11 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

And your proof of that statement is where/what?

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/us-iran-war-gulf-states-strikes-7f12acb2?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfm0ZwDqMMhG0F9QNr2SW_HdxUoSep_KPJVgmoS9R3p2Hj7O2Z5Jnb_&gaa_ts=69bab955&gaa_sig=SoMN4mpv-wHZgBmQFpi-yL_dZ4v49BFRClIDDkE44CIiyBOzsrL_JIVRQx69R_DNoLRlKC__Xi1o8g60azGoug%3D%3D

In pivot for region that had courted Tehran, Gulf leaders now insist that Iran must be rendered incapable of future attacks

Blimey, one of the US aircraft carriers is in a right state. Read the link below

"Blocked toilets, fire damage and injured sailors: US aircraft carrier to set sail for repairs in Crete – The Irish Times" https://www.irishtimes.com/world/middle-east/2026/03/18/blocked-toilers-fire-damage-and-injured-sailors-us-aircraft-carrier-to-set-sail-for-repairs-in-crete/#:~:text=At%20sea%20for%20almost%20nine,the%20readiness%20of%20the%20warship.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

Saudi Arabia would probably wish away Iran but I doubt that any of the Gulf States were in favour of this war. The next step should be for the US to call off the bombers and restart negotiations with Iran.

I seriously doubt anyone really wanted this war. As you read before but were unable to comprehend, what's done is done. The Gulf States recognize this and wants Iran neutralized before we conclude the war.

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

I seriously doubt anyone really wanted this war. As you read before but were unable to comprehend, what's done is done. The Gulf States recognize this and wants Iran neutralized before we conclude the war.

Trump was obviously convinced that this war was a good thing otherwise why start it in the first place? That appears to be something beyond your comprehension.

You have already been challenged to produce evidence to support your proposition that the other Gulf States want Iran "neutralised" (whatever that means?) before ending the war but have, so far, failed to produce anything.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Trump was obviously convinced that this war was a good thing otherwise why start it in the first place? That appears to be something beyond your comprehension.

You have already been challenged to produce evidence to support your proposition that the other Gulf States want Iran "neutralised" (whatever that means?) before ending the war but have, so far, failed to produce anything.

Here is a link from WSJ.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/us-iran-war-gulf-states-strikes-7f12acb2?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_4

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Trump was obviously convinced that this war was a good thing otherwise why start it in the first place? That appears to be something beyond your comprehension.

You have already been challenged to produce evidence to support your proposition that the other Gulf States want Iran "neutralised" (whatever that means?) before ending the war but have, so far, failed to produce anything.

The Gulf States wants Iran incapable of any future attacks. You can continue the blame game which doesn't solve the problem.

I provided the link above if you'd take the time to read. The news is full of these same articles. As I'm sure you're aware of.

8 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The Gulf States wants Iran incapable of any future attacks. You can continue the blame game which doesn't solve the problem.

I provided the link above if you'd take the time to read. The news is full of these same articles. As I'm sure you're aware of.

I stand corrected but would suggest that 'careful what you wish for' might be an apt phase.

Unless this neutralisation is accompanied by regime change, imo in the medium term it is difficult to see how greater instability in the region can be avoided.

In the short term, if the bombardment intensifies there must be the possibility that Iranians will start to leave the country and that yet another refugee crisis ensues. What will the US's and Gulf States' reaction be if that happens?

Didn't we hear the old Our magnificent brave Airmen who are the best in World in Trump's mind, smash and Obliterate Iran's nuclear capability. Its finished he said. Couple of Month's down the line Trumps war with Iran was to stop Iran obtaining a nuclear device. Mmmm.

9 hours ago, RayC said:

What will the US's and Gulf States' reaction be if that happens?

Not our problem will be their reaction.

10 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The Gulf States wants Iran incapable of any future attacks. You can continue the blame game which doesn't solve the problem.

I provided the link above if you'd take the time to read. The news is full of these same articles. As I'm sure you're aware of.

And what that link says is; "The United Arab Emirates and other Persian Gulf states now view Iran as an existential enemy, seeking its neutralization at the end of the conflict."

It does not say what other Gulf States wish this and the GCC has said nothing so far!

On 3/17/2026 at 3:28 PM, webfact said:

he is “not happy” with what he described as a lack of strong support.

On the other hand Trump says he is happy with the war, and dead American military is what it is.

