming Americans, as if we are bad, making us feel guilty for bombing. Right?
What I’m trying to say is that Iranians I’ve spoken to are happy that we are bombing the regime. From their perspective, they are already being killed. The regime is dangerous to them. Bombing the regime and possibly destroying the regime is worth the risk.
So don’t be so hard on yourself. Iranians want your help. People die in wars, there is always collateral damage, but sometimes war is just. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. That’s how the Iranians I’ve spoken to feel.
> Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed?
What was so great about the American revolution anyway? It's not like it gave any average people the right to vote, and it arguably preserved slavery for an extra 30 years.
This is the counter argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.
How is this in any way a counter argument to the US bombing a school? That their own government would stoop to such lengths gives free reign to foreign governments?
The idea is that incurring a few hundred civilians deaths to liberate Iranians from a regime that slaughtered them by the thousands or tens of thousands is a net positive for human life. Of course this only works as a justification if the Iranians actually are liberated front their regime, which I don't think they will.
But the justification, if the liberation actually transpires, is sound. An order of magnitude more French and Dutch died at the hands of Allied bombing and shelling in 1944. I think most agree the the upside of being liberated from Germany makes the Allied landings a net positive, though.
But to reiterate, I really doubt the revolutionary guard is going to lose control of Iran.
This aligns with conversations I’ve had with Iranians. They really do believe that the ends justify the means here if they can destroy the regime.
Iranians abroad or Iranians in Iran?
Because the ones abroad don't have a lot to lose and much to gain. The ones in Iran have a lot to lose as well.
Like being killed if they said they want regime change.
Congratulations for rediscovering Machiavelli. “The ends justify the means” is such a winning philosophy.
The ends do alter the acceptability of the means. E.g. if I offered you the means of “pay money to flip coin to make money as many times as possible” and the numbers involved were $50k if heads, lose $1k if tails and $50 buy in that’s way different if the numbers involved were $1k if heads, lose $50k if tails and $500k buy in.
If you can’t alter your reasoning to include outcomes then you will make poorer decisions.
> Of course this only works as a justification
If killing those kids was instrumental in a greater good, only then is it worth being philosophical about. From what I've seen, they were too eager with the bang bang boom boom to actually double check that it was a valid target.
Double checked?
They fed ancient intelligence into an AI which spit out a target list that nobody seems to have checked, period.
The situation is hardly comparable.
The French and Dutch were members of the Allies, with Charles de Gaulle as leader of the Free-French forces and Queen Wilhelmina the head of the Dutch government-in-exile, both in London. Both wanted the allies to get the Germans out of their countries.
There is no government-in-exile calling for the bombing of Iran as a method for liberation.
Just as Laos did not call for the US to drop some 2 million tons on that country - more than were dropped on Japan, Germany and Britain during World War II - resulting in the deaths of over 200,000 people, as part of the US's ineffective attempt to "liberate" North Vietnam.
No one wants to liberate Iran. Israel just wants to continue committing genocide and apartheid without any opposition. Iran arms Hezbollah and Hamas, the main forms of Palestinian resistance. The whole point of this operation is to decimate those groups so ethnic cleansing can continue without any resistance. Israel could care less about the Irani people.
You are very naive if you think the IRGC truly killed 10's of thousands of it's own people. Israel openly talks about Mossad organizing and supporting the coup, and good old Donny has admitted they have given weapons to organized resistance.
I estimate that many of the death numbers come from armed resistance being killed by the IRGC, not ordinary peaceful protestors. I also think armed resistance killed many Irani citizens. There is obviously fog of war here. The thousands of deaths were likely inflated and obfuscated.
Look at the coups we have backed in the middle east (including formerly in Iran which is what originally led to the Islamic revolution) -- and you will see a pattern. Both US and Israel provide material support to groups like ISIS or actors like Bin Laden. An Al-Qaeda fighter is literally the head of Syria now thanks to Israel.
I don't love Hamas, IRGC or Hezbollah, I don't like their ideology. But it is myopic to think they exist in a vaccum.
I wouldn't personally do so, but arguably those tens of thousands rest at our feet considering the current government was political blowback from the US and UK regime changing Iran back in the '50s.
It's even less likely to work because Trump has already claimed, publicly, to arming the protestors. That already makes any regime change illegitimate. They're all foreign backed agitators.
I bring it up because this shit is messy.
The American commander in chief was, as of yesterday, vowing to end their entire civilization.
i dont imagine spending a bunch on the military and oil is nearly enough to topple the US government.
what case does it make that the constitution needs to be abandoned?
Aside from the fact that the events you linked to have no connection whatsoever to why the US started attacking Iran, there is absolutely no reality or moral code in which "a government kills a couple hundred of its citizens" justifies another government on the other side of the world blowing up a hundred plus schoolchildren and other civilians.
> Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.
It's looking like this is the exact type of magical thinking of the most useless "president" ever. Meanwhile in the real world, such things take hard work.
The counter argument is missing some justification. Is it reasonable to go killing people on the hope that something good will come out of it? Is there no less violent way to achieve those objectives? Do we really think that people will organize a toppling while they're being bombed without Internet access? Do we think they'll topple the current regime for one that is less antagonistic to Israel and the US after the bombings?
> This is the counter argument
When the French helped us during the Revolutionary War, they didn't shore bombard the colonists' kids because it would have been bad and counterproductive.
This is black propaganda, not a counterargument.
At most there were a couple thousand casualties from violent riots that involved armed gangs (or sleeper cells if you want to go that route).
There were not "60,000" peaceful protestors executed by the government, as Trump claimed yesterday without evidence. That is murderous propaganda, blood libel intended to deflect from the actual mass murder of civilians by American forces e.g. the Minab school.
It was a narrative specifically designed to induce comments like yours.
> basically nothing
So we should have let Iran have nukes? How many lives would have been lost then? They certainly have no problem purposely bombing civilians in non combatant countries.
> So we should have let Iran have nukes? How many lives would have been lost then?
Fewer, because we would've been deterred from attacking them. Unless we decided to risk nuclear war, I guess.
US doesn't have to engage for Iran to use nukes. But of course we should prevent that from becoming a realistic scenario?
> US doesn't have to engage for Iran to use nukes
Sure, in a purely physical sense, I suppose they could launch a nuke, triggering MAD and Israel's Samson Doctrine and ending human civilization for no reason. Currently I think Israel, the US, North Korea, and Russia have a higher (though still low) risk of doing that. In that order, by the way, though I could probably be convinced to bump Russia up higher.
Nukes are not really for actual use but for deterrence so likely no lives would have been lost. Israel has nukes and they don't use them unless somebody attacks them with nukes. Same with other countries. Ideally both Israel and Iran as well as North Korea, maybe also Pakistan and India should not have nukes. And even more ideal it would be if nobody had them but the cat's out of the bag already.
Iran has repeatedly stated their intent to use them.
They've also stated at various times that they believe first use or any use to be against Islamic law.
I don't find any of these statements to be particularly credible, but I also don't think they're going to strap the first bomb they make to the closest missile they find and immediately send it at Tel Aviv when it surely means the total destruction of the Iranian state.
Iran has repeatedly stated they will not develop nuclear weapons.
do you remember what usa president stated just couple of days ago? to destroy whole country. didnt it sounded credible enough?
India, The biggest democratic country should not have nukes but its ok for a bunch of colonizers and authoritarian state like china to have.
> we should have let Iran have nukes?
What part of this war has made Iran less likely to get a nuclear weapon?
There could have been a good war in Iran. A coalition of nations going in to secure the uranium. It would have been messy. But it would have had a clean objective.
As objective yes but whose lives would be spared for this objective? Messy is relative to policies. Aren't other ways to attain this objective other than through war? I really think there were attempts and progress in that direction.
If Israel can have them, yes. Ideally, neither Israel nor Iran would have them.
I thought Iran's nuclear capability was destroyed in the June 2025 bombings?
They were able to move and hide a lot of the enriched uranium ahead of those bombings. Not all of it was destroyed.
I think that would be more believable, or at least the US/Israel would be more supportable in this, if they hadn't testily insisted on terms like "obliterated" and "set back by years" several months ago. You can only cry "nuke" so many times in a year. https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...
does iran even want nukes?
they have a religious law against making or using them, and theyve been sitting at "they could make a nuke within a week" for the past 20 years or more
it feels like people are falling for iran's bargaining chip - they want people to think they could make one, but not actually make one
There was zero evidence they were close to a nuke. In fact, they've been alleged to be weeks away from a nuke for over 20 years. And the accusations come from the ones with the illegal nukes themselves!
Why do we "let" Israel have nukes?
Iran shouldn't have nukes, but starting a war—burning billions of dollars a day, killing kids and innocent civilians, and leveling bridges and universities—is objectively the worst possible way to prevent it.
The JCPOA under Obama actually did a solid job of constraining their nuclear development. That was the pragmatic approach, but Trump just unilaterally scrapped the deal. He doesn't have an actual strategy, maybe just "concepts of a plan".
This regime has been around for half a century. We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February? Come on. Don’t tell me you actually believe that shit.
Unless we actually invade, all this war will do is demonstrate to Iran that obtaining nuclear weapons is an existential necessity for them, and kick the program into high gear. Oh, and provide them with plenty of funding for it due to their newfound ability to collect tolls for a vital shipping chokepoint.
> We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February?
What news are you even reading? You are terribly misinformed or out of touch. Not all of it was destroyed. A lot of enriched uranium was saved. The IAEA still could not verify the stockpile's location, size, or composition due to denied access. Iran refused full inspections post-strikes.
The rest of your post is pure conjecture and nonsense.
It's pure conjecture that they are now collecting tolls from ships that transit the Strait of Hormuz? You don't think they're going to sprint for nukes at any cost now?
The guy who said their nuclear program was destroyed last summer is the same guy who says we have to go to war to stop them from developing nuclear weapons now.
Do I believe it was actually destroyed? No. Do I believe the guy who said it was? No. Do I start believing that guy now that he says there’s an imminent threat? Also no.
> What news are you even reading? You are terribly misinformed or out of touch.
What news are YOU reading?
https://time.com/article/2026/03/18/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nucle...
"As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement," Gabard wrote in an opening statement ahead of the hearing.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/headlines/2026/03/19/ken...
Joe Kent, who made big news when he stepped down on Tuesday as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Wednesday that intelligence assessments did not show Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States or was close to developing a nuclear weapon, undercutting central justifications for the military action.
Evil dictator who killed millions of people in his lifetime is also now dead.
He was 86 and is now, unfortunately, a beloved martyr rather than the symbol of an old and decaying regime.
>beloved
by whom? ROFL, good luck substantiating this claim
are we ignoring the fact that he massacred countless people for protesting against him THIS YEAR?
Trust me, I wish it weren't the case. Nobody likes being bombed and he's now a symbol of resistance. Most of the urban middle class has always hated the mullahs and various ethnic groups have conflict with the state as a whole, but Khamanei had and has support from basically every other element of society.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/polarised-ira...
[2] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rare-moment-indias...
[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2026/3/1/thousands-in-iran...
More than half of the people who voted in the US voted for Trump. A lot of people in Iran most probably liked the old leadership there.
Replaced by his son.
>Replaced by his son.
Replaced by an enraged son whose whole family had been killed in front of him. Basically Iran's Ayatolah is now younger and angrier. Thanks to Trump and Israel's Trump.
Iranian people were about to topple their own regime some months ago. Now the regime is cemented again since Iran was attacked indiscriminately. Again, thank the 2 Trumps.
> for basically nothing
* The people responsible for murdering ten thousand protesters are now dead.
* The IRGC's military capability is significantly degraded.
* Their nuclear program is likely set back even further. It's hard to get real information here but we should assume that supporting facilities were high on the target list.
