34 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Dealing with this separately - because while I disagree with your earlier points (my reply above), on this I’m with you.

This kind of statement is reckless, inflammatory, and completely unfit for someone who holds 'any' political power. Trump should not be anywhere near the levers of influence if this is the level of judgement being exercised.

That said - and this is where people keep collapsing two different arguments into one - rejecting the man does not mean rejecting the reality of the situation.

You can think Trump is deeply flawed, unfit for office, and dangerous in how he communicates - and still recognise that the issue of Iran is not “unnecessary” or manufactured - thats where I am at (and apparently It makes me 'Zionist' to some.... a Trump supporter to others.

But... even without Trump, the strategic concern remains.

The structure of power in Iran - the Islamic Republic of Iran, its Islamic Consultative Assembly, and above all the Guardian Council - creates a system where long-term ideological direction sits above short-term democratic change.

That’s not about personalities in Washington - it’s about how power is actually organised in Tehran.

So go ahead - remove Trump from the equation entirely. The tone improves, the rhetoric calms down.

But the underlying question doesn’t go away: what do you do about a system that, over decades, has shown a consistent willingness to project power, influence regional conflicts, and push toward capabilities that shift the balance of the entire region?

You don’t have to like the messenger to recognise the message isn’t entirely wrong.

And that’s the uncomfortable part a lot of people are failing to see - so blinded by the Trump pantomime and Theatre - the real geo-political story is issues are being drowned out.

You reference that Iran is a "clear and present" danger in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, but where is the evidence for that?

Its not been shared via 5 Eyes, or rather, if it has, the other 4 powers were not convinced. There was no attempt to build a coalition, instead, through bsmboozling and threats, the United States has attempted to force its closest allies to join it.

The US can't say that its not possible to build coalitions among the 5 eyes, because we did in 2003.

POlitical change in Iran is impossible? You assume the Guardian Council is cohesive and not factionalised. Ali Khamenei had been Supreme Leader for a long time. He was dying (prostate cancer, likely metastasizing). There were credible reports he did not favour his son to be successory. We know the Guardian Council is factionalised, because of their confused response to the Green Movement protests, their continued bans on reformists (there would be no need to ban reformers if the Guardian Council was solid), and occasional banning of conservatives. During the recent protests, there were signs that the system hesitated in its response, before reverting to a security first consensus. A natural death of Khamenei (or a marked deteriotation) think would have exposed the factionalisation as various groups vyed for dominance, similar to the decline and death of Brezhnev; the rapid succession of short lived elderly successors created an instability in the USSR, allowing a relatively unknown technocrat an opportunity. The fact that Mojtaba was put foward, a person who lacks any kind of senior clerical credentials (irrespective of whether he is basically incapacitated), suggests he is a figurehead, to be manipulated by a faction, a weak character. If the Americans/Israelis had spies that could access the inner workings, then they could have engineered a decline in Ali, through poison etc.

But all this presupposess that the Iranians were imminently about to develop the Bomb. But why wasn't the UK etc informed?

Whatever happens tomorrow morning, one thing is certain, the Middle East will soon have another nuclear power. And it won't be Iran, but an altogether more sinister regime, Saudi Arabia.

Iran exports its terror on the basis of engineering social change. The Iranian Revoluion wasn't a return to a past, it has an ideology that is very modern. Obstensibly, Iran exploits populist causes; an inadequate Beirut government failing to provide basic services to a people for sectarin reasons. Or Gaza, where sunnis live in ruins (Gaza was a <deleted>hole before 2023). What was interesting is what Hezbollah was doing in Syria, backing Assad. Assad was a Shi'ite, but he lead a Baathist government , which was virtually secular. In fact during the civil war, he made a big deal about how much he was protecting Christian communities. There was no attempt by Iran to change how Damascus governed.