11 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/us-iran-war-gulf-states-strikes-7f12acb2?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfm0ZwDqMMhG0F9QNr2SW_HdxUoSep_KPJVgmoS9R3p2Hj7O2Z5Jnb_&gaa_ts=69bab955&gaa_sig=SoMN4mpv-wHZgBmQFpi-yL_dZ4v49BFRClIDDkE44CIiyBOzsrL_JIVRQx69R_DNoLRlKC__Xi1o8g60azGoug%3D%3D

In pivot for region that had courted Tehran, Gulf leaders now insist that Iran must be rendered nincapable of future attacks

Nowhere in the linked article is the above statement made!

There is no quoted link to any GCC/Gulf State using those words

What it did say was; "The United Arab Emirates and other Persian Gulf states now view Iran as an existential enemy, seeking its neutralization at the end of the conflict." with no source!

12 hours ago, RayC said:

Saudi Arabia would probably wish away Iran but I doubt that any of the Gulf States were in favour of this war. The next step should be for the US to call off the bombers and restart negotiations with Iran.

As everyone know, Iran is very difficult to negotiate with, this is in plain site.

No country, and there has been many, has successfully negotiated with Iran.

While there have been "transactional" successes (like swapping prisoners for money), no major power has reached a long-term strategic agreement with Iran that didn't eventually break down or reveal hidden violations.

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

As everyone know, Iran is very difficult to negotiate with, this is in plain site.

No country, and there has been many, has successfully negotiated with Iran.

While there have been "transactional" successes (like swapping prisoners for money), no major power has reached a long-term strategic agreement with Iran that didn't eventually break down or reveal hidden violations.

Iran might be difficult to negotiate with - the same could be said for many other states - but it is simply not true to state that, "No country, and there has been many, has successfully negotiated with Iran".

The JCPOA was signed, sealed, delivered, implemented and - according to the independent international overseer, the IAEA - being complied with by Iran right up until the time that the US withdrew from the Agreement during Trump's first term.

The fault for this current crisis rests with the US and largely with one man.

4 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

No country, and there has been many, has successfully negotiated with Iran.

NOT true!

USA successfully negotiated the Iranian Nuclear deal treaty in 2015!

Nuclear Agreement With Iran

6 hours ago, RayC said:

Iran might be difficult to negotiate with - the same could be said for many other states - but it is simply not true to state that, "No country, and there has been many, has successfully negotiated with Iran".

The JCPOA was signed, sealed, delivered, implemented and - according to the independent international overseer, the IAEA - being complied with by Iran right up until the time that the US withdrew from the Agreement during Trump's first term.

The fault for this current crisis rests with the US and largely with one man.

I am fully aware of the 'settlement', but it was essentially a temporary lease on a nuclear program, not a permanent solution, and it deliberately ignored the most dangerous aspects of Iran's behavior, it was deeply flawed.

The IAEA confirmed compliance with the narrow technical rules of the JCPOA, but that doesn't make the deal a strategic success.

First, the Sunset Clauses meant that by 2030, Iran would have been legally allowed to enrich uranium at an industrial scale—the deal just kicked the can down the road.

Second, the negotiation deliberately ignored Iran's ballistic missile program and its regional proxies. While the West unfroze billions for Tehran, that money flowed directly to the IRGC, Houthis and Hezbollah, destabilizing the region, as there were zero condition on how it was spent.

Finally, a deal that doesn't account for the delivery systems (missiles) or the regional aggression (proxies) isn't a 'settlement'—it’s a tactical retreat.

True negotiation requires both sides to agree on a total framework of peace, not just a temporary pause on one specific lab while the rest of the war machine keeps grinding.

Obama and Kerry thought a flawed deal that stopped a nuke was better than a no deal. They believed they could handle the proxies and missiles separately thru sanctions, well that didn't work out to good!

In reality Iran used the 'nuclear peace' years to build the most sophisticated ballistic missiles and drones in the ME.

5 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

NOT true!

USA successfully negotiated the Iranian Nuclear deal treaty in 2015!

Nuclear Agreement With Iran

See my reply to RayC, above!

But to say it was successful negotiated is a complete joke!

Just now, mikeymike100 said:

See my reply to RayC, above!

But to say it was successful negotiated is a complete joke!

It was signed so the negotiations were therefore successful!

A post with excessive quotes has been removed:

• Do not quote more than three multiple nested quotes. Only quote the person you are replying to, and only quote the relevant section that you are discussing.

15 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

It was signed so the negotiations were therefore successful!