That's not nothing. From a strict utilitarian perspective, it's probably "worth it". Which sucks, but I haven't heard a better plan.
i dont think those are nearly as clearcut as suggested.
some of the iranian side for events that resulted in a bunch of death have been killed... while also killing a bunch mkre iranians, but have the americans/israelis that armed the protestors into terrorists and incided them to violence been killed?
i think theres enough police, mossad, and cia folks left to do that again and again until the protestors are all gone.
similarly, its blatantly obvious for everyone that the US destoryed the iranian capabilities that dont matter. iran is still capable enough to seter both putting american ships in the strait, and boots on the ground, so that degradation is not significant. optimization without profiling.
from a strict utilitarian perspective, definitely not worth it. the costs were extraordinarily expensive and havent been fully paid yet, and the profits for the US is a worse position than they started it
theres some light benefits to the gulf and ukraine in that the gulf realizes that they can spend much less on defense by buying from ukraine, but that pales in comparison to the costs paid in destroyed oil infrastructure and interceptors that could have gone to ukraine
I hope that one day humanity learns that in war there are no winners. We're all just brothers and sisters born on different corners of the planet. We share the same home.
I hope that we stop attacking one another and find peace and work together as a race to overcome our challenges.
I used to think this way, however lately I understood that all wars, I mean all of them (even those religious ones) are motivated by resources. Those resources are money, power, control. People deciding on war to begin are those who benefit from it (usually, unless they've been manipulated).
And sometimes there is crazy. But crazy I can't explain, sorry.
Yet, we all mostly understand we are people and we love each other. But then the big guys come and lead us to war. To get more gas, to get more power, to get influence. Ukraine? They threatened to become independent from Russia (influence). Afghanistan? They threatened to use gold as price factor (influence). Iran? here it might be the third factor I won't explain, but also motivation by money I guess...
That will happen on the day there is enough to go around.
Unfortunately I fear that time has long gone.
As long as the population is growing and/or the (fossil) energy is falling there will never be enough to go around.
I doubt scarcity has had anything to do with wars for the last 100 years, maybe even longer. It has always been about ideologies, fanaticism, and lording it over one another. Even when men lived in smaller tribes during periods of abundance, they still went around killing each other for false glory, ideology, and expansion. No economic solution can solve the problem of war and human nature.
Even if men ever colonize Mars and the wider galaxy, and resources were abundant, I doubt it would take long for wars to break out there, whether for a specific reason or none at all.
I doubt it very much that either Russian war on Ukraine or the US attacking Iran happened due do scarcity of resources. Old folks in power want their page in history books.
Human nature is more about attacking left and right and grab other people’s stuffs. At least some humans. Part of the human gene is like that. Aggressive, invasive, relentless.
This is a lovely notion that most well adjusted people can get behind, but if you've ever had a person with narcissistic personality disorder in your life, you'll understand that they need to create conflict to emotionally regulate themselves. Unfortunately these people tend to acquire wealth and power, and are never satisfied. Then the rest of us have to deal with it.
It's times like these when most people recognise that parents in all corners of the world worry about their kids just the same.
War should never break out. But it does. We had international rules to prevent war, but they're gone. We had international rules to prevent governments deliberately killing innocent people under the guise of war, but they're gone too.
It took two world wars and roughly 80 million killed to create those rules.
You could argue about when they got destroyed. In Ukraine, in Gaza, Iran - but it's clear now that they don't exist any more.
Amen. Also, nature is awesome and we live in a period of technological plenty and instant global communication with arbitrary knowledge and decent translation available in seconds, so why are we still acting like lunatics and hating on groups?
Parents: stop teaching your children to identify with irrelevant concepts of ethno-nationalism, and instead teach them to be globalist scientists with empathy.
Nationalismus ist eine Kinderkrankheit. Die Masern der Menschheit. ("Nationalism is an infantile disease: the measles of mankind") - Albert Einstein, 1929. Who, incidentally, turned down the presidency of Israel.
"Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our two thousand years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us." - Einstein on Israel, late 1920s.
PLUR
The most powerful country in the world is run by an elite class of genocidal pedophiles who also (allegedly) eat people. People in the west are fed lies through the media that those same people have full control over. We are given a false sense of freedom. Freedom of speech only protects you from those who have significantly less power than those you actually need protection from. If those people want you gone you'll disappear without trace.
rainbows and unicorns are cool while you're under 9
It's interesting how the hackernews-biased views of the war outcomes don't align with how Iranians themselves see that. For instance you can translate from persian the following geopolitical view which will shed a totally different light on the situation to whoever depends solely on hn comments https://x.com/i/status/2041693098833518976
Yes, just a regular Iranian. Hahaha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International
You can read who funds this channel.
Thanks for sharing perspectives from actual Iranians.
Posted from Maryland?
Too bad the internet inside Iran was shut down by the IRGC terrorists regime
This is Israel's "business as usual" stuff. Mowing the lawn, fake ceasefire, distraction, expansion and greater Israel project let's go! stuff. Stretch goal is to make Iran a failed state. Primary goal is distraction from the very real annexation of Palestinian and Lebanese territories, one war crime at a time.
And to anyone who doesn't buy this comment, I strongly suggest "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by Mearsheimer.
Ridiculous take. Israel wants a secular Iran, not a failed state. Most Iranians don’t hate Israel. They hate the Islamic regime. But westerners just looove to support all Iranian proxies these days.
What option is there for israel.
Maybe not systematically murdering civilians and stealing their land and homes every day might be a start. Baby steps.
https://www.hamas-massacre.net
Of course, Israel is a pure white dove. For instance, they have rallies for "the right to rape prisoners" (and recently to kill them) [0]. Or to willingly mutilate peaceful protesters presenting no risk[1].
The problem is that the total lack of moral limits in Israel only forces their opponents to escalate, or accept to be treated like animals (in the case of the West Bank Palestinians). It also affects the US, since that they have to follow along with Israel' way of doing the war (mainly, war crimes).
[0]: https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2024/8/13/israeli-p...
[1]: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-03-06/ty-article-ma...
Oh no they are a rotten old pigeon as well and I don't disagree.
What I object to is the "freedom fighters" being painted with moral virtue when they are raping murdering bastards.
The problem is that once a party starts to commit atrocities, all others tend to do it. Atrocities by Israel are not new, and Israel has a long history about it, since its inception:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cast_Thy_Bread
Rather than deshumanizing parties, deescalation is needed to achieve peace. And an end of the US support to Israel.
That is the consequence of a long-term policy. Israel made sure the Palestinian authority was sidelined and helped Hamas get full control of the Gaza Strip. History did not start in October 2023.
Yes I am aware of the full history of the Middle East back to the middle ages...
The problem really kicked off after the Ottoman reform (Tanzimat) period.
We call Hamas "terrorists" for far less than Israel's actions.
Brain damage there?
For sure my "genocide supporting" brain center took critical damage and is not operational.
As we're talking absolutes clearly, was the Nova music festival massacre justified resistance?
> was the Nova music festival massacre justified resistance
Intentionally killing civilians is never justified. But this still makes Palestine/Hamas the (much) smaller genocidal terrorist in this conflict. Free people don't need freedom fighters ;).
Now, I have no horse in this race, I am not related to any of the peoples involved, and live far away. I'm just the voice that finds genocide wrong. You on the other hand look like you're happily riding the terrorist, genocidal horse. I don't expect anything from you in terms of quality debate.
no massacre is justified, but can you remind us how and where did Hamas get helicopters and tanks and all of a sudden all cars were smashed? maybe Hannibal directive handed them over their tanks
Fair. Clearly they need the land back GOD gave them 3000 years ago.
I mean realistically what peaceful propsals are there. Every neighbour country is threating what else they can do.
As a first step they could give back some of their illegal settlements. Then over time give back more, until they are back in UN recognized borders. That would be a start. They could also start to persecute violent mobs that chased people out of their own homes and the people in the military covering them. They could also release unjustifiably imprisoned people.
You know, things that basic human decency would demand of them.
The best plan is one democratic state from the river to the sea for all peoples governed by the Israel government.
> Every neighbour country is threating what else they can do.
See above. When Israel finally stops trying to be a Jewish supremacist state things can finally start getting better.
Has it ever entered your mind that maybe it is actually Israel that is threatening every other country?
Israel remembers the Six-Day War...
The war started by Israel, ostensibly as a retaliation for a dispute about a bit of water, which Israel used as a pretext to invade the West Bank? What about it?
Does that give a perpetual licence to kill, or do we try something productive at some point?
The only productive solution is to get rid of all religious ideology out there (both sides).
Good luck.
The 'both sides' thing when one side is occupying the other is pathetic. There's only one side that needs to stop the occupation immediately, the Israeli one. We can go from there.
Yeah remember when they left Gaza in 2005. What happened then?
They levelled it, tens of thousands killed.
Everyone remembers The Nakba. Or the Suez Crisis
And?
Nakba - Entirely the result of Ottoman foreign policy, WW1, WW2, League of Nations being a total fuck up.
Suez Crisis - Egypt being dicks
Six Day War - attacked from all sides.
Bit of a contrast, no?
Re-integration. One democratic state "from the river to the sea". And leave the neighboring states alone.
This comment is exactly why there is no hope out there. Literally zero understanding of middle-Eastern geopolitics other than trite slogans.
Come on. Do you think everyone is going to suddenly start holding hands and singing kumbaya? Or more realistically, like nearly every other surrounding state it'll be the elimination and exodus of Jews and Israelis?
Carpet bombing, artillery and gunfire hasn’t brought peace, but maybe the next salvo will, right?
Ballistic rockets and massacring people at music festivals don't either.
There's no moral high ground here so don't even pretend there is one.
https://archive.ph/Gsw1y
Hamas didn't have prior knowledge of the festival, and partygoers were also murdered by the Israeli army. And in general flattening entire cities don't leave their habitants very keen toward Israel either. It just reinforces the cycle of aggression, which allows Israel to take more land.
So that's ok then?
No it's not ok, if the goal is peace and not the achievement of the "Greater Israel" that the current religious far-right in power is pursuing, with the support of the zionist christians in the US.
That's a crazy way to defend an ongoing genocide. The scale is so different that the only way to miss it is willful bad faith.
How long and how far do you go with that justification? Does it work the other way too? Are "their" actions justified forever because of something wrong that was done to them? Can anyone in the world do to you anything and everything forever if they were ever wronged by someone born in the same general geographic area as you?
Whenever you find yourself defending any genocide, under any excuse, defending the killing of innocent children because some other guys from the same general area also killed people, you are the bigger problem and no amount of fresh accounts justifying it makes you better.
I didn't defend. I just pointed out that the "freedom fighters" in everyone's minds are raping murdering bastards and I refuse to take a moral position and support or defend them for it.
That in itself is an abhorrent position and I am disgusted at anyone who takes it.
And further extrapolation as you edited it, if a child has a gun pointing at your head and has been trained to fire it at you, which is exactly what they have been doing, then they are legally combatants. But it makes a good statistical and PR job which is just as abhorrent. Legally and statistically speakingh, children... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD2FezhJgqA
I would not do this to MY children.
> I just pointed out that the "freedom fighters" in everyone's minds are raping murdering bastards
So, like Israeli soldiers?[0]
> if a child has a gun pointing at your head and has been trained to fire it at you, which is exactly what they have been doing
Israelis do exactly the same[1]
As long as Israelis rely on violence, war crimes and human rights violations, there can be no deescalation. We see it in the current ceasefire, where Israelis refused to stop their annexation war (and flattening) of Liban.
[0]https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2024/8/13/israeli-p...
[1]https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170708-israel-gives-sett...
See my other comments. I'm not defending them either.