This is because of nature of part of the opposition. Daesh does not represent a modern political ideology. Its lead by uneducated men who do not have a background in the scholarly study of the Koran. Al Zarqawi was a Jordanian Drug Dealer, apparently born again. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was an sacked copper who ended in a shop repairing TV sets. I'm pretty sure all the so-called Caliphs of Daesh were a line of bull<deleted>ters when it came to the Koran and Islamic history. What they wanted to create was not a new type of state, but something they imagined, with their half baked sense of history (which is not unusual in the Islamic world; you be surprised the number of Arabs who know <deleted> all about the history of their religion and will swear blind their local mosque is 2000 years old or more) must have existed 800 years ago. So one of the first things they decided to "bring back" was slavery. Iran doesn't do that. Iran might have capital punishment, but it doesn't go around doing tag team public beheadings with rusty bread knives and death by fire, or whatever horrors Daesh can think of. There is a distinction. Daesh inspired people in Europe, and elsewhere, commit utter acts of barbarity. In Afghanistan, you'd be surprised how much cooperation there was between Iran and the US; Iran also feared the Taliban, who are just another variant of the Daesh gig.

And they were funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. Not from the ruling families, because officially, Daesh is a terrorist organisation. But rich Arab families send them shed loads of cash.

Saudi Arabia is a really backward country. Its ruled by the Al Sauds, who only rule because they captured Mecca from the Hashemites in 1925. They cam e up with a flag that is literally a religious symbol; Saudi Arabia is Islam, and Islam is Saudi Arabia. Look at the Iranian flag. They largely retained the Imperial Iran design, signifying its an Iranian flag, they added a few God is Great bits to it, and had a young modern artist design a motif based on a highly stylised tulip in the centre.

Saudi Arabia will be the next Islamic nuclear power, after Pakistan. They won't develop a weapon. They will buy one, or more. They have been mining their own uranium, got nuclear reactors. Why do they need nuclear power. The IAEA complain that Riyadh isn't always transparent.

What's disturbing about Saudi Arabia is how weak their government is. They only have legitimacy because they are the defenders of Mecca, literally defenders of the faith. And for 100 years have milked the legend of Ibn Saud, the patriarch. For 100 years, they basically bribed a largely illiterate population. Fine when they are selling loads of oil. The oil isn't going to run out, but our desire for it will. And AI server farms won't make up for the lack of jobs. And then the Sauds will stop offering free houses, free healthcare, wedding presents, jobs for the boys. It will take one whack job member of their family to blow himself up and take out the senior members, Nepal style (a Nepalese prince went crazy and killed pretty much the entire Nepalese Royal family about 20 years ago). Saudi Consitution? Succession of Power? There isn't any. Power goes to who ever is holding that green flag. The danger is that the Americans, Infidels who are barely tolerated, were unabe to protect Saudi Arabia from attack. That weakens the Sauds. And there are other families, the ones funding Daesh, who might want a crack at it.

That Saudi government might be gone tomorrow, and then you will have Islamic State with F15s, Typhoons, AWACs, M1 tanks and nukes.

Iran, I am certain, would have evolved, and possibly in quite a short time period, given there were protests. You don't see protests in Saudi Arabia, but you have all the same repressions there on young people as in Iran. The reason Iran will have evolved is because of its constitutionality., an legitimacy. None of that in robber baron Saudi Arabia. Yeah, I lived in Bahrain. Some of the Al Khalifas are nice people, but my god, they didn't care about the people. And when push came to the shove, when people were asking for some pretty mild reforms, they revealed their true coours, despite their decades of British and American education.

Anyhow, a radical suggestion; the United States backed the wrong Islamic country in the Middle East. Its moot now.

Not defending Iran, just saying the US has gone the wrong way about it, and has opened up a can of worms.

5 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

But they hate what America and Israel is doing more as it is putting their families and friends at risk.

For the last 47 years everyone in Iran has been at risk.

5 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Nobody likes a bully

So a nuclear armed fundamentalist Islamic regime that is the largest state sponsor of global terrorism and has called for the death of the US and Israel is preferable is it.

40 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Not defending Iran, just saying the US has gone the wrong way about it, and has opened up a can of worms.

So what's the right way?

10 hours ago, dinsdale said:

You must be joking. Search for yourself. Try YouTube Iranians support Trump's war or something like that. Might have to scroll through a bit because of the left biased algorithm.

So you still refuse to give any actual examples of your so called non MSM NEWS sources of YOUR information apart from some un attributed "YouTube Iranians support Trump's war" so called source!

Since you refuse point blank to provide credible sources I must therefore take all your comments as personal opinions and NOT as facts!

PS; Why do those who claim to be anti MSM NEVER say what their actual sources of their "FACTS" are?

