• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

The Great Zaganza said:
Trump now pissing off Pakistan, which negotiated the deal that gave him the ceasefire he so desperately wanted.
The 10 points were clear, and Islamabad has been blunt that Israel and the US have violated the agreement multiple times already.
As I said: it's always "you cease, we fire".
Click to expand...
www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/talks-were-almost-dead-pakistans-last-ditch-effort-secure-iran-war-truce-2026-04-08/

"A third Pakistani source said the hardest part of the process was convincing Iran to accept a truce without preconditions.
"Until the last hours, Iran acted as a hardliner. The Iranians were not ready to budge without first putting their demands forward. We told them the demands ⁠can wait for the talks to happen," the source said."

The 10 points were never part of the ceasefire. And why would they be? The point of the ceasefire is to provide space for negotiations. That's why it's only a ceasefire and not an actual end to the war. Iran's 10 point plan is a wish list, an opening bid for the negotiations, but it's not something the US ever agreed to.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nothing of the sort.

I was previously very skeptical about going to war with Iran because I thought it was within Iran's capability to destroy much of the oil infrastructure of the gulf, and the consequences of that could be severe enough to make an attack not worth it. But it turns out I was wrong about that. I overestimated their capability, at least in a US first-strike scenario. I doubt I'm alone in that regard. I suspect that if you had polled people here before the war about how much damage Iran could do, most posters would have guessed much more than they actually did.

Iran can do a bit of damage, sure. And it can temporarily close the Straits. But they can't do the massive damage I thought they could do to oil infrastructure. They can't keep the Straits closed forever either. Even future threats of closure will be diminished, because the Straits can be bypassed. Oil can be piped from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, and the capacity to do that is likely going to increase now that the utility has been demonstrated. And the Houthis can't block Red Sea oil exports even temporarily, because tankers can just head to Europe through the Suez, they don't even need to go to China. So the downsides have turned out to be MUCH less than I feared.

It remains to be seen exactly how much the war will accomplish, but there's room for optimism on that front as well.
Click to expand...
You confuse choosing not to do something with an inability to do something. Iran clearly did not want to escalate, retaliation was very graded. They attacked US interests in Gulf states not the states themselves.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Jonathan Karl ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent

This morning, I asked President Trump if he’s okay with the Iranians charging a toll for all ships that go through the Strait of Hormuz, he told me there may be a Joint US-Iran venture to charge tolls:“We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It’s a way of securing it — also securing it from lots of other people.”“It’s a beautiful thing”
This morning, I asked President Trump if he’s okay with the Iranians charging a toll for all ships that go through the Strait of Hormuz, he told me there may be a Joint US-Iran venture to charge tolls:

“We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It’s a way of securing it — also securing it from lots of other people.”

“It’s a beautiful thing”

Link
Click to expand...


Iran announced a protection racket in the strait and Trump's response is "So long as I get to dip my beak". This isn't diplomacy, it's a second rate Sopranos knock off starring Fat Donnie.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
nonsense.
It's not a ceasefire if the US and its allies don't cease fire.
Click to expand...
Why does a ceasefire between the US/Israel and Iran have to include Hezbollah? That's not a logical necessity. That may be a choice Iran is making, but they don't have to make it. It's part of their 10 point proposal, but the US and Israel have not and never will agree to all 10 points. So where did this idea that Hezbollah is part of the ceasefire come from? Shehbaz Sharif apparently claimed it was in a tweet but I can find no confirmation that the US and Israel actually agreed to this.

I don't know why the US or Israel would agree to that, nor do I think it's an honest demand from Iran either. They don't actually control Hezbollah, they can't actually stop Hezbollah from launching attacks. So even if the cease fire did include them, that would mean the US could resume hostilities against Iran even if Iran did nothing at all to violate the cease fire. Why would Iran want to put themselves in that position? It seems to me that any cease fire with Hezbollah should be negotiated separately with Hezbollah.
 