I am defending facts and stating there is no moral high ground.
Yes, although Israel has the power to deescalate, but hasn't done it. They also have a lot more power to inflict suffering to civilian populations.
So complaining about it while continuing to bomb civilians with white phosphore is rather hypocritical and cruel.
> I didn't defend.
Didn't you?
> if a child has a gun pointing at your head
That sure sounds like defending the killing of children because for sure they were all holding a gun and trying to kill you. Including the babies.
If you show all the YouTube videos in the world, the moment when you find a justification to kill any innocent children is when you become irreversibly the problem.
No I didn't.
Your second point literally makes no sense and is based on the straw man that babies are holding guns where I made no point even related to that or collateral kills (which are unacceptable). Secondarily my point is based on internationally legal definitions of combatant and evidenced with a video of combatants being trained. Not like the UN and UNICEF haven't been all over this for decades.
Don't use child soldiers and you won't get statistically significant child casualties.
This has been happening to Jews everywhere they’ve been since the dawn of time. Maybe some introspection would help.
...
Are you saying that it's Jews themselves who are to blame for having been killed or exiled from numerous places?
It's so sad to see this ridiculous argument every time. Israel is the aggressor, the murder and the main threat to the region's peace, not the victim. This, of course, does not mean that Iran is not another threat, but its actions seem like nothing compared to what Israel is doing.
Stop the immortality project and stop the massive suffering happening right now. People should really read "The Denial of Death".
Please share more
Pasting from Wikipedia:
> Becker argues that a basic duality in human life exists between the physical world of objects and biology, and a symbolic world of human meaning. Thus, since humanity has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we are able to transcend the dilemma of mortality by focusing our attention mainly on our symbolic selves, i.e. our culturally based self esteem, which Becker calls "heroism": a "defiant creation of meaning" expressing "the myth of the significance of human life" as compared to other animals. This counters the personal insignificance and finitude that death represents in the human mind.
> Such symbolic self-focus takes the form of an individual's "causa sui project", (sometimes called an "immortality project", or a "heroism project"). A person's "causa sui project" acts as their immortality vessel, whereby they subscribe to a particular set of culturally-created meanings and through them gain personal significance beyond that afforded to other mortal animals. This enables the individual to imagine at least some vestige of those meanings continuing beyond their own life-span; thus avoiding the complete "self-negation" we perceive when other biological creatures die in nature.
You can find big similarities such as the promised land as the immortality vessel, heroism as a response to historical trauma and the ongoing attacks on their sovereignty, and the immortality project would be the nation-state. Becker goes on to categorize all of this similar to a mental illness. You can read the wikipedia page here, I find it very helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death
TL;DR: If you look through Becker's lens, you start to realize how stupid such wars and expansionist ideals seem. People should focus on what exists now and stop chasing projects that'd span beyond their lifetimes while making life today worse.
Perhaps not be a genocidaire apartheid state?
The only endgame I see for the region is sadly the complete and utter annihilation of all civilizations there, possibly through nuclear means.
I do not say this lightly and I say it with a deep sadness in my heart for the people of the middle east, but also with the sober realization that this is the only end of the path that is currently walked.
There's a much less grim end, probably coming at short term:
If the US stop giving unconditional blank check support to Israel, then the nuisance power of the Jewish supremacists there disappears overnight. The US popular support for Israel is now at an all time low, and the recent war may be the straw that breaks the Camel's back.
All that's needed to stabilize the region is some amount of pushback to the destabilizing country here. Iran have been a destabilizing force for the past decade, but since 2023 Israel is by far the biggest threat to the region, and it's mostly due to Netanyahu's political survival relying on the state of perpetual war he's put the country in.
Should the US put even a modicum amount of pressure to Israel (or even just declare they wouldn't support them should the EU put economic sanctions on Israel), then the current cabinet collapse, Netanyahu ends up in prison for corruption and the middle east is stable for a decade.
All of this madness is happening because the US enables a madman to escape his own judicial system through foreign wars.
All of this madness is happening because the US enables a madman to escape his own judicial system through foreign wars.
All of this madness is happening because the US enables two+ madmen to escape their own judicial system through foreign wars.
Fixed it.
In fairness, it's the Biden administration who gave Netanyahu the blank check first.
Having another mad man at the head of the US makes the issue worse, but even impeaching him wouldn't solve the problem on its own.
What is even the point of all the flip flopping if there’s ongoing talks? I feel like the doesn’t put any real pressure on Iran, but I may be uninformed.
Market manipulation.
Although, it seems like the markets have started to get a sense of this as well and are not so swaying.
Trump is cornered. There is no “winning” this for him. Expect Iran to get some major concessions that Trump will talk up as win.
Market manipulation..
There are no talks or anything. Iran has no incentive to negotiate with a party as unreliable as the US is under Trump. I would literally negotiate with a dead opossum before I would continue to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner.
I mean, as much as I don’t like the Iranian government, put yourselves in their position. You have the US and Israel literally leveling the equivalent of Balfour or the White House and taking out other government officials in a decapitation strike that failed, but killed off all of the moderates. The government is then replaced by hardliners who see this attack as existential. You have little to lose at this point, so you go for broke.
Since the US seems unwilling to put boots on the ground, cannot form a coherent reason for any of this and is lead by a man who is unable to accept that he can commit errors, it degrades into a war of attrition and, in the case of Trump, influence peddling since it is clear that Israel and the Saudis would like to see Iran wiped off the map and all Trump cares about is how he can internalize it as yet another reason why he is a victim and entitled to the Nobel Peace Prize.
IMHO, I think there is tremendous pressure to, at the very least restore the Strait of Hormuz as an international waterway not subject to Iranian control or tolling, but that’s an after-the-fact thing. I think Trump simply thought it would be an easy win and play well on TV. I suspect what will happen is the US pays a massive indemnity/bribe to Iran, Iran agrees to not contest control of the Strait of Hormuz and the US looks like morons which Trump will internalize as a win that nobody will believe except himself.
> There are no talks or anything. Iran has no incentive to negotiate with a party as unreliable as the US is under Trump. I would literally negotiate with a dead opossum before I would continue to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner.
The Iranian Supreme National Security Council said in their victory statement that there would be talks starting on Friday: https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/04/08/3560026/snsc-is...
> Iran, while rejecting all the plans presented by the enemy, formulated a 10-point plan and presented it to the US side through Pakistan, emphasizing the fundamental points such as controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz in coordination with the Iranian armed forces, which would grant Iran a unique economic and geopolitical position, the necessity of ending the war against all elements of the axis of resistance, which would mean the historic defeat of the aggression of the child-killing Israeli regime, the withdrawal of US combat forces from all bases and deployment points in the region, the establishment of a safe transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz in a way that guarantees Iran's dominance according to the agreed protocol, full payment for the damages inflicted of Iran according to estimates, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions and resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, the release of all of Iran's frozen assets abroad, and finally the ratification of all of these matters in a binding Security Council resolution. It should be noted that the ratification of this resolution would turn all of these agreements into binding international law and would create an important diplomatic victory for the Iranian nation.
> Now, the Honorable Prime Minister of Pakistan has informed Iran that the American side, despite all the apparent threats, has accepted these principles as the basis for negotiations and has surrendered to the will of the Iranian people.
> Accordingly, it was decided at the highest level that Iran will hold talks with the American side in Islamabad for two weeks and solely on the basis of these principles. It is emphasized that this does not mean an end to the war and Iran will accept an end to the war only when, in view of Iran's acceptance of the principles envisaged in the 10-point plan, its details are also finalized in the negotiations.
> These negotiations will begin in Islamabad on Friday, April 11, with complete distrust about the US side, and Iran will allocate two weeks for these negotiations. This period can be extended by agreement of the parties.
When you use words like "decapitation strike that failed, but killed off all of the moderates," what do those words mean to you? With all due respect, I don't really get the Internet brain way of thinking of things. What decapitation failed? I guess, if you mean, there are still Islamic Revolution people in charge, I still can't see the point. When you say "failed" that would imply that they were literally attempting to kill literally every single member of the government at once. I don't think anyone serious would think that. Also, "failed?" I can't recall ever a decapitation happening so swiftly or so massively within the first few hours of a conflict. Also, the meat of what I wanted respond to was this idea of "killing the moderates." I get that most people here think the West and America is evil or whatever but the idea the Ayatollah and top members of the IRGC were moderate is just an affront to morality. The same people think that Trump is Hitler for doing things that 90s Democrats agreed with (even ones currently serving), would hold vigils for a truly monstrous regime. This is like some Billie Eilish "no one is illegal on stolen land" type stuff. We are talking about brutal executions for no reason at all.
> What decapitation failed?
decapitation was intended to result in regime change, but instead showed that the iranian system is perfectly capable of peaceable changes in power. what particularly failed is that the people the US wanted to champion as the new leaders of iran were also killed in the decapitation.
you can compare against the successful decapitation from christmas, where the US removed maduro, and championed rodriguez and now takes a cut of all venesuelan oil sales.
i think there's a reasonable argument that the ayatollah was a moderate, in a much more militant government. He's the guy that was making sure iran never built a nuke, and by observation, iran stood down after each attack the US/israel did on iran up until he was gone
"no one is illegal on stolen land" is perfectly reasonable - the american government has no actual legitimacy to control who comes and goes from land that doesnt belong to it. the various tribes do. its impractical in that the US genocided the legitimate owners and took it over by force, but its still the right and just end view. the US gets to kick people out of certain borders because it did a ton of brutal executions
> I get that most people here think the West and America is evil or whatever but the idea the Ayatollah and top members of the IRGC were moderate is just an affront to morality.
I really don’t understand this logic. I find it rather myopic and based on one’s own pain. Everything is relative, unfortunately. The idea that I would in any way condone or argue that the Iranian regime is not culpable of its own massive war crimes, grifting and other crimes against its own people is…bizarre. I am well aware of the crimes of the Iranian regime and look forward to the day it is removed, but I don’t think this is it. Even Trump admits that they killed off all of the people they thought would be more amenable to work with the US which is just a level of incompetence I can’t fathom, but here we are.
Unfortunately, in practice, moral absolutism does not exist in international relations. The evidence is right in front of your face of this fact. We could go through the litany of crimes against people that we (the US) have condoned or facilitate or been unresponsive to. The folks in Beijing have also committed unspeakable acts against their own people and others, so why aren’t we bombing them right now? Why Iran right now? Haiti is a failed state nobody seems interested in caring about. We failed to stop a genocidal massacre in Rwanda…
> When you say “failed” that would imply that they were literally attempting to kill literally every single member of the government at once.
I literally believe that Trump thought this given that he openly admitted he ignored the military and intelligence agencies telling him that this was a terrible idea. I agree that nobody rational would think this, but I argue that Trump never lies even when he says he is joking. He literally thinks as POTUS he can do whatever he wants.
I am guessing that the Oman's share Homruz fees will also shared with Trump businesses (via loss making investments, or another plane etc)
To manipulate the price of oil.
But only some sort of sociopath would upend the world just to make a buck. Esp if they're already a billionaire with literally hundreds of other conflicts of interest.
> But only some sort of sociopath would upend the world just to make a buck.
You may be on to something there.
All he does is flip flop. Was the same with tariffs against everyone last year - he kept backing off at the last moment.
Amusing that it's on a Tuesday again. TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) Tuesday.
Yes, markets weren't taking his "normal" market manipulation tweets seriously, so he had to go hyperbolic with the NUKE tweet. I am definitely sure Trump is not serious. That's why Iran said we will continue this discussion with complete distrust.
Help me understand. Isn't it a good thing that Iran wasn't blown to pieces?
It is, but he is weakening the credibility of the United States in the process. Never make a threat you aren't willing to back, otherwise everyone knows you make idle threats.