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

So you still refuse to give any actual examples of your so called non MSM NEWS sources of YOUR information apart from some un attributed "YouTube Iranians support Trump's war" so called source!

Since you refuse point blank to provide credible sources I must therefore take all your comments as personal opinions and NOT as facts!

PS; Why do those who claim to be anti MSM NEVER say what their actual sources of their "FACTS" are?

If something is general knowledge no source is needed.

47 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

If something is general knowledge no source is needed.

What a crass statement in response to a very serious post/subject!

9 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

So what's the right way?

The right way would have built up an internal opposition movement, gravitating to a clear leader, flood the country with free Starlink terminals.

But that was then, and the past is the past.

The way now would take a bold move, a bold move deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize. The deal should be transactional, as transactional deals is how the President thinks. The deal must be presented as something extremely beneficial for Iran. Its not reward for bad behaviour, but reward for good behaviour. Iran has already dropped a hint. It wants tolls or a toll like charge for the Straits of Hormuz, and part of that to pay for reconstruction. The hint is they are willing to split that with the US.

The bold move is a non-aggression pact, with US guarantees for Iran's territorial integrity, including helping it to combat seperatists in Balouchistan and Kurdistan. Kurdish dreams are over. The Balouchis are a pretty cut throat lot, also threatening the integrity of Pakistan. The Kurds are disorganised anyhow into multiple factions who keep fighting each other, and are a threat to the integrity of regional states, notably NATO member Turkey.

What Iran must do in return in abandon support for proxy groups. The nuclear issue is entirely different, with the US suggesting a mutual defence pact.

Straits passage fees to be administered through a Straits of Hormuz Transit Authority, operated by the United States, with fees disbursed to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Sultanate of Oman, as the two coastal states bordering the straits, and the United States, who will act as guarantor of the integrity of the Straits. The fee is based on the value of the cargo transiting, eg $4 per barrel of oil, which will incorporate the costs of running the scheme. It is likely that the Transit Authority could generate revenue of $60-80 billion per year. Eventually, this could allowup to $20 billion per year to be spent on restoring the Hormuz ecosystem, which will greatly help the livelihood of the local fishermen and pearl divers.

There may be an initial weightage in the split towards the US and Iran, in recognition of the costs both nations have faced recently because of current difficulties. With the United States acting as guarantor, shipping insurance rates should plunge. Long term, US receipts from the scheme will help offset the modest rise in the price of oil for US consumers. Disbursing of funds to either coastal state will be controled to ensure that funds are used on worthwhile public capital expenditure, improving the lives of ordinary people. US participation will also guarantee the survival of the petrodollar.

Such a deal means that UNCLOS 82 is over. UNCLOS 58 lasted 24 years, so we are well over due a new treaty to reflect the 21st Century. No international treaty lasts forever.

The United States will argue that instituting transit fees merely restores the previous customary arrangements that existeding the Persian Gulf for centuries (note the US will abandon the Reagan era use of the term Arabian Gulf, in due recognition of Iran's historical presence in region). A transit fee is necessary in view of the unique and sensitive ecosystem in the Persian Gulf (cite oyster beds, rare seaweeds), and environment that sees significant shipping traffic because of unique global demands for oil (shipping pollutes, mainly due to diesel leakages and ballast water discharges), and that two fraternal nations have overlapping territorial waters.

Such changes to the Straits in no way weakens the United States determinaton for freedom of shipping in the South China Sea, because this is based on the fact that the US does not recognise Chinese territorial claims.

Nevertheless, in view of an increase in the populaton of coastal communities globally, and climate change, the time has come to renegotiate UNCLOS. For instance, climate change is expected to make the North West passage navigable to shipping. However, Canada considers this an internal waterway and outside of UNCLOS. Similar issues are expected to emerge through the Baring Strait, and more shipping between the Aleutian Islands, which are United States sovereign territories. The United States reserves the right to protect its prescious biota through the collection of environmental fees, already allowable in the current UNCLOS.

A Non-Aggression Pact is a confidence building measure. The nuclear issue is seperate. The US will make clear Iran will not be permitted to acquire viable nuclear weapons. In return, the US is willing to enter into a defence pact with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It will be stated that the US has no interest in the internal affairs of Iran. I expect the offer will stun Iran.

