3 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

How am I defending Israel and the USA, when I point out what has been going on since the conflict started? Kuwait and Azerbiajan were frequent interceders on behalf of Iran, until some idiot fired missiles at them. Turkiye was partners with Iran as they pursued their joint attacks on the Kurds. Some of the Turkish military leadership have personal relationships with their Iranian counterparts.. I believe that the Guardian was making mention of China and Qatar offering to help. A reading of the Pakistani media will show that Pakistan has been trying to calm things down too. Because the EU and the UK are not at the forefront, doesn't mean that communication was not ongoing. Many countries have been trying to calm things down for quite some time. And despite the Russian quiet support of Iran, they have been careful with their public statements in an effort to contain the conflict that is on the Russian doorstep.

But that is not what this topic is about/

It is very public that several middle east countries have tried to mediate between Iran and the US, but without success.

This topic is about Trump claiming the US has been in talks with Iran, which Iran strongly denies.

And here is more evidence that Trump is blowing hot air, as usual.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-suggests-strait-of-hormuz-may-stay-closed-during-peace-talks-with-iran-in-coming-days-164528406.html

Trump suggests Strait of Hormuz may stay closed during peace talks with Iran in coming days

When asked about a possible reopening of the crucial waterway, Trump said it would be open soon, but only “if this works,” referring to ongoing peace talks expected to continue over the coming week.

Read more: How oil price shocks ripple through your wallet, from gas to groceries

The president added that he is looking toward a Strait of Hormuz that, in the end, will be "jointly controlled" by the US as well as whoever is in charge of Iran at the end of the war.

The new comments provided minimal clarity for international shippers who have largely been unable to operate in the area for the last three weeks. Iranian state media continued its threats Monday to “completely” close the waterway if its power plants are attacked and even denied that any direct or indirect talks with the US are taking place.

4 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

This topic is about Trump claiming the US has been in talks with Iran, which Iran strongly denies.

Who should we believe: The President Of the United States of America, or the mad Mullah of Iran?

That would have been an easy decision in any other era - now it's 50/50 at best (IMO).

13 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

But that is not what this topic is about/

It is very public that several middle east countries have tried to mediate between Iran and the US, but without success.

This topic is about Trump claiming the US has been in talks with Iran, which Iran strongly denies.

And here is more evidence that Trump is blowing hot air, as usual.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-suggests-strait-of-hormuz-may-stay-closed-during-peace-talks-with-iran-in-coming-days-164528406.html

Trump suggests Strait of Hormuz may stay closed during peace talks with Iran in coming days

When asked about a possible reopening of the crucial waterway, Trump said it would be open soon, but only “if this works,” referring to ongoing peace talks expected to continue over the coming week.

Read more: How oil price shocks ripple through your wallet, from gas to groceries

The president added that he is looking toward a Strait of Hormuz that, in the end, will be "jointly controlled" by the US as well as whoever is in charge of Iran at the end of the war.

The new comments provided minimal clarity for international shippers who have largely been unable to operate in the area for the last three weeks. Iranian state media continued its threats Monday to “completely” close the waterway if its power plants are attacked and even denied that any direct or indirect talks with the US are taking place.

Iran is not going to say it is in talks because it allows the Iranian government cover if the talks fail. It has nothing to gain if it admits to discussions now..

8 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Who should we believe: The President Of the United States of America, or the mad Mullah of Iran?

That would have been an easy decision in any other era - now it's 50/50 at best (IMO).

I think it is reasonable to believe that they are indirectly talking to each other, perhaps through a trusted third party. Messages are being relayed. A similar process occurred to end the 12 day conflict.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

Because it isn't made public, does not mean it has not occurred.

Just because it has been made public, it doesn't mean it has occurred.

Please...

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I’m looking forward to Trump explaining how civilian power plants are military targets.

Vlad told him, that's how.

8 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The issue of targeting power generation facilities was settled long ago.

If the facilities are under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and they usually are, and f they are used by the Iranian military, then they will be deemed to be legal targets.

It is not an "Israeli" perspective. I know you need to demonize anyone and anything tat is contrary to your pro Iranian position, but that's the reality. You can take to the streets and beat your drum to protest.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-us-israel-war-updates-2026/card/power-infrastructure-can-be-lawfully-targeted-in-certain-circumstances-military-experts-say-wVSOxc7KGyVZcClHdiWu

I considered that. You're missing that the power is predominantly for civilian use and is critical for desalination and therefore water for the entire population.