The chicken is always the good part of the TACO. That doesn't make the whole thing great.
It's just another military adventure ending in a disaster - probably the most humiliating in a long long time. But to your point, it's better for the US to admit defeat now, than in 2 or 3 weeks, let alone in 2 or 3 years. If a parallel can be made, Russia would have been best advised to have done the same 3 years ago.
Yes.
But it’s still bad that the US threatened a genocide this morning.
What in anything parent said makes you think it’s not a good thing?
Calling someone a chicken is seen as derogatory.
I too would take issue with being compared with that guy if i were a chicken.
There are no talks.
Does this mean that Iran will have functional nukes in two weeks? Given how previous "ceasefires" turned out (blowing up their leadership), I don't think they are naive again and don't seem desperate to end it.
No, there is more to building a functioning nuke than just fuel enrichment.
The access to highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium is the limiting factor for construction of nuclear weapons.
It really depends on how small and how efficient you need to make weapon, a nuclear weapon fitting inside a rocket nose cone is much more sophisticated than nuclear weapon that has to be only transportable by truck, ship or airplane.
For example, the simple design of Little Boy used on Hiroshima contained 64 kilograms of uranium, but less than a kilogram underwent nuclear fission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_boy
"Unlike the implosion design developed for the Trinity test and the Fat Man bomb design that was used against Nagasaki, which required sophisticated coordination of shaped explosive charges, the simpler but inefficient gun-type design was considered almost certain to work, and was never tested prior to its use at Hiroshima."
So with access to highly enriched uranium (enrichment greater than 90%), a large and crude bomb could be produced in few weeks. How could they deliver it anywhere? They don't have airplanes. Truck? Speedboat?
Given how the past nuclear deals went over decades, there's little hope of follow through now.
JCPoA compliance was verified by the US and the IAEA regularly until the agreement was suspended by Donald Trump in 2018.
And the agreement continued with other nations, but IAEA started raising concerns in 2019 and Iran started breaking conditions. A bunch of countries tried to reinstate it under Biden but the Iranians wouldn't do it. Maybe they would have stayed compliant, maybe not. We'll never know. What we do know is that they wouldn't continue the agreement with other parties nor recommit to it later.
I pray for peace in the world. While the past has shown these things to be complicated and sometimes temporary, I accept progress over perfection.
Wild that the US accepted Iran's maximalist demands as starting point for negotiations. There seem to be some uncertainty around what those 10 points are - multiple versions floating around, but they all read very much like a US strategic defeat. Full retreat from region, reparations to be paid etc.
So with all the bluster we are able to roll the clock back successfully to pre Obama stage of negotiations? Essentially starting from discussing if Iran should have nuclear capability or not and then adding new stuff like Iran controlling the strait and collecting toll on it. Awesome, so much winning!
"Iran's Supreme National Security Council announced that Iran has achieved a major victory, compelling the United States to accept its 10-point plan. Under this plan, the U.S. has committed to non-aggression, recognized Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, accepted Iran’s nuclear enrichment, lifted all primary and secondary sanctions, ended all Security Council and Board of Governors resolutions, agreed to pay compensation to Iran, withdrawn American combat forces from the region, and ceased hostilities on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic Resistance of Lebanon."
Can't see this holding
But we've had messaging for domestic consumption worldwide since the trojan wars.
What people say in either direction is not a reflection of what happens, it's what they want to say, and have some cohort believe happened.
This is for domestic consumption. As will the WH reports be, facing the US domestic audience.
They didn't have the internet back then, everything is global now im afraid.
"because you said <that>, I won't do <this>" is rarely an issue in these matters. What people say, and what people do, are divorced.
This isn't contract law. The WH can declare victory and stop, or declare victory and continue, or declare defeat and stop, or declare defeat and continue, or declare nothing and {stop, continue} and what the Iranian government say is not relevant. But, stopping or not stopping sending up UAV and sending over missiles and aircraft, IS relevant.
ie, this is just speech. we judge on outcomes not on words said.
[edit: that said, under this administration, the reverse is also true - "because I heard you said <this> I will now do <that> which is totally irrational, but I now have an excuse in my own mind, for what I intended doing anyway." ]
The Supreme National Security Council is quoting the agreement that Trump supposedly agreed to. And if that agreement holds, it is hard to see it as anything but a complete Iranian victory.
Keep in mind, the losers in a conflict have more of an incentive to lie than the winners. The US and Israel seem very much the losers here.
I don't really disagree, but I just want to observe there is no neutral arbiter here. There isn't some platonic ideal "he won, they lost" outcome.
What I think, is that a french metric tonne of value has been sucked out of the world economy, a lot of future decisions are now very uncertain, power balances have shifted, and none of this is really helpful for american soft or hard power into the longer term.
The Iranians have lost an entire cohort of leadership and are going to spend years reconstructing domestic infrastructure, and a rational polity. But, the IGRC has probably got a stronger hand on the tiller. Their natural Shia allies abroad are in shellshock, but still there.
I'd call it a pyrrhic victory for America, on any terms. Wrecked the joint, came out with low bodycount in the immediate short term, have totally ruined international relations (which they don't care about) and probably won't win the mid-terms on some supposed "war vote" -But who knows? Maybe the horse can be taught to sing before morning?
A lot of very fine bang-bang whizz devices got used, and they learned how much fun that is. A lot of european and asian economies learned how weak they are in energy and fertilizer and will re-appraise how to manage that, and there's a lot of fun in that. A big muscly china is watching quietly and we're pretending there's nothing to see there, and meantime the tariff "war" continues to do .. 5/10ths of nothing.
The pace of worldwide alternative energy adoption has gone up. Is that an upside?
The Iranian PR on this is like the DPRK. Except the DPRK wear Hanbok not Chador. The Iranian citizenry has been badly let down. No green revolution on the horizon.
> Can't see this holding
Me either. Now one must ask who gains most from time. Israel, America or Iran.
I don't buy it. The only way this could be more humiliating for the US is if Trump agreed to do a public apology from Tehran. No way the Gulf countries and Israel would even entertain the thought.
The Gulfs would just follow whatever US wished. They also received the grim reminder that US being far away can just go at a moment notice. Iran is there for eternity figuratively speaking. They all need to learn to live together
I wonder how badly damaged the Gulf countries as Israel were in the past few days.
I have the impression a lot of the damage caused by Iran is being hidden and downplayed.
None of the targets have anything remotely resembling free press. So yes, the real effects were censored.
With all due respect, I feel people that hold your views would believe it if someone told them that not only did Iran complete defeat and demoralize the U.S. war power in Iran, that Iran has actually successfully bombed the U.S. into submission and the U.S. essentially no longer exists except as a vassal to Iran. I really think there is no Anti-American narrative that is too ludicrous for people that hold this view to believe. I actually find it fascinating.
It was still a more realistic announcement than anything Trump said since the beginning of this war.
So Trump completely capitulated then? Not like he had an option because the only other option was essentially genocide/mass murder.
OK I guess it is pause time. US and Israel are probably restocking on whatever missiles they can get, while Iran doing the same, and Russian/China rushing stuffs to Iran through sea and railroad.
At least I got a cheaper tank of gasoline tomorrow…
Gas won’t be any cheaper. While gas prices rise by the hour they take months to ever so slowly go down.
Oh brother, gas goes up in a hurry, it takes its sweet time to come down.
There's no ceasefire until Israel stops attacking. Iran retains control over the strait, and their demands haven't changed. Nothing's new other than Iran is ready to sit at the negotiating table because Trump caved-in enough.
Not really. The fact we have a cease-fire signals the U.S. does not want to continue further with the war.
The reality is making statements re. actions associated with committing war-crimes has left the US with no friends... except Israel.
So before this war the strait was open and now it's gonna reopen? So much progress!
"'Two weeks' is one of President Trump’s favorite units of time. It can mean something, or nothing at all."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/world/middleeast/trump-ir...
The terrorism recruitement numbers are gonna go through the roof in the next few years based on this alone.
Is it terrorism? radicalization seems like a pretty natural human response when your family/home/community gets indiscriminately obliterated by missiles from the sky.
If the USA walks away and lets every other country pay a new fee to Iran… That would be interesting…
It will not happen. The only way Iran can enforce the fee is by actually shooting missiles at ships that don't pay. This is an act of war and terrorism; and in our current international order, is not viable solution. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf countries, will never agree to it.
Another reason it won't work -- by Iran's logic, every nation adjacent to a strait of water can levy a toll on ships that pass through.
Why doesn't the UK charge tolls on ships that pass through the English channel, and bomb them if they don't pay up?
The same logic applies to the Strait of Gibraltar (Spain, UK, Morocco) and the Strait of Malacca (Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia).
Gibraltar's political situation is what it is because this was sorted out in the Treaty of Utrecht three hundred years ago, and Europe got very tired of leaders that thought they could redraw the map at the cost of millions of lives.
Probably the best we can expect from Iran is a frozen conflict like Korea or Cyprus, that stays frozen.
I disagree. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare.
Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, run a financial economy, pay salaries, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots.
Iran would collapse, within a week. It would collapse into factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.
The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.
Once Iran showed it had no ability to prevent the US/Israel from doing a indiscriminate bombing campaign, it was clear the US and Israel could always win this war.
Who is going to invade Iran and stop them from shooting missiles at passing chips?
It will unify countries against Iran and maybe they’ll actually participate to open the strait like Trump asked them to
This is not over yet and it may just result in an established fee for each shipment through the strait to Iran. We won’t/havent hear from Israel which is the key player here. They just do what they want to do because they know the whole world will look the other way.
How does anyone just open a strait that has mines in it in 2 weeks?
> How does anyone just open a strait that has mines in it in 2 weeks?
The strait has been open for weeks for friendly countries' ships that pay Iran $2M per passage through their "toll booth", an unmined route through Iranian territorial waters.
This ceasefire appears legitimize that situation. If it holds, Iran is about to make huge amounts of money on top of sanctions relief.
The strait is barely mined, at most a few dozen mines were placed. Multiple ships have transited through in Omani waters since the start of the conflict. So far none have been struck by mines.
The threat why boats do not cross are Iranian missiles / drones striking ships attempting to pass thru, without paying a protection fee. It's basically a terrorism protection fee.
does policemen shooting at you when you don't listen to his orders is considered terorism? i would say its just enforcing tax collection.
Iran doesn't have legal control over the entire strait; approx half of the strait is Iranian territorial waters and the other half is Omani territorial waters.
For Iran's toll system to work, they would need to strike at ships sailing in Omani territorial waters, which is an act of war.
international law doesnt actually exist. the strait is close enough to irans borders such that they can enforce police activity, so its theirs.
the alternative is that oman and many others can also do the same thing, and the lot of states interested in trade in the area need to get together an negotiate a setup that everyone can agree to
"international law doesnt actually exist." Wow that's an interesting way to put it.
but iran has physical control. lets call it a buffer zone for toll collection. And funny that you mention act of war like it was(would be) caused by iran.
Completely untrue. Iran has no legal rights to Omani waters, and has no physical control over them either, since Iran doesn't have a navy.
they have drones though and they are quite physical.
A lot of American and Israeli degenerates here egging on the military to continue their war crimes (bombing of civilian infrastructure and civilians) in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon while simultaneously calling the Iranians evil. Anyone who points that out is downvoted to oblivion. The cognitive dissonance is real.
While you guys live in this bubble of false moral superiority, the majority of people (in the global south) have rightfully started viewing the Americans and Israelis as the real terrorists.
Any American's I've spoke to either are so sick of wars and of course don't want this or they actively oppose it.
The only people you find wanting this war is israelis and their kind. They sit back and relax while having their blackmail controlled, ancient, American politicians do all of the dirty work while sending their sons and daughters to die for isreal.