All the while, it should be recognised that a positive relationship with the US will be extremely beneficial for Iran fiscally. The Gulf States can go spin. They need to stop wasting their money on floating Gin Palaces and football teams, and get serious about how they run their countries for their citizens.

Iran must recognise Israel. That doesn't mean acceptance of Israel's policies nor behaviours, and it will be recognised that on occasion, the behaviour of Israel will cause genuine outrage in Iran, but the response to that must be diplomacy.

In return for a defence pact, the US will include taking kinetic action against the state of Israel if it shows aggression towards Iran. The US will endeavour, through the international institutions, to ensure that Israel conforms to the normal expected behaviours, including invasion of sovereign territories. The US will recognise that after 80 years, Israel is wholly responsible for its own affairs, and subsequently, the supplies of subsidised offensive weaponry from the United States will cease.

That's my wish. It won't happen though, as the current US President is not the same man as 10 years ago, and no longer has the imagination and courage to do such a thing. He thought the Abrahamic Accords were a brave thing, but that was the easy thing.

The move could be called the Croesus Accords, as a way of the US realising its mistake in the early part of 2026. King Croesus of Lydia (modern day Western Turkey) in 550BC consulted the oracle of Delphi, who told him if he attacked Cyrus the Great of Persia, a great empire would be destroyed. Croesus followed through on the attack, confident of victory, but in fact it was Cyrus who brought down the Lydean Empire

3 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

The right way would have built up an internal opposition movement, gravitating to a clear leader, flood the country with free Starlink terminals.

I think the problem with this would be time and the regime wasn't too far away from weapons grade material. Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger.

Two week cease-fire. Strait to be opened with conditions. Seems Trump's threat of "wiping out their civilisation" worked.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

I think the problem with this would be time and the regime wasn't too far away from weapons grade material. Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger.

I think the CIA has exagerrated Iran's state of readiness. We ony have their statements. The US never shared their concerns with 5-Eyes, suggesting the evidence was thin. The CIA has form in this respect. They <deleted> up over Iraq, they missed OBL, they messed up over the Bay of Pigs. etc. Institutionally incompetant. Mossad does not have the interests of the US, evidenced by the numerous times they have been caught spying, how they co-opted Robert Maxwell to introduce a serious risk to US national security, their role in the recruitment of Epstein. Mossad acts in the interests of Israel, who's interests do not coincide with the US. The US is now paying the price, militarily and politically for that. The fall out is the potential collapse of the most successful alliance in history. I don't think it was worth it.

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Two week cease-fire. Strait to be opened with conditions. Seems Trump's threat of "wiping out their civilisation" worked.

Are you for real?

You really expected the US to go nuclear on Iran?

Whichever way you try to spin this, Trump is a loser, lead by the nose by a war criminal, and rouge state of Israel.

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Two week cease-fire. Strait to be opened with conditions. Seems Trump's threat of "wiping out their civilisation" worked.

That's the Pakistani deal. TACO.

I bet Trump's lad's bank accounts are significantly bigger tomorrow.

The Iranian offer is:

1. Iran military to control the Straits

2. Withdrawal of US forces from the region

3. Lifting of all sanctions

4. Release all frozen Iranian assets

5. Acceptance of Iranian Uranium Enrichment'

6. Pay Iran Compensation

The American President called this a "workable peace plan". Its the same as what Iran offered a week ago. Which bits do you think Trump can live with, if this is a workable plan?

The American President bottled it.

4 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

That's the Pakistani deal. TACO.

I bet Trump's lad's bank accounts are significantly bigger tomorrow.

The Iranian offer is:

1. Iran military to control the Straits

2. Withdrawal of US forces from the region

3. Lifting of all sanctions

4. Release all frozen Iranian assets

5. Acceptance of Iranian Uranium Enrichment'

6. Pay Iran Compensation

The American President called this a "workable peace plan". Its the same as what Iran offered a week ago. Which bits do you think Trump can live with, if this is a workable plan?

The American President bottled it.

Nope. None of the above. Simply a cease-fire by the US and Israel conditional on the strait being opened and only for two weeks as it stands. What you posted is what the regime is saying.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Nope. None of the above. Simply a cease-fire by the US and Israel conditional on the strait being opened and only for two weeks as it stands.