Destroying power generation facilities in Iran is a war crime and Trump has been informed that, it is why he is TACO'ing. Iran denies there has been any talks.

Additionally, Trump has been told that whether it is a war crime or not, once he is out of power, countries all over the world will claim it is a war crime to the ICC and he won't be able to visit his golf courses or overseas investments without being arrested and subjected to a trial about whether it is a war crime.

11 hours ago, Wuvu2 said:

He used the same "very productive negotiations" line on the Tariff Tacos. He was the only attendee at those negotiations too 🙄

Yeah, he gets the best answers talking and negotiate with himself. Actually, the only way for him to get any answer, as nobody sane want to talk to him at all.

9 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The last time the Iranians pretended to negotiate they dragged the. negotiations out for a decade and went from 10% enriched uranium to 60%. 😄

If the iranians want to become martyrs, that desire can be satisfied. if they want to behave they can be welcomed to the civilized world.

Iran did negotiate in good faith once, back when they signed on to the JCPOA.

That agreement limited Iran to 300 kg of LEU and had them cease all work toward the development of nukes.

Iran was in total compliance to that agreement. It was intended---by Obama, Rhodes and Clarke---to be used as a stepping stone to future negotiations about other issues, such as funding Shi'a terror groups. It was also thought that a reduction in tensions would pacify the mullahs as they aged and the majority of the Iranian people just bided their time until the mullahs passed and Iran could rejoin the community of nations.

Trump did what Trump does best: mess everything up. He tossed the JCPOA and Iran, seeing the US could not be trusted, began again U235 enrichment. 100% Trump's fault, owing to his fragile ego and jealousy of Obama.

For all of their faults, the Iranian leadership is not so easy to fool. It is MAGA who fit the line: You can fool some of the people all of the time.

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

Iran did negotiate in good faith once, back when they signed on to the JCPOA.

That agreement limited Iran to 300 kg of LEU and had them cease all work toward the development of nukes.

Iran was in total compliance to that agreement. It was intended---by Obama, Rhodes and Clarke---to be used as a stepping stone to future negotiations about other issues, such as funding Shi'a terror groups. It was also thought that a reduction in tensions would pacify the mullahs as they aged and the majority of the Iranian people just bided their time until the mullahs passed and Iran could rejoin the community of nations.

Trump did what Trump does best: mess everything up. He tossed the JCPOA and Iran, seeing the US could not be trusted, began again U235 enrichment. 100% Trump's fault, owing to his fragile ego and jealousy of Obama.

For all of their faults, the Iranian leadership is not so easy to fool. It is MAGA who fit the line: You can fool some of the people all of the time.

The JCPOA did not stop Iran from enriching uranium. On the contrary, it allowed the process to continue. This weakness is explained here.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/07/iran-nuclear-deal-jcpoa-us-trump-biden-nonproliferation-diplomacy/

The agreement was a SHORT TERM measure and was not an agreement to stop the nuclear weapons program. The continued promotion of the agreement as a good faith measure by iran is misleading because the agreement had a fixed expiration on critical nuclear weapon development and manufacturing activities.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/joint-comprehensive-plan-action-jcpoa-glance

Analysts repeatedly cautioned that the agreement was worthless within the context of nuclear weapon programs because it still allowed parallel processes that would continue, while the clock ran out on the restricted activities. For example, nuclear weapons capable underground concrete reinforced bunkers and missile silos, could be constructed. The restriction of 10 years on centrifuge development and installation would expire after the structures were completed. The expanded centrifuges could be built and installed and when the restriction on uranium enrichment ended 5 years later, they would have been ready to go. This agreement was smoke and mirrors and served only to delay the nuclear weapons program while allowing Iran to benefit from the lifting of sanctions and financial restrictions that had hampered its financing and support of international terrorism. This was a kicking of the can down the road, a delaying of the inevitable day of reckoning that politicians and the people who have bankrupted the world's economies excel at.

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I considered that. You're missing that the power is predominantly for civilian use and is critical for desalination and therefore water for the entire population.

Destroying power generation facilities in Iran is a war crime and Trump has been informed that, it is why he is TACO'ing. Iran denies there has been any talks.