Sorry but I just dont buy this argument.
All Americans I have met had the same discourse: "I am ashamed, it's a pity Trump is in power, it's hard for us too, we don't support him", etc. I am rather sick of it.
A democracy is not an "us versus them" system, it's a closed loop. One cannot hide behind "these imbeciles votted for him and I am held hostage by their ignorance". Pros and antis Trump are equally responsible for his election.
Maybe if the US was not such an individualistic country, with growing educational and wealth inequality, half the population wouldn't have voted for exploding the status quo.
Politicians are no more corrupt than the population not impeaching them.
The US is basically in a streak of blatantly stealing resources of other countries, mafia style, and we are long past the point where the population can argue "we didnt know, we thought they had weapons of mass destruction, I am so against it".
> what did the US gain out of this
Market manipulation and the media largely forgetting about a certain set of files that reference many people in powerful positions.
Yeah the friends and family made a fortune from this, and we are teed up for the WTI options date which is… two weeks from today.
How much did Iran make? There’s plenty of unregulated futures markets for them to make a massive short bet on oil.
Less oil on the market meaning higher fuel prices with the US being a net exporter.
Not sure that was the plan but it looks like a benefit.
> looks like a benefit
To who? I don't think the people paying half again as much at the pump feel like it benefited them.
Oil producers that weren't disrupted over the last few weeks.
> I don't think the people paying half again as much at the pump feel like it benefited them.
Since when has the current US government done anything to benefit average citizens?
The war in Iran helps those who actually matter -- the oil companies that spent 445 million dollars getting Trump and other Republicans elected in 2024.
I think you may be agreeing with my sentiment, though it is hard to tell since your point is entirely orthogonal.
I am definitely agreeing.
Just pointing out that oil prices going up definitely looks like a benefit to the people the government is beholden to (which ain't the average citizen).
Giving the oil companies, some of the richest companies on the planet, MORE money is a benefit? Is that your idea of good governance? You don't think there's better uses of that money that's coming right out of your pocket and everybody elses?
That's absolutely not my idea of good governance, playing with oil prices is extremely dangerous considering that economy is strongly tied to them. Starting a useless war is crazy in the first place.
But it is more money in America (for the government / oil producers to misuse) which is a benefit from the standpoint of the government. Not sure it exceeds the losses though.
It is a benefit if you're a stakeholder in those companies, or your friends are stakeholders and will pass on some of the winnings as a "thank you."
Are you talking about the Epstein files that he is in?
His insider buddies bought the dip so it's time to pump. It's all about enriching themselves with inside information
I think this 10 point plan drops the need for US to pay reparations instead relying on transit fees which will be split with Oman.
Missiles are still flying so it’s hard to say who has really agreed to what.
I’ve heard rumors that Iran has agreed to dilute its highly enriched uranium so maybe the US could count that as a win. Given they’ve demonstrated sufficient conventional deterrence they may feel that they don’t need the nukes, especially if they can get some sort of Chinese backed security guarantee. But that might be a trial balloon or wishful thinking.
IIRC they had already agreed to dilute the HEU during the negotiations ongoing at the time Trump launched the most recent war / not war / excursion.
Yeah, the US overplayed its hand and is in a weak bargaining position and will likely have to accept less than what it could have had. Now with TACO Tuesday who could take his maximalist carpet nuking threats seriously anymore. I hope to be wrong but I doubt the ceasefire holds.
Under Obama's plan they agreed to reduce its Uranium 97% and keep it well under weapons grade and got $2B for the assets that were seized after the revolution.
Here they stand to make $100B a year on tolling the gulf and get to keep their weapons grade Uranium that they stockpiled after Trump pulled us out of that agreement.
Just so much winning
He said we would be tired of winning
FWIW, money is the easiest term to agree to. We have lots and lots. I agree, it will never be called "reparations", but you can trivially structure it in a zillion ways that just look like foreign aid or debt forgiveness or whatever. The WHO forgives some loans or the UN agrees to build some infrastructure, and we coincidentally make a new fund of about the same size, etc...
I think it’s less about the money and more about a formal declaration who won the conflict. The loser sues for peace / pays reparations.
Iran and US can each declare "victory". TRUMP can say he achieved his objectives, IRAN can say it "won".
What IRAN is really after is lifting the sanctions and ensuring that Israel will not attack again randomly in 2 months.
The problem is that Israel is not going to be happy about this, so I full expect another round of escalation eventually. The only way to deter this is Nuclear Weapons unfortunately and IRAN very well understood this.
No matter what the agreement says, we can be assured Israel will break it, as it has done time and time again. Why would this round be different?
What if Iran refuses payment in USD? For reparations, tolls, or for future sale of oil?
Its only a 2 week ceasefire. Maybe after 2 weeks the sides stay settled down. Maybe they go back to shooting each other. I wouldn't call it over yet.
As far as the geopolitical consequences of all this, i think its still pretty unclear where the chips will fall, but whether a win or a loss for usa, i think the consequences of this war will be significant.
some people got very very rich. like rich - that their great grandkids don't have to work.
that's the price of "freedom".
both sides get to save face - Trump says they won, his cronies n himself got rich. Iran gets a better deal than before. Israel gets rid of US bases in the Middle East via Iran.
of course the poor and downtrodden get shifted - that never changes.
Honestly? I presume Trump and Iran both gain the ability to kick the can... which they both want. That ten-point plan is 'unrealistic' but he gets to beat his cheats and it looks like both sides are 'claiming' victory here. That this isn't a workable long-term solution seems almost irrelevant. We're at a point where our bargaining frictions are so high, that we'd both rather remain in this standoff as long as possible even if we don't actually resolve it, because resolving it means serious pain on both sides, whereas the US has about a week before the pain really starts hitting consumers and investors.
"What Causes Wars: An Introduction to Crisis Bargaining Theory", by William Spaniel, PHD and professor, specializing in game-theory and specifically crisis bargaining theory: https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA
> That this isn't a workable long-term solution
IMHO that's bad analysis. This is a VERY good solution from Iran's perspective. They stared down a superpower and won. They've gone from an international pariah and nuissance to a genuine regional overlord in a single tweet.
"Whoah there, folks. Stop your tankers please. Thanks. Last year was rough for our farmers. We're increasing tolls on the straight again. Don't like it? Come on over and bomb us again you infidel fucks. See how your precious stock market likes that."
If it holds they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel, which is why Israel will not let it hold. They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now.
> they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel
No, neither Israel nor Iran would be hegemon. (Is there a term for contested hegemony?)
> They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now
When does Israel have to hold eletions?
I warned you specifically that this Iran war was coming and would not end up in Israel’s favor. As I stated “the Iran war is already unpopular and it hasn’t even started yet.” I understand that it is not yet over.
Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza. I see this war as a breakout attempt to fracture Iran into a failed state so that Israel would be the uncontested regional hegemony. Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support. You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it.
> Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support
This is a very Western-centric view. Step outside that gap and you'll find Israel maintains solid ties in the Emirates, India and even in Europe. In any case, on the time horizons you're talking about anything can happen. If someone wants to hold on to random hopes, I'm not going to rain on their parade.
> Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza
This doesn't make sense. Gaza was blockaded. Iran and its proxies have zero ability to blockade Israel. (Hell, Israel has an easy option if they do–bomb Kharg.)
Take Israel's nonsense in Palestinian territories and Iran's penchant for terrorist proxies out of the equation and the Middle East is more or less balanced. (Famous last words.)
> You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it
Israel isn't dumping America. If you're continuing a thread from another time, I was probably arguing that the notion that Israel existentially depends on America is nonsense. Israel depends on America to be a regional hegemon. (Probably.) But it's perfectly capable of turning its military-export machine and gas fields into sources of sovereignty. Anyone who thinks the region is anything less than transactional has emotionally wedded themselves to a cause the world isn't invested in.
We will have to agree to disagree on Israel’s long term viability without the support of the US. Perhaps if Iran was defeated but so far that has not happened.
look again at iran's peace terms - there's nothing in them about destroying israel, and this is Iran shooting its best shot.
Israel might not be able to contjnue with the genocide, expand its borders, or be a hegemon without US support, but the other powers around aren't calling to destory it or using the lack of its destruction as a bargaining chip. Israel's continued existence is pretty secured unless it falls apart from within
This is not peace terms it’s a ceasefire, and most likely it’s not even that. It appears little has changed except Iran can now charge a toll.
Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position. Saving face is great and all, but rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway.
My point is that their demands are not realistic. That the can has been kicked is good for Iran, it's also good for Trump. Conflict here is bad for both parties, the problem is there I currently don't see a way to step back from the precipice at this point.
> Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position
Iran will get a buttload of cash from China. If we're copying their kit [1] China can one hundredfold. (If Iran can keep playing its role as a heatsink for American weapons, better still.)
[1] https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/iran-war-shah...
> rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway
As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
They lost some military hardware they couldn't have deployed anyway, they have a bunch of holes in runways that they'll fill within the week. They lost their head of state and a bunch of miscellaneous leaders, but it turns out their chain of command was robust. It's gotten stronger for the stress and unity, not weaker.
No, we have to take the L here. The USA went to war with Iran and got its ass kicked. We achieved nothing useful in the short term, and made things much (much) worse for our interests in the long term.
> As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
I agree, but want to add that the threat of hitting civilian targets is itself a war crime, so there's a pretty solid case that we already did over the last few days:
"Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." -Article 51(2) AP1 to Geneva Conventions
> threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population
If Trump's tweet meets this bar, it's a meaningless rule. The purpose wasn't to scare civilians. It was to scare Iran's leadership. What it probably wound up doing was scaring American leadership into talking the President down from his ledge.
He does, he's unhinged and no one from his government / chain of command is willing to stop him.
He doesn't sound dangerous because he's cunning and smart, he's unpredictable because he's demented and his court is fine with it.
Cool that's a nice workaround of the Geneva conventions - any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy! The law tends not to be friendly to such workarounds in my experience, especially if it's trivially easy to enact ("be in negotiations"). Or perhaps you can help me understand what distinguishes this situation in the way you suggest.
> any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy
No, I'm saying there is no evidence the threat was made "to spread terror among the civilian population." If the threshold is just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians, then the rule is meaningless. Whether it's done during negotiations is irrelevant.
I don't have a crystal ball into Trump and Hegseth's minds. But I don't get the sense the threats were aimed at the civilian population. Instead, they were aimed at leadership.
Ah. Didn't he threaten to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country? Do you not find this threat credible? I think the US military is capable of it and obviously that's a threat against the lives of civilians. But it's not a war crime if it's "aimed" at the leaders or because Trump generally bloviates something like that? Any explanation I come up with is exactly the kind of legal workaround I'm talking about.
"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will,"
> "just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians"
I think we just may be working with totally different perspectives on this since I'm struggling to see this the same way as you.
Funny how the smart people in the room sometimes turn out to be right.
> hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
I mean there is no world policeman that’s going to stop Trump. While I agree with you on the practicality of the situation, we have been on tenterhooks all day exactly because Trump can dramatically escalate this if he wants. It’s just that that escalation will be extremely painful in all sorts of ways, especially if Iran wipes out the oil production infrastructure.
My point here isn’t to “pick a side.” I obviously think this whole escapade was unwise. My point is only to point out that the bargaining frictions point to continuing the conflict.
Iran is happier to delay because the oil crisis is about to hit America. Trump is happy to delay because he can always launch a strike tomorrow, and concessions via existing infrastructure breakdown, or improve his position with intelligence, and this may prevent a more serious oil crisis.
That means both parties see opportunity in maintaining the status quo.
> We're increasing tolls on the straight again.
They're increasing tolls on the strait again. This strait isn't particularly straight.