What a comic, the strait has been open to any country who is not an ally of Iran's attackers.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Nope. None of the above. Simply a cease-fire by the US and Israel conditional on the strait being opened and only for two weeks as it stands.

An Iranian 10 point offer is being widely reported.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/07/iran-war-live-updates-trump-hormuz-threats-deadline-strikes-middle-east-conflict

1. Donald Trump has pulled back on his threats to launch devastating strikes on Iran, less than two hours before a deadline he set for Tehran to capitulate or else a “whole civilization will die.” Trump said he was holding off on his threatened attacks on Iranian bridges, power plants and other civilian targets, subject to Tehran agreeing to a two-week ceasefire and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped during peacetime.

2. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said it had conditionally accepted a two-week ceasefire if attacks agains Iran are halted.

3. Iran’s foreign minister said passage through the strait of Hormuz will be allowed for the next 2 weeks under Iranian military management.

4. Iranian state media said negotiations with the US would be held in Islamabad to finalise details of an agreement, with the aim of “confirming Iran’s battlefield achievements”. Talks will begin on Friday 10 April and may be extended, state media reported. State media also reported that talks with the US do not amount to the end of the war.

5. Pakistani prime minister Shebaz Sharif announced that Iran, the US and their allies agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon. Sharif has been a key figure in attempting to reach a diplomatic solution between the two warring parties. In his statement, Sharif invited delegations to Islamabad on “Friday, 10th April 2026, to further negotiate for a conclusive agreement to settle all disputes.”

6. Trump said Iran had proposed a “workable” 10-point peace plan. According to Iranian state media, the ten-point proposal includes a number of conditions that the US has in the past rejected. Among them are controlled transit through strait of Hormuz coordinated with Iranian armed forces and withdrawal of all US forces from regional bases. The plan would also require the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, payment of full compensation to Iran and release of all frozen Iranian assets.

7. Iranian state media also said the 10-point plan for securing an end to the war would require Washington to accept its uranium enrichment program, a previous red line for the Trump administration.

This is not a unilateral offer by the US-Israel that you suggest. You have been misinformed.

Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE! The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East. 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. On behalf of the United States of America, as President, and also representing the Countries of the Middle East, it is an Honor to have this Longterm problem close to resolution. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

I trust you will withdraw your previous statement (ref.Nope. None of the above. Simply a cease-fire by the US and Israel conditional on the strait being opened and only for two weeks as it stands.)

Very sorry that your Biblical hopes for the end of the world have been dashed. Maybe next year.

20 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

Are you for real?

You really expected the US to go nuclear on Iran?

A: Where did I say the US would go nuclear and B: A two week cease-fire has been announced. What are you going on about?

3 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

An Iranian 10 point offer is being widely reported.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/07/iran-war-live-updates-trump-hormuz-threats-deadline-strikes-middle-east-conflict

1. Donald Trump has pulled back on his threats to launch devastating strikes on Iran, less than two hours before a deadline he set for Tehran to capitulate or else a “whole civilization will die.” Trump said he was holding off on his threatened attacks on Iranian bridges, power plants and other civilian targets, subject to Tehran agreeing to a two-week ceasefire and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped during peacetime.

2. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said it had conditionally accepted a two-week ceasefire if attacks agains Iran are halted.

3. Iran’s foreign minister said passage through the strait of Hormuz will be allowed for the next 2 weeks under Iranian military management.

4. Iranian state media said negotiations with the US would be held in Islamabad to finalise details of an agreement, with the aim of “confirming Iran’s battlefield achievements”. Talks will begin on Friday 10 April and may be extended, state media reported. State media also reported that talks with the US do not amount to the end of the war.

5. Pakistani prime minister Shebaz Sharif announced that Iran, the US and their allies agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon. Sharif has been a key figure in attempting to reach a diplomatic solution between the two warring parties. In his statement, Sharif invited delegations to Islamabad on “Friday, 10th April 2026, to further negotiate for a conclusive agreement to settle all disputes.”

6. Trump said Iran had proposed a “workable” 10-point peace plan. According to Iranian state media, the ten-point proposal includes a number of conditions that the US has in the past rejected. Among them are controlled transit through strait of Hormuz coordinated with Iranian armed forces and withdrawal of all US forces from regional bases. The plan would also require the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, payment of full compensation to Iran and release of all frozen Iranian assets.