We are currently watching the 'success' of that 2015 signature hit refineries in Qatar, KSA and Kuwait, it didn't solve the war, is just subsidized the opening move!

It unfroze $100 Billion, which even John Kerry admitted, that it ended up in the hands of the IRGC.

On 3/18/2026 at 9:02 PM, scottiejohn said:

And what that link says is; "The United Arab Emirates and other Persian Gulf states now view Iran as an existential enemy, seeking its neutralization at the end of the conflict."

It does not say what other Gulf States wish this and the GCC has said nothing so far!

There is nothing to be gained by a public position. Have you forgotten that long before this conflict, Iran was implicated in attacks on the region's oil and gas producers? The bombings of the Kuwait and Saudi facilities were linked to Iran.

Iran has been trying to destabilize Iraq, Kuwait Bahrain and Saudi Arabia for decades. This is why it financed, trained and supported the al Ishtar brigades and the Saraya al-Mukhtar. The Sunnis will take care of the Shiites in their own way.

If the Gulf Arabs did not agree with the Israeli actions, they could easily block the IAF flyovers. The Israeli aircraft can't magically appear over Iranian airspace. They have to fly through Arab zones of control and while doing so, be refueled. Israel is content to be the bad guy as long as the. Arabs let it do what it needs to do. The Gulf Arabs are ok with the Israelis taking the risks and dying if required. To date, Gulf Arabs are not dying. Its the low cost imported labour from pakistan and elsewhere.

On 3/17/2026 at 9:00 AM, scottiejohn said:

Then why start another Iranian one?

Another one? Iran has been in a constant state of conflict for decades.

21 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Another one? Iran has been in a constant state of conflict for decades.

SO has the US to all intents and putposes!

On 3/19/2026 at 7:54 PM, mikeymike100 said:

I am fully aware of the 'settlement', but it was essentially a temporary lease on a nuclear program, not a permanent solution, and it deliberately ignored the most dangerous aspects of Iran's behavior, it was deeply flawed.

The IAEA confirmed compliance with the narrow technical rules of the JCPOA, but that doesn't make the deal a strategic success.

First, the Sunset Clauses meant that by 2030, Iran would have been legally allowed to enrich uranium at an industrial scale—the deal just kicked the can down the road.

Second, the negotiation deliberately ignored Iran's ballistic missile program and its regional proxies. While the West unfroze billions for Tehran, that money flowed directly to the IRGC, Houthis and Hezbollah, destabilizing the region, as there were zero condition on how it was spent.

Finally, a deal that doesn't account for the delivery systems (missiles) or the regional aggression (proxies) isn't a 'settlement'—it’s a tactical retreat.

True negotiation requires both sides to agree on a total framework of peace, not just a temporary pause on one specific lab while the rest of the war machine keeps grinding.

Obama and Kerry thought a flawed deal that stopped a nuke was better than a no deal. They believed they could handle the proxies and missiles separately thru sanctions, well that didn't work out to good!

In reality Iran used the 'nuclear peace' years to build the most sophisticated ballistic missiles and drones in the ME.

You state that, "The IAEA confirmed compliance with the narrow technical rules of the JCPOA"

To state the obvious, that was the IAEA's mandate: No more, no less. Why expect either the IAEA and/or Iran to go over and beyond the terms of the Agreement?

The JCPOA had the support of the UN PS plus Germany and the EU, and had the effect of halting Iran's progress towards attaining nuclear weapons. I'd call that success and far from flawed. Moreover, although the Agreement was time-stamped, there was nothing to prevent negotiations continuing - or strengthening - the Agreement. Nothing that is until Trump's withdrawal of the US.

The idea that Iran would effectively leave itself at the mercy of Israel and Saudi Arabia by agreeing to voluntarily giving up any military deterrent (it's missile systems, etc) as you suggest was - and is - a complete non-starter. No other nation would be expected to agree to such terms so why expect Iran to do so?

Although sanctions make things more financially difficult for Iran, it still continues to fund Hezbollah. The presence or absence of a JCPOA type deal does not prevent it. Indeed, how exactly could Iran be preventing from sending funds to Lebanon and Palestine unless their budget was managed by, and, from a third party (presumably the US).

In reality, we had a deal. While it couldn't be claimed to have been perfect or to have permanently solved any major problems, it did at least prevent existing problems from getting worse which was a lot better than the situation since 2018. The irresponsible behaviour of Trump by withdrawing from the Agreement and his behaviour now - without seemingly having any idea of what the final outcome either should look like or is likely to be - is unfortunately proof of that.