No available evidence suggests that Trump and Hegseth don't just like blowing up children.
Trump's partial to more than that.
Ayatollah-era Iran has literally sent children through fields to activate and ‘clear’ mines. Your comment is just noise.
Well it's a good thing we blew up those children before they could blow up those children I guess...
A least Iran isn't poised to come out of this in a stronger position than it started.
It's possible for both parties in a conflict to be horrible.
Whatabouting the "other guy" doesn't make any kind of cogent point here.
The Ayatollah was fucking awful. Trump is awful. Hegseth is awful. They are/were all three fucking awful.
I don’t know, but I hear the Trump boys are going to be doing a JV on some gold plated Persian toll booths. That family has unreal foresight.
The US got what it actually needed in the Obama area nuclear deal. Trump wont get much more useful stuff.
> Trump wont get much more useful stuff.
If Iran can kickback 8- or 9-figures of the strait tolls to Trump's personal accounts, he'll find it very useful.
Trump kept his name in the headlines, for a narcissist that's all that matters.
It successfully pushed the Epstein files out of the news cycle for an entire month.
The war began because the Epstein compromising material will likely be made public soon. Once that material is public it ceases to have any value to those who were holding it over various people. Those people in turn were ensuring US military support of a certain country. The logic of the war is that it had to happen now, before that material is released, because after that there is some chance the USA would no longer support said country.
> what did the US gain out of this?
The best steelman argument[1] is that it was a failed gamble. The protests of a few months back (also the improbable success in Venezuela) made them think they could topple the regime. They couldn't.
It's been clear for weeks now that the US has lost this war. The only question was how long it would take Trump to disengage and what the trigger would be.
And the answers appear to be "two more weeks" and "when one plausibly genocidal gaffe went too far and fractured his domestic coalition".
[1] Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.
> Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.
I rarely hear people use the term "steelman" while arguing in good faith. It's basically a tacit admission that you are either advancing a position that you don't actually hold (why...?), or more likely you know it's an unpopular position and you want to argue it while having plausible deniability that you may not actually hold it (which is just cowardly).
Stepping through other peoples logic to understand why they may have a position that you do not understand/agree with is sensible for sure. But if you do that in conversation with others so often that you need to preface it with a special term I'm going to be suspicious that you're just trying to obfuscate your actual opinions.
(see also: "just playing devil's advocate here, but...")
You'd be right to be suspicious.
The term "steelman" arose from people who misunderstand the term "strawman". Such people coined it out of the idea thinking that a strawman was an an attempt to make an opponents argument look weaker than it is, while a "steelman" elevates it to it's highest state before attacking it.
In reality, a steelman is just another strawman. A strawman was never simply a matter of making your opponent's argument look weak, they're about making a separate argument that your opponent isn't even arguing, and attacking that to make it look like you're winning the argument while not actually addressing the opponent's actual argument/position. A steelman does the same. In other words, they're about fabricating an argument and making it look like it came from the opponent, before attempting to prove it fallacious. They're both failures in logic - a fallacy of relevance.
What are the chances Claude was used on both sides of this negotiation?
This thread is not about Claude or LLMs.
Thank goodness. Let's hope some peace and quiet comes out of this.
Trump wanted tariffs on everyone to increase everyone's operations expenses so that he can somehow enact a protectionist policy. It was repeatedly shut down by the Supreme Court. Now, even with this ceasefire you will have the new Hurmuz tax long after the insurance premiums wind down, and everyone who's heavily dependent on ME oil have increased expenses. Mission accomplished, I guess? At what cost, though.
TACO fortunately. Let's hope this is resolved. Question: what are Trump next plans, who is he going to harass now? he seems to go crescendo in the craziness. Maybe he'll calm down a bit before the mid-terms though.
Iran used to be such a great country until it was taken over by a certain religion fanatics. I wish they would Make Iran Great Again, but it does not seem feasible since they lack a 2A.
Thank you dogemaster2026 for the insightful comment.
gee, i wonder who helped put those religious fanatics in power and have helped them retain power by raining down death from the sky
So: worse than the Obama treaty. Got it.
Whats the irans citizens feel about this while thing. As an outsider I see there was lot of protest against islamic regime with the killing of young girl for not covering the head or something like such.
But after trump killed the leader it seemed people rooting for islamic regime. Whats the state of people. Is there a way to know
The real winner in this war is Israel. Iran's military might is now a shadow of its former self while all the costs have been paid by someone else: American taxpayers, gas consumers around the world, Arab states. Even the political costs are on Trump.
Certainly economically. NIS-USD exchange is now 3.09 and continuing to drop, reflecting optimism.
Strategically, it remains to be seen what will happen to the nuclear material in the peace talks. If Iran emerges from the war with an intact nuclear program due to a lack of American stamina to carry through and achieve its war goals, that would be an enormous strategic defeat for Israel.
Full disclosure: Iran VS USA is just an excuse to dismantle feudalism. That is the real war. The rest are just logistics exercises. If feudalism ends all wars end.
At ease everyone.
TBH as an outsider, I am just so frustrated on Trump deciding that US invading Iran large scale is a great idea. (And why even is it involving Israel for gods sake?!)
If you guys wanted to be supportive to the Iranian protests, US could instead just selectively target some of the leadership and give the protests a push (and give the whole world a hint that US is supportive of them).
After 40 years of Iran constructing a thearchy government, the Iranians finally started having a huge protest on throwing up the thearchy government and possibly talking about a new west-friendly government.
And then Trump just decides to wholesale invade Iran with Israel?
That's just giving so much more reasons for the current government to be in power and the Iranians to hate the US and more generally the western world. It took 40 years for the Iranians to realize that there's enough problems in the thearchy system and want their more secularized country back; and then Trump just destroyed the whole premise!
Does the US just really think that they will be loved by everyone when they rage in and invade any random country? Do they really think like that? I'm just frustrated so much. How can the US be so egocentric?
if you look at the iranian response over the past month, the theocracy really hasn't played into it.
no calls to jihad, no ayatollah dorecting anything, no nothing.
as far as i can tell, the revolution is already dead. if the US had just sat around, chances are that iran would have moved towards something more like a constitutional monarchy. still the ayatollah as a figure head and religious leader, but with the rest of the power in the democratic institutions' hands
Let's not forget the road to war started in 2016 when Trump walked into the White House at withdrew from the JCPOA. He's wanted the war for years, got it, and lost it.
JCPOA was a really stupid, badly designed deal, it never placed any limits on missile or drone production. Obama wanted a deal badly, and it was rushed through negotiations without addressing this point for a quick political win.
Iran kept developing its ballistic missiles and drone program even after the deal was signed, and a decade later, Iran has hundreds of thousands of drones and 20,000+ ballistic missiles. A thousand ballistic missiles do as much damage, if not more, than a single nuke.
It also leads to the interceptor problem, namely, it is not possible to stop thousands of missiles coming towards you, and eventually you run out of interceptors and get overwhelmed.
It was a really dumb deal, and this issue was called out at the time, but nothing was done about it. It's like an agreement between Mom and two kids that are fighting. Mom tells one kid, "Okay, promise not to kick your brother!" and he agrees. So he starts learning to punch instead.
The nuclear program is orders of magnitude more important than everything else. If you think JCPOA was bad, take a look at Iran's 10 point plan.
Hey now, the JCPOA was designed to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and was working effectively at doing that. That’s completely different from what Trump is demanding now, which is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear..
Wait I think Trump dementia’d again
Israel would still get the US to attack Iran regardless.
And Iranians are thankful he did go to war. Rather than just accept the status quo of the last 40+ years. Trump has done more to disrupt the regime than any other president.
Iranians danced in the streets when Khamenei was killed. And have felt hope for the first time in decades that they may change their government.
>Iranians danced in the streets when Khamenei was killed. And have felt hope for the first time in decades that they may change their government.
This is a dumb take, I will guarantee that more people will dance on the street if Trump, or Modi gets killed, doesn't mean it is righteous to do that.
And where has that gone now?
From all reports the regime has not lost control domestically, and internationally it is now emboldened - the US tried to get rid of them and has failed, and they have demonstrated their power to disrupt the region and much of the world's economy.
They come out of this looking stronger.
One supreme leader replaced by another, even more hardline, supreme leader. Trump failed.
I had a teacher in school who would sometimes stand at the front of the class with her hand raised and three fingers extended, announcing, “I'm going to count to three, and then you'll all be quiet!” Of course, that never worked. I never understood why she kept putting herself through that farce over and over again. Every deadline that passes without consequence is a loss of face. The same goes for Trump. He can sugarcoat it all he wants: the world sees it as a defeat. The only thing missing is him collecting shells on the beach and ordering the construction of a lighthouse.
Two weeks who would have guessed xD
Came here to say this
An hour before the "deadline", by the way
Looks like I'm buying the oil futures dip this week!
Always look at the actions, not the talks.
Reality on the ground is: US has been amassing troops in tens of thousands. Their mercenary IDF is claiming territory like a field day. Market has barely capitulated (which is the only thing this admin care about).
I expect this is just Trump buying time until he launches ground invasion after two weeks of failed negotiation. You don't spend millions sending tens of thousands of soldiers and billion dollar worth of hardware to just call them back to base.
Trump will "negotiate" and then in the middle of negotiation start a ground invasion just like they did in the past while they map all the military targets for ground invasion (which is hard to when missiles flying all the time). Possibly also replenish their interceptor stocks from other regions which has been running low.
If you follow the kind of people advising him and have his ears (Witkoff, Kushner, Loomer, Levin) they are all for ground invasion.
But yeah, win for US. Oil prices will rebound giving economy the breathing time. Possibly also time to arm the insurgents to regroup for regime change.
> Reality on the ground is: US has been amassing troops in tens of thousands.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq had 500,000 troops, for a country smaller in area than Iran and with fewer people.
The current 50,000 US troops isn't going to do much against Iran as a whole.
> Their mercenary IDF
Lol, under what definition?
Personally, I have a hard time seeing any good actors here.
But of all the actors, I kind of doubt Israel is in it for the money.
Tens of thousands of troops are not really enough to invade a country the size of Iran.
The US used an order of magnitude more in Iraq, which had a third of the population, and a smaller and more geographically forgiving territory.
And the IEDs were in the ground not flying overhead. Asymmetric war has completely changed the math.
Yeah, but the Iranian armed forces have been obliterated...
Just like it's nuclear program…
Trump and Netanyahu believe they can win this one [1]:
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
> Trump will "negotiate" and then in the middle of negotiation start a ground invasion just like they did in the past while they map all the military targets for ground invasion (which is hard to when missiles flying all the time)
Why is it hard map military targets while missiles are flying? Don't missile launches reveal targets? And I would assume that the mapping is mostly done via satellite, which aren't affected by missiles
> they are all for ground invasion
Ahh those titans of military stragegy.
If Israel actually stops attacking Iran, that will be a win for the world. Will it happen? I doubt it. The last thing Netanyahu wants is a ceasefire or diplomacy. I think even if Trump tells him to stop he'll keep going.
The furniture salesman knows he's in trouble for the all the illegal gifts he has received and all the other horrific crimes he has committed. He'll hold on for as long as he can. The world be damned.
I felt it in my bones that Trump would see a way to agree to a 2 week extension
Aside:
We should not make fun of both of these lying cheating idiots in charge of either faction.
Look, it's really easy to dunk on them, like super easy. This is a very dumb war and will continue to be so, we all can see that.
But both sides are in a escalate-to-deescalate trap. Neither wants to back down in order to save face. So they can only make things worse.
And things can get a lot worse.