7. Iranian state media also said the 10-point plan for securing an end to the war would require Washington to accept its uranium enrichment program, a previous red line for the Trump administration.

This is not a unilateral offer by the US-Israel that you suggest. You have been misinformed.

I trust you will withdraw your previous statement (ref.Nope. None of the above. Simply a cease-fire by the US and Israel conditional on the strait being opened and only for two weeks as it stands.)

Very sorry that your Biblical hopes for the end of the world have been dashed. Maybe next year.

Nope. As I said the threatened massive bombing attack was stopped and all further bombing has been suspended for a two week period including Southern Lebanon. If you think the US is going to withdraw it's troops from the entire Middle East and allow the regime to continue it's advancement toward nuclear weapons you are living in la-la land.

https://brief.gizmet.dev/ceasefire-terms/

These are not the same deal.

That is clear as mud.

Nobody these days need late night comedy. Trump world has it well in hand.

14 hours ago, blaze master said:

Yes you made it up. I have disdain for the left though as ive stated before.

Ive also stated so many times that its only rich vs poor. Politics is simply a distraction. I voted liberal in my last provincial election. Been called a liar on many occasions for it. Hence my disdain.

Just for the record... I don't appreciate it when someone tries to call me a liar.

On 3/16/2026 at 1:37 AM, blaze master said:

And you responded exactly as predicted. None of you have ever been able to supply a single comment iI have ever made in support of Trump.

Please go ahead with 1 example. That or stop with the npc replies to someone who simply despises the extreme left.

Its become such a bore.

Is hate different from despise in your world?

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

An Iranian 10 point offer is being widely reported.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/07/iran-war-live-updates-trump-hormuz-threats-deadline-strikes-middle-east-conflict

1. Donald Trump has pulled back on his threats to launch devastating strikes on Iran, less than two hours before a deadline he set for Tehran to capitulate or else a “whole civilization will die.” Trump said he was holding off on his threatened attacks on Iranian bridges, power plants and other civilian targets, subject to Tehran agreeing to a two-week ceasefire and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped during peacetime.

2. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said it had conditionally accepted a two-week ceasefire if attacks agains Iran are halted.

3. Iran’s foreign minister said passage through the strait of Hormuz will be allowed for the next 2 weeks under Iranian military management.

4. Iranian state media said negotiations with the US would be held in Islamabad to finalise details of an agreement, with the aim of “confirming Iran’s battlefield achievements”. Talks will begin on Friday 10 April and may be extended, state media reported. State media also reported that talks with the US do not amount to the end of the war.

5. Pakistani prime minister Shebaz Sharif announced that Iran, the US and their allies agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon. Sharif has been a key figure in attempting to reach a diplomatic solution between the two warring parties. In his statement, Sharif invited delegations to Islamabad on “Friday, 10th April 2026, to further negotiate for a conclusive agreement to settle all disputes.”

6. Trump said Iran had proposed a “workable” 10-point peace plan. According to Iranian state media, the ten-point proposal includes a number of conditions that the US has in the past rejected. Among them are controlled transit through strait of Hormuz coordinated with Iranian armed forces and withdrawal of all US forces from regional bases. The plan would also require the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, payment of full compensation to Iran and release of all frozen Iranian assets.

7. Iranian state media also said the 10-point plan for securing an end to the war would require Washington to accept its uranium enrichment program, a previous red line for the Trump administration.

This is not a unilateral offer by the US-Israel that you suggest. You have been misinformed.

I trust you will withdraw your previous statement (ref.Nope. None of the above. Simply a cease-fire by the US and Israel conditional on the strait being opened and only for two weeks as it stands.)

Very sorry that your Biblical hopes for the end of the world have been dashed. Maybe next year.

It appears that you have been misinformed. Get this from CNN by any chance?

Donald Trump Launches Investigation Into CNN Over Iran Ceasefire

In a post to X, the White House said that a headline on the CNN live blog reading, "Iran claims victory, says it forced US to accept 10-point plan," was false.

"This alleged statement by 'Iran' is a FRAUD! Correct immediately!" the White House Rapid Response account said.

A CNN spokesperson told Newsweek in an email Tuesday night, "The statement in question was obtained by CNN from Iranian officials and reported on multiple Iranian state media outlets. We received the statement from specific official Iranian spokespeople who are known to us."

