Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
[dead]
US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire
441–450 of 1001 posts
Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sig…
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 Irani…
[flagged]
Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire
#443Iran'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 t…
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…
Either way, it's maximalist aims, not realistic aims. Negotiations will obviously converge closer to US aims since Iran has no leverage.
Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
[flagged]
Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire
#445I'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
[flagged]
Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 theocrac…
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.
Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire
#447I 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…
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 sig…
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.