Lots of people legitimately thought that Tehran was going to be a glowing hole by the time you are reading this. That would have been ~17 million lives wiped out. A ground war is a generation in each country that is just decimated like Ukraine is seeing. Already there has been far too much death and destruction, too many children that are now without parents, too many parents now without children.
If avoiding that means not dunking on these barbarous morons for a little while, so be it, a small price.
I know that some random internet comments are about as important as the fly on a horse's ass is to a hurricane, but it has to start somewhere.
I'm not saying we should not hold them to account. No, this mess is maybe something that will snap everyone out of it, it's already so dumb and bad. They deserve, like we all do, the best justice we can give them. And it will not be kind to either side, we all know that.
But, let them have this win. Do the best we can to encourage others to let both sides walk away from this horrible trap. If the do so scot free, hey, that's a win in all of our books.
Let Donny strut about, walk away. Stop it with the TACO nonsense. Let him feel like a big man, a winner, whatever his little pudding brain needs.
Just let the war end before it gets even more out of hand.
Before even more babies have only pictures and stories to know their father by.
Peace in our time!
Trump is now threatening CNN with legal repercussions for publishing the Iraninian government's take on this, so I think it safe to say we all lost this war.
The fact that so many people on this thread believe any of this is real is really a sobering reminder. The entire thing, top to bottom, is theater.
To which extent exactly? The images of destruction are faked?
I know what you're saying just not sure how literally to take your words
The talks are theater. Trump is running around like a headless chicken, so it may look like a lot of "diplomacy" is happening, but if you look at the Iranian side, they remain in control over the strait, and their demands haven't changed. The fact that Iran agreed to talk is because Trump caved-in enough.
I find it a little odd when you're clarifying someone's comment and someone else wades in and replies (without even a "not the person you replied to but ..")
Look, I'm glad we're pausing this. But I'd like to understand why an article on the pause shoots right to the top, but news of a tweet from the president indicating a plan to annihilate a whole country does not see a similar rise to the top.
It's too random a process to be precisely answerable about a specific data point or two.
One could argue that this is a doing-something as opposed to a saying-something, and thus more substantive. Or perhaps people want some good news to believe in? I don't know - one can make up lots of just-so stories about these things (see paragraph 1).
Trump tweets insane things hourly. A reputable news organization announcing something actually happening with quotes from both sides confirming is news worthy.
I used to feel this way, but I think at this point you don’t need much of a brain to realize he’s a narcissist grifter that serves only himself without limit. A fellow gets tired of seeing his mouth shit all over the place. Peace/less killing is a positive break I’d much rather hear about.
Trump says a lot of shit all the time, and often contradicts himself right after.
Listening to what he has to say is nearly worthless. Better to react to his actions.
The NYT is throwing Trump under the bus and protects Vance as the next candidate:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
The timing is really suspicious. The fact that all this opposition in internal meetings is leaked could mean two things:
1) The establishment is genuinely upset with Trump.
2) The ceasefire is a ruse and all this purported opposition is deliberately leaked to pretend that the US now really wants peace but is actually shipping ground troops to the region (at best) or manufacturing internal consent for nuclear bunker busters (at worst).
The fact that Trump posted that he considers the maximalist Iranian 10 point plan as a basis for negotiations points to 2). He has always attacked Iran during "negotiations".
Everything else aside, really relieved for the tanker crews stuck inside the Gulf, with no port that will take them, who are not-so-slowly running out of food.
They can get out? Right? Right Anakin?
A thread documenting a market reaction just before the announcement: https://www.reddit.com/r/PrepperIntel/comments/1sf8u1e/iran_...
So far it has cost Americans $1 per gallon of gas to not release the Epstein files. And like a bunch of people died for no reason.
And it wasn't just Americans that died.
How much money did we spend on this nothingburger?
The number of comments here trying to argue that this is anything other than utter humiliation for Trump and America ...
I guess I should get used to it now. At least 1/3 of Americans will be swayed at nothing and will stand behind their beloved leader, whatever happens. I wonder what will happen to the price of oil in the coming months and whether that will cause some people to change their minds.
I wonder why this post is worthy of staying on the HN front page but all the articles about Trump's threats that "A whole civilization will die tonight" got flag killed. I guess the president making genocidal threats isn't "interesting" enough to meet HN's moderation standards.
Let's just be glad somebody talked him out of using nukes. For now.
We all know he’d say something like that and that there’s a chance he’d actually do it. It isn’t really newsworthy. This isn’t the set of minds that needs to change to affect change in the short term anyway.
I was just answering a similar comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47683437.
I don't understand enough about the US system of government. Are there any hopes of seeing Trump unseated before his term is up? If not for the astonishing damage he's doing to the western world, then only for the sheer fatigue from having every media outlet saturated by him on a daily basis.
If the Dems win the house in the midterms he will be impeached again. If there are 60 votes in the senate he will be out. Dems are unlikely to win the senate, let alone 60 seats.
It’s a bizarre situation in that US elections have such a huge impact on a world that has no say.
I really hope the democrats won’t start the impeachment nonsense showbusiness again and instead focus on actual policy that benefits people. I am very worried that Congress will go even lower and devolve into permanent investigations and impeachments while the country has actual serious problems that aren’t worked on.
I wouldn’t worry, that’s a sure thing. Next on Trump’s list is Cuba. He has to do these things now because after the midterms it’s just going to be investigations and impeachment for two years. Then the Democrats lose again because who cares about more pointless impeachments?
> It’s a bizarre situation in that US elections have such a huge impact on a world that has no say
No say (or at least, no influence) might be a bit strong given foreign election interference.
I'm sure if Britain or France or whoever wanted to, they could have their intelligence services release dirt on candidates or engage in some dirty tricks.
Need 66 senate votes to impeach in the senate.
Trump has been impeached before. Doesn't matter. The seriousness of the word 'impeachment' has been greatly devalued.
He's been impeached by the _house_ not by the Senate. The US Senate is extremely complicit with the administration. Something the founders did not intend
Nobody forsaw that the same party might control both?
It has become a tool to fire up party supporters but otherwise achieves nothing.
… because he was acquitted.
Upthread is discussing whether the Dems could flip the necessary seats to impeach and convict.
(And no, there is no way they will. It would take winning 20 out of the 22 seats, and losing none, assuming a party-line vote w/ independents siding with Dems. That won't happen. Also, the required vote in the Senate is two-thirds, not "60".)
No. Theoretically congress could impeach him, but his party has proven they will support him no matter what his crimes. Theoretically his cabinet could remove him with the 25th amendment but they are all complicit and will need pardons for themselves.
25A removal is temporary pending a bar in congress even higher than that for impeachment (2/3 of house and senate).
> Are there any hopes of seeing Trump unseated before his term is up?
I don't think so.
There's two routes, one improbable, one "hell freezes over" level.
The first route is impeachment & conviction. Our legislative branch is composed of two parts: the House and the Senate. The House would impeach him, and if impeached by the House, he would be tried by the Senate.
Currently, the GOP (Trump's party) has a majority of both the House & the Senate. It would require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to convict an impeached president, and I do not see the Democrats winning the necessary seats in the next election (Nov 2026). We do not re-elect every seat at every election in the Senate (they are staggered). Assuming the vote is along party lines, i.e., Dems/Indepedents vote to convict, and GOP vote to acquit, of the 22 GOP seats up for election, all but 2 would need to flip in November in order for a party-lines vote to convict. 4 of the GOP-held seats were won with 65% or higher votes in their last election. I do not see enough seats flipping, nor enough politicians cross parties lines.
The other route, which social media is for whatever reason abuzz right now with, is the 25th Amendment. It permits the Vice President & the Cabinet members to issue a declaration that Trump is unable to discharge his duties. The President himself can end such a declaration, which in this case, I would expect he would immediately do; it would then have to be contested by VP/Cabinet, at which point it would go to Congress, and both House & Senate would need a 2/3rds vote to make it stick.
Impeachment & conviction seems the far easier route, only requiring a 2/3rd vote in the Senate. (The vote to impeach is, somewhat oddly to me, a simple majority vote.)
I don’t get how congress doesn’t have the power to deny/approve this war. Dont even impeach, dont you have to get congressional approval for this stuff?
> [The Congress shall have Power ...] To declare War,
One might even think that not getting Congress's permission, as required, might be an impeachable offense.
But you should read about [the War Powers Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause#History_and_...), and in particular, our messy, messy history with it starting at the Korean War and continuing to the present day.
Barring something catastrophic happening, I would bet that nothing will unseat Trump until January 20, 2027, at 12:00 PM (noon).
At that point, when J.D. Vance is inaugurated, he would be allowed to run and serve for 2 additional full terms (10 years total as president).
Before that, his partial term would count as a full term, and he could only run, win and serve one additional term.
This is all based on the 22nd Amendment, which established term limits.
JD is basically Peter Thiel's manchurian candidate, and some have claimed that it's the plan all along that Trump would probably not complete his term, leaving JD as the president and presumptive nominee for future terms.
Now that's a bleak picture of the future.
Look on the bright side; that picture respects terms limits.
Putin also respected term limits for a while, also with a sock puppet. 8 years should be plenty of time to have the Supreme Court Jesters come up with a solution. They already pardoned Steve Bannon!
This seems extremely likely. I’m already unconvinced the elections are going to be fair this year, but I am certain an impeachment would piss the conservatives off so much there would be another red swing during 2028 elections. Then after 4 years of JD Vance we will be living in the United States of Jesus so nothing will matter much anymore.
Trump has power because he shows up to a rally and tons of folks join. People want to follow him. JD who?
JD being less popular that Trump is an advantage that the Democratic party can easily squander.
He is pretty popular with the base, and only needs to look more palatable than whomever the opposition puts forward to the swing voters. The fact that he's relatively boring will suppress Democratic turnout somewhat.
And in the case that Trump leaves office due to health reasons, there will be a "rally around the flag" vibe that gives him a boost.
That's not to say that he's certain to win, but he would have many advantages if he serves a partial term and seems to be tracking better.
Nah, he's here until he exits on his own. Sorry.
Nope. Maybe a cheeseburger and mother nature.
Vance is actually worse. He’s basically a sock puppet for Peter Thiel.
Trump’s party runs on a platform of subservience and fear and a lot of people either eat that stuff up or else believe their vote doesn’t count. The electoral college basically keeps the populous parts of the country hostage to the rural areas. And the rural areas believe that they contribute all the taxes for all the federal programs their parents created. We’ve basically become completely demoralized as a nation since the Baby Boomers took over for their parents and we’re busy continuing the plot. It won’t be over until we pull our heads out of our butts and start building things together or we become a third-world country.
Seems like Trump agreed to give Iran control over the Strait of Hormuz:
https://xcancel.com/araghchi/status/2041655156215799821
What in that do you read as "Trump agreed to give Iran control over the Strait of Hormuz"?
For two weeks, you're going to have to consult with Iran to get through the straits.
How can USA start a pointless war, not suffer any retaliation on its own soil, agree to the tolling system, and lose the war?
On that alone Trump ought to be excoriated and removed from office.
trumps supreme negotiation skills have gotten us a worse agreement than before the senseless, baseless, and aggressive attack on Iran.
What a complete moron.
Worse agreement to some, to others, if the US went through with all of these proposed 'points' it would be an act of global healing.
I've been calling my reps and demanding they impeach Trump and Hegseth and get in contact with Doug Burgum and get going on the 25th amendment.
Kamala Harris would have started this exact same war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DxQTPOouU
Sometimes, it doesn't matter who you vote for.
would she though?
president after president has had the choice but haven't.
the best you get from that interview is that she was unwilling to say a yes or a no. probably a no, and she's not one to make decisions on a whim based on people stroking her ego
And she'd be in the wrong too. Our country is run by psychopaths.
There is exactly a 0% chance of the 25A happening. It will be a cold day in hell — these people worship Trump. They're not ousting him.