Within hours of the ceasefire announcement, Trump posted on Truth Social that CNN had reported a false statement.

"The alleged Statement put out by CNN World News is a FRAUD, as CNN well knows," Trump said his post, adding, "The false Statement was linked to a Fake News site (from Nigeria) and, of course, immediately picked up by CNN, and blared out as a 'legitimate' headline.

"Authorities are looking to determine whether or not a crime was committed on the issuance of the Fake CNN World Statement," the president continued, noting the question, "or was it a sick rogue player?"

Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appointed by Trump, reacted to the CNN report on X by calling for "change at CNN."

Trump also called for immediate removal of the report and an apology.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-launches-investigation-into-cnn-over-iran-ceasefire-11796760

18 hours ago, Issan girl said:

if black and brown people get more rights, then it follows that white people have less rights

No , it means they have equal rights.

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Two week cease-fire. Strait to be opened with conditions. Seems Trump's threat of "wiping out their civilisation" worked.

The original suggestion from Pakistan was a four week ceasefire. Who negotiated it down to two?

14 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It appears that you have been misinformed. Get this from CNN by any chance?

Donald Trump Launches Investigation Into CNN Over Iran Ceasefire

In a post to X, the White House said that a headline on the CNN live blog reading, "Iran claims victory, says it forced US to accept 10-point plan," was false.

"This alleged statement by 'Iran' is a FRAUD! Correct immediately!" the White House Rapid Response account said.

A CNN spokesperson told Newsweek in an email Tuesday night, "The statement in question was obtained by CNN from Iranian officials and reported on multiple Iranian state media outlets. We received the statement from specific official Iranian spokespeople who are known to us."

Within hours of the ceasefire announcement, Trump posted on Truth Social that CNN had reported a false statement.

"The alleged Statement put out by CNN World News is a FRAUD, as CNN well knows," Trump said his post, adding, "The false Statement was linked to a Fake News site (from Nigeria) and, of course, immediately picked up by CNN, and blared out as a 'legitimate' headline.

"Authorities are looking to determine whether or not a crime was committed on the issuance of the Fake CNN World Statement," the president continued, noting the question, "or was it a sick rogue player?"

Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appointed by Trump, reacted to the CNN report on X by calling for "change at CNN."

Trump also called for immediate removal of the report and an apology.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-launches-investigation-into-cnn-over-iran-ceasefire-11796760

14 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It appears that you have been misinformed. Get this from CNN by any chance?

Donald Trump Launches Investigation Into CNN Over Iran Ceasefire

In a post to X, the White House said that a headline on the CNN live blog reading, "Iran claims victory, says it forced US to accept 10-point plan," was false.

"This alleged statement by 'Iran' is a FRAUD! Correct immediately!" the White House Rapid Response account said.

A CNN spokesperson told Newsweek in an email Tuesday night, "The statement in question was obtained by CNN from Iranian officials and reported on multiple Iranian state media outlets. We received the statement from specific official Iranian spokespeople who are known to us."

Within hours of the ceasefire announcement, Trump posted on Truth Social that CNN had reported a false statement.

"The alleged Statement put out by CNN World News is a FRAUD, as CNN well knows," Trump said his post, adding, "The false Statement was linked to a Fake News site (from Nigeria) and, of course, immediately picked up by CNN, and blared out as a 'legitimate' headline.

"Authorities are looking to determine whether or not a crime was committed on the issuance of the Fake CNN World Statement," the president continued, noting the question, "or was it a sick rogue player?"

Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appointed by Trump, reacted to the CNN report on X by calling for "change at CNN."

Trump also called for immediate removal of the report and an apology.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-launches-investigation-into-cnn-over-iran-ceasefire-11796760

14 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It appears that you have been misinformed. Get this from CNN by any chance?

Donald Trump Launches Investigation Into CNN Over Iran Ceasefire

In a post to X, the White House said that a headline on the CNN live blog reading, "Iran claims victory, says it forced US to accept 10-point plan," was false.

"This alleged statement by 'Iran' is a FRAUD! Correct immediately!" the White House Rapid Response account said.

A CNN spokesperson told Newsweek in an email Tuesday night, "The statement in question was obtained by CNN from Iranian officials and reported on multiple Iranian state media outlets. We received the statement from specific official Iranian spokespeople who are known to us."