Additionally, Trump has been told that whether it is a war crime or not, once he is out of power, countries all over the world will claim it is a war crime to the ICC and he won't be able to visit his golf courses or overseas investments without being arrested and subjected to a trial about whether it is a war crime.

You don't even know what power plants were targeted or who was operating them. And yet here you are to offer your great insight. A pronouncement of a great international crime without anything having occurred or what was involved. You go girl. Shake your fist.

11 hours ago, CallumWK said:

But that is not what this topic is about/

It is very public that several middle east countries have tried to mediate between Iran and the US, but without success.

This topic is about Trump claiming the US has been in talks with Iran, which Iran strongly denies.

And here is more evidence that Trump is blowing hot air, as usual.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-suggests-strait-of-hormuz-may-stay-closed-during-peace-talks-with-iran-in-coming-days-164528406.html

Trump suggests Strait of Hormuz may stay closed during peace talks with Iran in coming days

When asked about a possible reopening of the crucial waterway, Trump said it would be open soon, but only “if this works,” referring to ongoing peace talks expected to continue over the coming week.

Read more: How oil price shocks ripple through your wallet, from gas to groceries

The president added that he is looking toward a Strait of Hormuz that, in the end, will be "jointly controlled" by the US as well as whoever is in charge of Iran at the end of the war.

The new comments provided minimal clarity for international shippers who have largely been unable to operate in the area for the last three weeks. Iranian state media continued its threats Monday to “completely” close the waterway if its power plants are attacked and even denied that any direct or indirect talks with the US are taking place.

Now that the Iranians have confirmed the discussions and now that additional countries are identified, will any of the aggressive forum bullies acknowledge that there were ongoing discussions? The Guardian has provided the details and quotes the Iranian FM. And best of all, everything that I wrote was confirmed, with the addition of the Egyptian involvement which I had missed. I was delighted to see the additional details about Pakistan's involvement.

3 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Now that the Iranians have confirmed the discussions and now that additional countries are identified, will any of the aggressive forum bullies acknowledge that there were ongoing discussions? The Guardian has provided the details and quotes the Iranian FM. And best of all, everything that I wrote was confirmed, with the addition of the Egyptian involvement which I had missed. I was delighted to see the additional details about Pakistan's involvement.

You have a link where Iran has confirmed DIRECT talks with the US are happening.

You know when you make a claim you have to provide a source for it. A credible one that is.

Look here, update ONE hour ago

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/stock-market-today-dow-sp-500-nasdaq-futures-fall-as-iran-officials-reject-negotiation-224729954.html

1 update

• Today at 10:14 AM GMT+7

  Rian Howlett

  Oil climbs on fears of Iran war spreading to other nations in region

  Bloomberg reports:

  Oil rose after a steep drop on Monday on concern other nations may join the Middle East war, and as an Iranian lawmaker ruled out talks with the US.

  Brent (BZ=F) climbed toward $104 a barrel, after plunging 11% on Monday as President Donald Trump delayed a threat to strike Iran’s energy infrastructure for five days, claiming there were talks with Tehran. Iran denied negotiations were taking place, while Israel kept up attacks. US crude benchmark West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) advanced almost 4%.

16 hours ago, Wuvu2 said:

A five-day pause to the two-day deadline. He's such a Donald 🙄

Lets call it a "Tactical withdrawal" - after all HE is the invincible POTUS.

I'm sure it's all a coincidence. Just like it was when the same thing happened before his tariff TACO last April...

This FT one is under a paywall:

"Traders placed $580mn in oil bets ahead of Donald Trump’s social media post on Iran talks"

https://www.ft.com/content/1171d623-3709-4f6e-8ded-a5df4ec57696?syn-25a6b1a6=1

But the story also appears in other publications, including:

"A series of unusually timed trades, including large bets that oil prices would fall and equities would rise just minutes before President Donald Trump spoke of “productive” talks with Iran has triggered concerns over possible insider activity in global markets.

In simple terms, traders appeared to bet that oil prices would fall, and stock markets would rise even before any public announcement was made. When Trump later spoke about possible talks with Iran and a pause in strikes, oil prices dropped and equities moved higher, matching those positions."

$580 million bets before Trump’s Iran remark. Coincidence or insider trading? - India Today

Also noted by CNBC:

Volume in stock, oil futures surged minutes before Trump's market-turning post

Anyone remember the good old days?