Impeachment would be more likely, but an impeachment conviction still seems utterly improbable. You'd need to flip a lot of seats in November, and this country is going to have forgotten all about this set of genocidal threats well before then. There's no way the current House/Senate GOP impeach, let alone convict.
> get in contact with Doug Burgum
I have absolutely no idea why you think Burgum would ever support a 25A invocation against Trump.
I'm from North Dakota. My reps know him. I know they're all cowards and cucked by Trump, but I'm going to keep calling them, demanding they do this, and reading insane Truth Social posts to them because I don't know what else I can do.
Burgum is a fucking disgrace to this state. I wish he'd grow some balls like the cowboy character he sometimes cosplays as and stand up to Trump. I wish my cucked reps would do the same.
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't allowing them to collect a tax on transit pretty much continue to fund themselves to continue this bullshittery forever.
Bad behavior can't be encouraged.
Weird how Iran is able to come to a ceasefire when their whole leadership has been killed times over. Who exactly does Trump think he’s negotiating with?!
America surrenders...hehehe.....Looks like Trump basically agreed to all 10 points (Truth and Social post).
I disagree. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare. China and Pakistan told Iran to come to the table, and negotiate, because they do not want a collapsed Iran.
Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, run a financial economy, pay salaries, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots.
Iran would collapse, within a week. It would devolve into factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.
The US and Israel have been sitting on this card the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.
Now reason without water, aka Israeli + GCC desalination. Iran with shit water situation is still less existentially water stressed. Iran 5% vs others 80/90%+ dependency on desalination = once Iran demonstrated survivable regional strike complex, they own the top end of escalation ladder that can take out everyone with them while coming out least harmed.
This not to mention, relative to US performance / conemps, i.e. going back to standoff munitions, there's not really enough discretionary high end munitions to take degrade all Iranian infra vs Iran has enough in reserve to take out all regional desalination. Nevermind US expending 1000s more TLAMs / JASSM(ER)s leaving it unprepared for any other near peer conflict. Reminder Iraq was 20% size of Iran, and so far US+Israel only flew ~20% of sorties via Iran than it has Iraq. Even factoring in precision munitions, US would have to expend more munitions than it has to actually cripple Iran on par with Iraq.
Its not yet clear who blinked, really.
they dont want to do that attack, because Iran can still respond in kind, and both Israel and the US have some value in electricity, oil, and water existing around the gulf and in Israel.
if you make Iran pay that war cost ahead of time, what are you gonna negotiate for after?
A reminder that both things can be true at the same time:
1. Trump is a bad president
2. The Islamic Republic of Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons
> The Islamic Republic of Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons
Neither should Israel, right ... right?
Didn't the US and Israel gather intelligence during previous "talks" which ended up with senior Iranian leadership dead? It seems unlikely that this relationship would be fixed by now, and a deal would require big concessions from one side... of which one is polling real badly at home currently.
Between the threats to NATO allies, high oil prices, lifting of sanctions on Russian oil, US personnel losing their lives, military equipment losses, and broken campaign promises... I don't think this is something you just walk away from. It's still not clear why we're there in the first place; one could speculate that Trump was convinced by Israel that this operation would be like Venezuela which seems plausible because no US intelligence agencies backup the notion that Iran was developing or trying to develop nuclear weapons.
He was convinced for other reasons to proceed with the operation. Reasons to do with what might happen to him personally if not.
I don't know if you're implying kompromat or assassination but I think the explanation that they played into his ego and got him to do their dirty work in Iran is much simpler and makes more sense. Every President before Trump has told Israel no when they asked for "assistance" with Iran.
What a clown show.
I'm very sure that Trump just announced the ceasefire to save face and brag that his threats worked to get the strait reopened, and the whole thing will be just a ruse to regroup for further attacks.
I can't see cooler heads in Washington agreeing to these 10 points, and Israel will certainly have something to say.
If these points are agreed, it's a catastrophic strategic defeat for the US.
They already lost most of their bases in the region (13/18 I believe), and would now have to evacuate the rest. We've learned that American military is not so mighty after all.
America's reputation as upholding a rules-based world order is in the toilet.
Iran will emerge as the dominant regional power, with global leverage and a steady extra income due to their complete and accepted control of Hormuz.
The smaller states will be scrambling to find a new international security partner, and China seems like a likely candidate.
The Petro-dollar is likely toast.
I mean if Vlad Putin himself were to direct every decision Trump has made, he could scarcely have done a better job of damaging America and disrupting the world order. Making America Grotesque Again.
US just agreed to:
Commitment to non-aggression
Continuation of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz
Acceptance of uranium enrichment
Lifting of all primary sanctions
Lifting of all secondary sanctions
Termination of all UN Security Council resolutions
Termination of all Board of Governors resolutions
Payment of compensation to Iran
Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region
Cessation of war on all fronts, including against Hezbollah in Lebanon
TLDR US lost the war, hilarious.
Source? Do you seriously think the US just agreed to accept Iranian nuclear enrichment?
Israel, I would think, would claim that Iran getting the bomb would be existential to them, so I don't think it's reasonable to think that Israel would agree to allowing enrichment.
I'm a little surprised that recognizing Israel as a nuclear power isn't in Iran's list of demands, considering how destabilizing it would be.
Yeah, but they’ll just keep killing every nuclear scientist that gets closed to doing anything like they’ve been doing for decades.
Yes. From what I've read, they can't stop enrichment unless they deploy soldiers for occupation and they are unwilling to do so.
Yes, Trump is playing this as a two week period only so they could enrich for the next two weeks.
Things have slide backwards.
The CIA (lets for now ignore the alleged Director of the CIA) has for years been saying Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran has been saying for years it does not have a nuclear weapons program. Every country has the right to pursue a civilian nuclear energy program.
The IAEA said earlier this year that Iran had enriched uranium to 60%. Uranium is enriched to 3-5% for nuclear energy, and 90%+ for weapons.
Don't be silly. Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Were they actively racing to a bomb? No. (That's what the CIA was saying). Did they enrich uranium to near-weapons grade so they _could_ race to a bomb, in a matter of weeks, if they decided to do so? Absolutely.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-stored-highly...
They need one or at least the idea of one if they want to deter Israel who has 200/300 bombs. If they don't want to end up like Iraq or Syria they kind of need this.
This is when people like me comment "According to US media, Iran has been a matter of weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb for over 20 years now".
Their now dead leader wrote a fatwa against nuclear bombs (as well as chemical bombs). Probably because Saddam using US chemical bombs on more than 50000 civilians a few decades ago did radicalize him against WMD.
It's as if the person your replying to is intentionally being misleading
If you're responding to me, no I'm not.
US intelligence agencies continue to state Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. They just don't.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/17/politics/israel-iran-nuclear-...
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-built-its-case-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/us/politics/iran-nuclear-...
They definitely have a 'nuclear program'. They have a 'nuclear program' to generate energy. They are a country on this earth and have the right to do this.
Just because we play rhetorical tricks and try to equate "nuclear program" with "nuclear weapons program" does not make it true.
Building a nuclear weapon that can be carried by Iraq's missiles is relatively difficult, because miniaturizing nuclear weapons requires much more complex designs. It took the US and the USSR quite a few test explosions to achieve such a warhead.
Building a bulky nuclear weapon that fits in, say, a shipping container, is not hard if sufficient highly enriched uranium is available. That's Hiroshima level nuclear technology, the gun-type bomb.[1]
This is the difference between the "years away" and the "weeks away" estimates. Depends on whether the the delivery method is an ICBM or a shipping container.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon
For various reasons I'm inclined to agree that Iran likely doesn't have much of a nuclear weapons program beyond enrichment.
That doesn't mean that they lack plans or means to advance one, and they certainly have the talent.
As for US intelligence agencies, it's worth being reminded they've let slip nuclear weapons development programs before: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-672.html
To be 100% fair to the GP: indeed, Iran does not currently have an active weapons program. But they do have a weapons program, but they used it so far more for leverage. The truth is nobody really knows what they would have done had they achieved the status of nuclear armed power. But given that even the mullahs understand that there is a bit of a difference between threatening to annihilate Israel and actually doing so with all of the consequences attached to that I think they would be more like Kim or Putin than say the UK or France. They would use it for even more leverage and as insurance against being attacked.
Either way: the US is quick to say who can and who can not have nuclear weapons, but at the same time the US is the only country that ever did use them and it is one of very few countries that has (implicitly) threatened their use in recent memory. The only other two countries to do so are Israel and Russia.
Or maybe they know how much more difficult it is to go from 60% to 90%+?
Iran will pursue the bomb now with triple the effort they put into it so far. As will every other crappy country that has the talent, the facilities and the money. That's a lot of countries. Because all of them see the difference between Ukraine, North Korea and Iran: if you have the bomb, they leave you alone. Kim obviously had sponsorship.
The only thing holding back an Iranian nuke tomorrow is the fact that Pakistan and Iran do not see eye to eye on a few things. But Pakistan has vowed that if Israel should ever use nuclear weapons on Iran that Pakistan would hit Israel in the same way.
Keep in mind that they are right next door to each other and have a long term relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Pakistan_relation...
When Trump canceled the Nuclear agreement with Iran, Iran immediately started enriching uranium into ship's reactor grade, and apparently started working on a nuclear submarine.
At the same time Iran emitted a domestic law prohibiting anybody from working towards nuclear weapons. The law was in effect up to the moment Trump ordered and killed the Ayatollah, by the way.
> Payment of compensation to Iran
Fox News is still singing in chorus about the billion dollars payment to Iran by Obama.
Jfc the US didn’t agree to any of that. Read the news ffs.
I told ya the Ayatollah would end up keeping the gate. Tolling all the tankers that want to pass through the straight. The US cannot game this cockamamie new Khameini. So unless you're a tankie you won't be thanking him later.
The Hegemon can make demands but can't avoid demand destruction. Steal the oil from Iran, was that the plan? Just like a child abduction? Trump doesn't have the gumption to snatch enriched uranium nor does he have the cranium to manage prices at the pump.
Never lower, always higher. Where he sees smoke, I Cease fire. For Nukes and Nikes Nixon hollered "Abandon gold for Petrodollars!" The Ayatollah is now doling Trump a lashing for his trolling. Heed Shaheeds and bleed? No need! Say "Fuck it dude" and just go bowling.
wow you're like m&m or summin
I call the orange guy many things! I believe he's an accidental president. DNC screwed up big time both times. The stakes were higher than ever, so they could have played it safe by looking at past elections, but nope. They wanted to write history, but got the other guy to do it.
Bush (reminder: a republican) screwed things so bad that the country opened to something that had never happened before - A black President.
Now, orange guy (again, a republican, see the pattern) has screwed, and I'm not sure where his bottom is, will set the country to accept again something that hasn't happened before - A Woman President; maybe a black one. There's still time until the 2028 general election.
Also, what do conservatives conserve? They conserve their brains by not using them. Don't take my word; just look at the history, what they have done so far! They are the same everywhere - be it the US or India - same hate mongering lunatics!
I just don't know how his supporters aren't embarrassed.
Nominative determinism is insane. one man trumped the legacy and fortunes of a great nation.
They're utterly embarrassed it's just that they've been persistently encouraged via their amygdalas to project their own shame and insecurities onto others, as well as to swallow insane rationales as to why even though these people are evil it's a necessary bitter pill for the worldly government to swallow in order to bring in the eternal kingdom
It's a self selection or axiomatic property: if you're his supporter then you have no capability for being embarrassed in the first place.
Clown world.
Did the USA just lose a war to fucking Iran?
Yay! Great job, Iran.
Why does india support iran while enemies to Palestine. Is it because of shia vs sunni sects