Within hours of the ceasefire announcement, Trump posted on Truth Social that CNN had reported a false statement.

"The alleged Statement put out by CNN World News is a FRAUD, as CNN well knows," Trump said his post, adding, "The false Statement was linked to a Fake News site (from Nigeria) and, of course, immediately picked up by CNN, and blared out as a 'legitimate' headline.

"Authorities are looking to determine whether or not a crime was committed on the issuance of the Fake CNN World Statement," the president continued, noting the question, "or was it a sick rogue player?"

Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appointed by Trump, reacted to the CNN report on X by calling for "change at CNN."

Trump also called for immediate removal of the report and an apology.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-launches-investigation-into-cnn-over-iran-ceasefire-11796760

The hypocrisy in incredible.

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

The hypocrisy in incredible.

Fake news. Accept it. CNN will have to come out with a statement.

14 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Fake news. Accept it. CNN will have to come out with a statement.

What's fake about it?

The snowflake in the Whitehouse didn't like it, awwwww.

But what is fake about it exactly? In your own words....

21 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

What's fake about it?

The snowflake in the Whitehouse didn't like it, awwwww.

But what is fake about it exactly? In your own words....

A ceasefire obviously is conducted between two or more parties. If one side reacts to a "news" article saying this is not what was agreed to what would your conclusion be. Would you conclude the "news" article is accurate. I guess you believe the IRGC. Fair enough. Let's see what comes out of it.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

I guess you believe the IRGC

I would believe anyone before Trump everytime!

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

A ceasefire obviously is conducted between two or more parties. If one side reacts to a "news" article saying this is not what was agreed to what would your conclusion be. Would you conclude the "news" article is accurate. I guess you believe the IRGC. Fair enough. Let's see what comes out of it.

The article says "Iran claims victory, says it forced US to accept 10-point plan". And, erm, Iran did claim victory and claimed it forced the US to accept a 10-point plan.

So what is fake about it?

Trump's issue was not the claim but the source, saying they got fed it by a Nigerian (false), when they took it from Iran directly.

Nothing fake there. He's just having one of his usual man-baby tantrums. And you automatically back him up.

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

It appears that you have been misinformed. Get this from CNN by any chance?

Donald Trump Launches Investigation Into CNN Over Iran Ceasefire

In a post to X, the White House said that a headline on the CNN live blog reading, "Iran claims victory, says it forced US to accept 10-point plan," was false.

"This alleged statement by 'Iran' is a FRAUD! Correct immediately!" the White House Rapid Response account said.

A CNN spokesperson told Newsweek in an email Tuesday night, "The statement in question was obtained by CNN from Iranian officials and reported on multiple Iranian state media outlets. We received the statement from specific official Iranian spokespeople who are known to us."

Within hours of the ceasefire announcement, Trump posted on Truth Social that CNN had reported a false statement.

"The alleged Statement put out by CNN World News is a FRAUD, as CNN well knows," Trump said his post, adding, "The false Statement was linked to a Fake News site (from Nigeria) and, of course, immediately picked up by CNN, and blared out as a 'legitimate' headline.

"Authorities are looking to determine whether or not a crime was committed on the issuance of the Fake CNN World Statement," the president continued, noting the question, "or was it a sick rogue player?"

Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appointed by Trump, reacted to the CNN report on X by calling for "change at CNN."

Trump also called for immediate removal of the report and an apology.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-launches-investigation-into-cnn-over-iran-ceasefire-11796760

Nope. To reiterate, from the US President's personal TruthSocial account:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116365796713313030

In case you cannot open that link:

Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE! The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East. 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. On behalf of the United States of America, as President, and also representing the Countries of the Middle East, it is an Honor to have this Longterm problem close to resolution. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Note reference to receiving a 10 point proposal from Iran. Are you doubting the word of the American President?

You accused me of something I never did. What you accused me of is posting to the forum a statement from the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, declaring victory. I never did that. You are confused.

I stated that the details of an Iranian 10-point plan was being widely circulated by Iranian State Media. At no point did I reference a CNN report (nor was I aware of a CNN report you <deleted> idiot).

Withdraw your <deleted> statement. You won't of course. I'm just going trough the motions in attempting a debate with an octogenarian bar prop.