15 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I've read a reports in the WSJ the while MbS was claiming he was opposed to attacking Iran, actually he was urging the US and Israel on. Maybe the UAE, too. But Oman has always had good relations with Iran and I doubt that they wanted this war.

Keep in mind who owns the WSJ. It is frequently a hard right propaganda tool.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

The JCPOA did not stop Iran from enriching uranium. On the contrary, it allowed the process to continue. This weakness is explained here.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/07/iran-nuclear-deal-jcpoa-us-trump-biden-nonproliferation-diplomacy/

The agreement was a SHORT TERM measure and was not an agreement to stop the nuclear weapons program. The continued promotion of the agreement as a good faith measure by iran is misleading because the agreement had a fixed expiration on critical nuclear weapon development and manufacturing activities.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/joint-comprehensive-plan-action-jcpoa-glance

Analysts repeatedly cautioned that the agreement was worthless within the context of nuclear weapon programs because it still allowed parallel processes that would continue, while the clock ran out on the restricted activities. For example, nuclear weapons capable underground concrete reinforced bunkers and missile silos, could be constructed. The restriction of 10 years on centrifuge development and installation would expire after the structures were completed. The expanded centrifuges could be built and installed and when the restriction on uranium enrichment ended 5 years later, they would have been ready to go. This agreement was smoke and mirrors and served only to delay the nuclear weapons program while allowing Iran to benefit from the lifting of sanctions and financial restrictions that had hampered its financing and support of international terrorism. This was a kicking of the can down the road, a delaying of the inevitable day of reckoning that politicians and the people who have bankrupted the world's economies excel at.

All of that might be true, but it provided a framework for future talks and modification of the programs as trust grew. This is how SALT started. Of course the dear leader had to trash that trust because it was formed under an accomplished black man. Now another tantrum has the world in flames. Release the Epstein files.

46 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

You have a link where Iran has confirmed DIRECT talks with the US are happening.

You know when you make a claim you have to provide a source for it. A credible one that is.

Look here, update ONE hour ago

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/stock-market-today-dow-sp-500-nasdaq-futures-fall-as-iran-officials-reject-negotiation-224729954.html

1 update

• Today at 10:14 AM GMT+7

  Rian Howlett

  Oil climbs on fears of Iran war spreading to other nations in region

  Bloomberg reports:

Now you are trying to cover your blanket denial that there was discussion between Iran and the USA, by adding the condition of "direct" talks. You know very well that neither side will admit to direct discussions because they both require plausible deniability. Third parties pass messages first, then aides meet, aides who are never publicly identified and then there are the public admissions of "direct" talks once there is an actual undertaking and agreement. It is public knowledge now that there are discussions and negotiations underway and have been for days. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei has acknowledged that there have been discussions. Feel free to lash out at the Guardian, one of your preferred. information sources.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/23/surprise-us-talks-with-irans-fractured-leadership-offer-uncertain-path-out-of-conflict

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603230121

You are so biased that you cannot even accept established facts.

1 minute ago, cjinchiangrai said:

All of that might be true, but it provided a framework for future talks and modification of the programs as trust grew. This is how SALT started. Of course the dear leader had to trash that trust because it was formed under an accomplished black man. Now another tantrum has the world in flames. Release the Epstein files.

Now that JCPOA weaknesses and and charade is exposed, you have to push out an unrelated issue. The JCPOA was no more a framework than the previous agreements and undertakings that Iran had circumvented. The Gulf Arabs and israel had legitimate concerns and as usual, the arrogant Europeans and Obama administration were not listening. They were more concerned with accessing the oil and making their profits. Nothing has changed since the colonial era, the mindset is still the same with the foreigners imposing their own framework of exploitation on the locals.

5 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Release the Epstein files.

For the good of mankind, please stop talking about the Trump-Epstein files! If we keep it up, the war will never end 🙄

12 hours ago, chickenslegs said:

Who should we believe: The President Of the United States of America, or the mad Mullah of Iran?

That would have been an easy decision in any other era - now it's 50/50 at best (IMO).

Now that the discussions are public, and my earlier comment; is proven accurate;

I think it is reasonable to believe that they are indirectly talking to each other, perhaps through a trusted third party. Messages are being relayed. A similar process occurred to end the 12 day conflict.

Will you be updating your position, and recognizing what was known all along, but denied by the anti Trump people because it was not compatible with their inherent bias?

Just be clear, Gerard Baker is not against the Iran War:

The Case for Cautious Optimism About Trump’s War in Iran

Even if the regime doesn’t fall, it will be leaderless, impoverished, isolated, besieged, mostly disarmed.

https://archive.ph/K3tPo#selection-545.0-549.106

30 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

Anyone remember the good old days?

The Kennedy administration has been repackaged as something good and pure, when it was corrupt, and anti democratic. It was the Kennedy adminstration that set the precedent of wiretapping and spying on journalists. It was the Kennedy administration which delayed and interfered with civil rights and anti poverty programs. Kennedy could have stopped the Bay of Pigs invasion and prevented the Cuban missile crisis but did not. The Kennedy administration enabled the despotic brutal right wing dictatorships in Latin America and effectively launched the catastrophic Vietnam war.

Instead, the very progressive Johnson administration gets blamed for the Vietnam war. It was the Johnson administration who launched some of the most used and important civil rights. legislation and social assistance programs. And as bad as Nixon may have been, he was the president who worked towards peace with China and russia and it was under his administration that proper environmental protection legislation was enacted.

JFK was a corrupt, philandering, dishonest man, from a bigoted and corrupt family.

15 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You know for a fact that they are talking? Given that it seems highly unlikely that the Mullahs or th IRGC is going to give Trump anything he wants, I don't think so. But what is clear is that Trump has got a big electoral problem on his hands if he can't find some way to extricate himself from this mess. The simplest explanations that fit the facts are generally the best. It could be otherwise of course. But taking the word of Donald Trump is just plain nuts.

Deflection, obtuse rational, classic hater cope. You wanted the bombs to drop on Monday night like clockwork just so you could scream "warmonger!" into the void. Instead, Trump drops a strategic 5-day pause right at the open of trading week, and the markets throw him a parade. And you chose to believe Iran over Trumps word? Laughable!

While you're busy eye-rolling, here's what actually happened much to your and other haters chagrin and spin narratives:

• Oil prices crashed 10–13% in a single day. Brent plunged under $100 (from over $119–$120 peaks), WTI slid into the high $80s. That "war premium" you were probably secretly hoping would keep punishing the economy? Evaporated faster than your credibility. Lower gas prices incoming for everyone sorry, lol, actually no, not sorry.

• Stocks surged. Dow futures ripped nearly 1,000 points pre-market, closed up 600–745 points. S&P and Nasdaq posted their best day since the conflict blew up. Risk-on party because the immediate threat of Iranian power plants turning into parking lots (and Strait of Hormuz chaos) got dialed back.

The timing was surgical: announced early Monday morning (7 a.m.-ish Truth Social drop), before the bell, after a weekend 48-hour ultimatum. Perfect pressure-then-relief play. Markets hate uncertainty more than anything and Trump gave them a clear "talks are productive, let's chill for five days" signal right when traders were most primed to react.

Result? Billions in relief traded instantly. That's not "backing down”, it ain’t no Trump hating TACO narrative that's leveraging deadlines like a boss to de-escalate while the economy breathes.

Trump's move here was classic art-of-the-deal in a crisis: create leverage with a short fuse, then de-escalate on your timeline to harvest economic upside. It worked because he treats the economy as a co-equal theater of operations, not an afterthought.

All the haters see (hope/want to see) "flip-flop weakness."

Why don't democrats operate tactically and strategically as does the commander-in-chief?

Because democrats (and many politicians in general) often don't /cannot operate with the same tactical agility and strategic market awareness as Trump demonstrated in the Iran pause announcement and the data from March 23, 2026 shows.

Reality sees a guy who used the threat to force movement, then timed the pause to maximize market benefit and minimize pain at the pump. True or not about the talks, the markets liked it.

"Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum over the weekend (reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face strikes on Iranian power/energy infrastructure). Then, early Monday morning—right before U.S. markets opened—he announced "very good and productive" talks, extended the deadline, and ordered a 5-day pause on those strikes."

https://nypost.com/2026/03/23/business/dow-futures-rally-nearly-1000-points-oil-tumbles-below-100-after-trump-orders-5-day-pause-on-attacks-on-iran-power-plants/

13 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

How am I defending Israel and the USA, when I point out what has been going on since the conflict started? Kuwait and Azerbiajan were frequent interceders on behalf of Iran, until some idiot fired missiles at them. Turkiye was partners with Iran as they pursued their joint attacks on the Kurds. Some of the Turkish military leadership have personal relationships with their Iranian counterparts.. I believe that the Guardian was making mention of China and Qatar offering to help. A reading of the Pakistani media will show that Pakistan has been trying to calm things down too. Because the EU and the UK are not at the forefront, doesn't mean that communication was not ongoing. Many countries have been trying to calm things down for quite some time. And despite the Russian quiet support of Iran, they have been careful with their public statements in an effort to contain the conflict that is on the Russian doorstep.

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Iran is not going to say it is in talks because it allows the Iranian government cover if the talks fail. It has nothing to gain if it admits to discussions now..

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Iran is not going to say it is in talks because it allows the Iranian government cover if the talks fail. It has nothing to gain if it admits to discussions now..

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

I think it is reasonable to believe that they are indirectly talking to each other, perhaps through a trusted third party. Messages are being relayed. A similar process occurred to end the 12 day conflict.

Hate to break it to you but looks like Iran isn’t going to let old Donnie turn on the chaos then back off at will they are still on the offensive….don’t be duped by the conn.you could say they rejected old Donnie’s taco seems like they don’t like tacos in Iran.quell surprise.

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Just be clear, Gerard Baker is not against the Iran War:

The Case for Cautious Optimism About Trump’s War in Iran

Even if the regime doesn’t fall, it will be leaderless, impoverished, isolated, besieged, mostly disarmed.

https://archive.ph/K3tPo#selection-545.0-549.106

Ok, so now that the Iranian Speaker of the parliament has said that there have been discussions, "indirect" talks, what do you have to write now? The acknowledgement removes the underpinning of Mr. Baker's assumption. Worse yet, is that the egyptians and Pakisatnis had said the discussions were underway a week ago, before Mr. Baker made his pronouncement. If I was aware, then surely, Mr. Baker who's job is to be in the information loop would have been aware.

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Ok, so now that the Iranian Speaker of the parliament has said that there have been discussions, "indirect" talks, what do you have to write now? The acknowledgement removes the underpinning of Mr. Baker's assumption. Worse yet, is that the egyptians and Pakisatnis had said the discussions were underway a week ago, before Mr. Baker made his pronouncement. If I was aware, then surely, Mr. Baker who's job is to be in the information loop would have been aware.

The left wants the United States to be knocked down a few pegs by Iran.

9 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Now that the discussions are public, and my earlier comment; is proven accurate;

I think it is reasonable to believe that they are indirectly talking to each other, perhaps through a trusted third party. Messages are being relayed. A similar process occurred to end the 12 day conflict.

Will you be updating your position, and recognizing what was known all along, but denied by the anti Trump people because it was not compatible with their inherent bias?

The Back-Channel Diplomacy Behind Trump’s U-Turn on Iran

But Arab mediators privately expressed skepticism that the U.S. and Iran could quickly reach an agreement, noting that the two sides remained far apart. Trump’s assertion that the talks were productive was met with pushback from Iranian officials, who denied that the discussions were taking place.

https://archive.ph/wTm8N#selection-2657.0-2657.298

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/the-back-channel-diplomacy-behind-trumps-u-turn-on-iran-b70efc60?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_1

In fact these discussions began many days ago but only a half a day or so before the bombing of infrastructure was to take place, suddenly they were "productive". It is to laugh.

"It is public knowledge now that there are discussions and negotiations underway and have been for days."

This article from the Wall Street Journal, which has an outstanding record on Middle East reporting, paints a far different picture from how you are portraying what's going on. In fact, the WSJ article never even charactered what's taking place as negotiations. Rather, it's about discussions that may lead to a meeting between American officials and the Iranians. I guess as long as these discussions keep on taking place, Trump can kick the can (or is it an IED?) down the road.

And given the claims of Trump such as but not limited to claims that war was over. how can you possibly fault Baker's observation? Do you really need a list of Trump's bizarre and clearly untrue claims? Are you familiar with the fable of The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf? I can't believe that after a bit over 1 year of Donald Trump's second presidency, people are still maintaining that he has significant credibility.

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The left wants the United States to be knocked down a few pegs by Iran.

Nonsense the VAST majority of Americans don’t want this distraction war.