Planigale said:
You confuse choosing not to do something with an inability to do something. Iran clearly did not want to escalate, retaliation was very graded. They attacked US interests in Gulf states not the states themselves.
Click to expand...
Everything you said here is wrong.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Iran announced a protection racket in the strait and Trump's response is "So long as I get to dip my beak". This isn't diplomacy, it's a second rate Sopranos knock off starring Fat Donnie.
Click to expand...
This is ◊◊◊◊ testing. If you won't put up with the bull ◊◊◊◊ of Trump taking a cut of traffic through Hormuz, why would you put up with it from Iran? If you will put up with it from Iran, do you think you can actually stop Trump?

To pass the test, you have to not put up with it from anyone. Are countries actually prepared to do that? Or are they asking the US to do all the work for them?
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Iran announced a protection racket in the strait and Trump's response is "So long as I get to dip my beak". This isn't diplomacy, it's a second rate Sopranos knock off starring Fat Donnie.
Click to expand...
One that harms the US but provides a massive funding boost to the Iranian regime.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Most of us can agree the IRGC has been even worse than the DHS (and it isn't close).
Click to expand...
And the rest of you are living a delusion.
W.D.Clinger said:
Threatening to destroy an entire civilization is a war crime, even if you don't follow through on that threat.)
Click to expand...
Uh huh. And, no, I don't want to here from Amnesty International, any arm of the U.N., or any other hopelessly ideologically captured organization about it.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't know why the US or Israel would agree to that, nor do I think it's an honest demand from Iran either. They don't actually control Hezbollah, they can't actually stop Hezbollah from launching attacks. So even if the cease fire did include them, that would mean the US could resume hostilities against Iran even if Iran did nothing at all to violate the cease fire.
Click to expand...

Citing numerous sources, Gemini.ai states that Hezbollah is under the direct control of the IRGC:

"As of early 2026, IRGC commanders are personally managing Hezbollah's strategic war plans and executing operations, effectively bypassing the group's traditional Lebanese leadership. Lebanese officials, including the Prime Minister, have publicly stated that the IRGC is now orchestrating Hezbollah's combat operations."
 
jt512 said:
And the rest of you are living a delusion.

Uh huh. And, no, I don't want to here from Amnesty International, any arm of the U.N., or any other hopelessly ideologically captured organization about it.
Click to expand...
@jt512 is saying he doesn't want to read the Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (article 51, second paragraph, second sentence), especially if its text is present on a web site maintained by the United Nations or the International Red Cross.

Remaining ignorant of relevant international law is of course a personal decision. For those who do not share @jt512's desire to remain ignorant of such things, here is the text of that paragraph, with my highlighting:
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
Click to expand...
 
For the record, Americans do not have a constitutional right to "vaguely" threaten physical harm to elected officials, or anyone else. Facebook and Twitter report users to law enforcement regularly, and this can end with an arrest, and even jail. This predates social media. Someone spouting off about how so-and-so needs a bullet to the head will result with police knocking on their door looking for an explanation. If the President of threatened the Secret Service show up, and that person goes to prison. Threats against Congressional, Senate, SCOTUS, and POTUS are dealt with harshly. Always have been.
 
Victory!

Donald J. Trump
@realDonald Trump
The Wall Street Journal, one of the worst and most inaccurate "Editorial Boards" in the World, stated that I "declared premature victory in Iran." Actually, it is a Victory, and there's nothing "premature" about it! Because of me, IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON and, very quickly, you'll see Oil start flowing, with or without the help of Iran and, to me, it makes no difference, either way. The Wall Street Journal will, as usual, live to eat their words. They are always quick to criticize, but never to admit when they're wrong, which is most of the time!

President DONALD J. TRUMP
 
W.D.Clinger said:
@jt512 is saying he doesn't want to read the Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (article 51, second paragraph, second sentence), especially if its text is present on a web site maintained by the United Nations or the International Red Cross.

Remaining ignorant of relevant international law is of course a personal decision. For those who do not share @jt512's desire to remain ignorant of such things, here is the text of that paragraph, with my highlighting:
Click to expand...
So you are saying that terrorism is a crime?
 
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
There are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait They better not be and, if they are, they better stop now! President DONALD J. TRUMP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom