10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Then I must be a “Zionist nut job” - I’ll let others decide that.

What I will say is this: I’ve spent time working in Israel and mostly across the rest of Middle East. Not reading headlines - actually being there, dealing with people, cultures, politics, religion, and all the messy realities in between. So I’m not speaking from ideology or tribal loyalty. I don’t have a dog in this fight.

I’ve got no affection for the current Israeli government, and none for the Iranian regime either. Criticising one doesn’t require pretending the other is harmless.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth people like to ignore: Israelis and Arabs are far more alike than outsiders admit - culturally, socially, even in how they argue and negotiate. This isn’t some simple good-versus-evil story. It never has been.

But Iran pursuing nuclear weapons is a real and present danger. Whether they would actually use one is a separate debate full of hypotheticals and guesswork. What isn’t hypothetical is what happens next.

If Iran goes nuclear, others in the region will follow. That’s not opinion - that’s how deterrence works. And “deterrence” in a region where missiles are already fired at each other far more often than most people realise isn’t some abstract theory. It’s a powder keg.

So no - this isn’t about being a “Zionist” or anything else. It’s about recognising risk, reality, and the very predictable consequences of escalation in one of the most volatile regions on earth.

And that right there is the fundamental flaw in that line of thinking - because this isn’t really about Israel at all.

And it’s not about Iran just wanting to be left alone to “defend its sovereignty” - thats a woke soft line of thinking.

Iran hasn’t behaved like a country that simply wants to sit quietly within its borders for a very long time. It has consistently acted like a state that sees itself as a regional power - It wants to be the dominant one.

Just look at the pattern, not the slogans:

- The Iran-Iraq War - not just a defensive war, but one that hardened Iran’s ambition to project power beyond its borders.

- The Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict - decades of competition for regional dominance, not coexistence.

- The Syrian Civil War - where Iran has poured in money, weapons, and militias to prop up Assad and secure influence.

- The Yemen Civil War - backing the Houthis against Saudi interests.

- The Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza - long-standing proxy relationships used to extend reach and pressure rivals.

That’s not the behaviour of a country that just wants to be left alone. That’s a country shaping the region in its own image, by force where necessary.

So no - this isn’t about “anti-Israel thinking”. It’s about recognising that Iran is an active player in destabilising conflicts across the Middle East. Calling it purely defensive ignores decades of evidence.

Now take that reality and add nuclear weapons into the mix.

If Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia won’t sit on its hands. Neither will the UAE, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain. You don’t get one nuclear power in that region - you get several. Fast.

Ask yourself honestly - are you comfortable with multiple regimes in one of the most volatile regions on earth holding nuclear weapons? - you seem to think its OK for Iran to have them, Iraq ??? Saudi ? where do you draw the line, Afghanistan ?

A nuclear Middle East isn’t some neat Cold War-style balance. It’s a region where missiles are already exchanged, where conflicts are tangled with religion, identity, and proxy wars.

Strip religion out for a second and imagine something closer to home - Northern Ireland during the worst years of the Troubles, but with nuclear capability. One miscalculation, one extremist faction, one bad decision - and the consequences are no longer local. They’re global.

And that’s the part people casually waving this idea away don’t seem to grasp.

A nuclear detonation in that region doesn’t just stay there. You’re talking about disruption to global oil and petrochemicals, fertiliser supply chains, shipping routes, energy markets - the knock-on effects hit food production worldwide. Prices spike, supply collapses, and suddenly you’re not debating politics on a screen - you’re dealing with shortages.

So no - hoping Iran “gets one” isn’t some clever shortcut to peace. It’s rolling the dice on a chain reaction that reshapes the Middle East and sends shockwaves through the entire global system.

"I hope they get one" (Iran getting a nuclear weapon) isn't the balanced "let's make the equal" commentary some think it might be - its myopic, its short sighted it missises the whole nuance of the Middle East conflicts that have gone on for decades - its not only ignorant - its a statement of extreme naivety highlighting how political bias can so effectively blind seemingly educated people.

You make some well-argued, elegant points, and yes—nuclear proliferation is to be decried in principle. However, as is often noted, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is in itself one of the most powerful agents of peace. Unless we are faced with a 'Bond villain' leader and a technocracy willing to assist them, the chances of such weapons ever being used are, thankfully, vanishingly small.

Given that the US has effectively abandoned its bases in the Middle East, and the Gulf States’ massive expenditures on Western weaponry proved almost worthless in this current conflict, leaders in the region are left wondering if relying on Pax Americana was the deal they thought it was. Saudi Arabia has a defense pact with Pakistan, a desire for an autonomous defense strategy, and a civilian nuclear program; they will likely pursue that path regardless of other players, or at least maintain that ambition.

And why shouldn't a 3,000-year-old Persian civilization have regional ambitions? The US has killed or created the conditions for far more wartime deaths than the so-called 'Iranian Hegemon,' and the Persians have suffered criminal and persistent attacks on their own sovereignty. I have no time for theocracy, but they are no worse than most other Gulf States regarding human rights—and in some respects, they are far better. Their 'existential crime' is seeking a path of self-determination that doesn't involve US domination. That is their true crime in the eyes of the US and Israel.

Israel, in essence, is the US proxy in the Middle East enforced through a roughshod mandate and a post-war hurry to find a 'solution,' a process characterized by massacres, terror, and the mass ethnic cleansing of the native inhabitants. Most, if not all, of the current problems in the Middle East have their roots in that original crime.

You cannot take Trump out of the equation. He and Netanyahu are the true progenitors of this current conflict, choosing to attack and provoke rather than follow diplomacy, and skewing the narrative to paint Iran as a modern-day Nazi Germany that must be utterly defeated. Instead, the Persians have shown a stoicism, pride, and resilience that has shocked Trump and gladdened much of the Global South and progressives the world over. This isn't because we find hanging gay people from cranes noble; it’s because standing your ground against vicious and naked bullies is the right thing to do. They have shown marvelous restraint and an 'elegant escalation' perfectly calibrated to prevent mass slaughter. In this piece, it is the US and Israel that have been the slipshod, trigger-happy villains.

And before we talk about 'destabilizing the region,' let’s remember who started the trend. The US and UK dismantled a burgeoning Iranian democracy in 1953 because they wanted control over Iran's oil. They installed a monarch (The Shah) who ruled through a secret police (SAVAK) trained by Western 'civilized' agencies. The current theocracy is the scar tissue from that original Western surgery.

You mention the Iran-Iraq War as if it 'hardened' them for fun. In reality, the US and the Gulf States actively propped up Saddam Hussein with intelligence, billions in aid, and chemical weapons components while he gassed Iranian soldiers. Iran learned a brutal lesson: International law is a fiction, and the West will happily support a dictator to erase a sovereign Persian state.

You call Hezbollah and Hamas 'shaping the region by force.' Iran cannot buy $100M F-35s from Lockheed Martin. Their 'Strategic Depth' doctrine is their only defense against a US Hegemon that has spent decades surrounding them with bases.

• By developing these networks, they moved the front lines away from Tehran.

• It’s a deterrence model designed to make an invasion of Iran too 'expensive' in terms of regional chaos for the US to ever attempt.

The US didn't just 'leave' bases; their presence was the very 'signal' that invited the noise. Iran’s 'Forward Defense' is a direct response to a century of being 'harried' by Western interests. If you spend 40 years trying to starve a nation through sanctions and surrounding it with carrier groups, you don't get to act surprised when that nation builds a 'fence' of allies to keep you at bay.

Iran isn't an 'active player in destabilizing' they are a 3,000-year-old civilization that has successfully decoded the US playbook. They’ve realized that in a world of bullies, stoicism and calibrated escalation are the only languages the 'slipshod' villains actually understand. Their strategy has worked: they are still here, and the US is the one looking for an exit strategy.Today Trump and the US loOks huliaated and defeated and Iranhas deveoped superp powers of control of the Hormuz when necessary. Leave them alone and start talking and to hell with what Isarel wants or doens't want.

Well, that's what I think, anyway !

10 hours 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.

I think I have covered those seperate point off in my comprehensive reply (polemic?) to your other post or I hope so !

5 hours ago, dinsdale said:

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.

I'm afraid it's you who are off their meds. You just made up a position I never held. I asked you, based on the plan that Iranian State Media had circulated, if that was the plan the US President thought was workable, "which bits do you think Trump can live with, if this is a workable plan?". The assumption is that the Iranian plan included elements that Trump could work with, and elements that he could not. Its broadly similar to a similar offer about a week ago.

Incidently, Netanyahu has issued a statement that the Ceasefire does not include Southern Lebanon. Multiple sources, but to save you worry, I'll quote the Times of Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-ceasefire-doesnt-cover-lebanon-us-told-israel-its-committed-to-achieving-our-shared-goals-in-talks-with-iran/

Israel supports President Trump’s decision to suspend strikes against Iran for two weeks subject to Iran immediately opening the straits and stopping all attacks on the US, Israel and countries in the region.......

....Israel also supports the US effort to ensure that Iran no longer poses a nuclear, missile and terror threat to America, Israel, Iran’s Arab neighbors and the world.....

.....The United States has told Israel that it is committed to achieving these goals, shared by the US, Israel and Israel’s regional allies, in the upcoming negotiations....

....The two-weeks ceasefire does not include Lebanon

With the exception of the tankers and E3s (blown up) at Prince Sultan AB, all the US forces involved in the offensive operations over Iran have been drawn from outside the Middle East. The US didn't need to have bases in the ME to enforce its will. The US bases in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were established following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with the intention of pre-positioning equipment to deter Iraq, not Iran. The 2025 downgrade of the US Naval presence in Bahrain indicates a shift in strategic priorities.

If you are asking me about what parts of that 10 point plan the US President could work with;

1. I would not be surprised if there is a US pull out from regional bases, I suspect through mutual agreement with the Gulf States, but the retention of hardware to allow reinforcement if necessary. The bases are expensive, and are no longer relevant in 2026.

2. I will expect the US will accept some level of control of the Straits by the Iranian military (but I would conjecture the Artesh not the IRGC, though notably, the US targeted the Artesh naval units and has barely touched the IRGC naval assets).

3. The collections of tariffs by Iran-Oman is a racing certainty, which I have been saying for weeks.

4. I'm not sure what Iranian assets the US still holds; its much reduced. The US might not care about that.

5. Sanctions; I can foresee the US offering a plan to reduce sanctions in return for Iranian concessions.

6. The Iranian demand for acceptaptance of the Uranium enrichment appears only in the farsi version of the official communique. This morning all that Trump has said about the Uranium is "it will be taken care of", a remarkably non-committal statement for something that was the key objective.

You have made no offer to go through that plan point by point, except through slander and insult.

The situation illustrates the absurdity in putting all the world's services in one single area. The golden era of the rich gulf nations has come to an end. Time to bring back these structures to more peacefu and neutral nations in Europe. Paying a bit more tax or salaries could be a bar, but at the end of the day, long term safety has no price. Greed always gets caught on with a hefty price ot pay. But as people never learn....

The lack of poster admitting his mistake not surprising but really expected.

TACO Trump has caved and the fact he lies we now have come to admire the quirk.

The other poster who made the point Trump was using some seriousy exceptional 1980's negotiating techniques joining hands in silence.

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

You make some well-argued, elegant points, and yes—nuclear proliferation is to be decried in principle. However, as is often noted, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is in itself one of the most powerful agents of peace.

I haven't time to address all points, but I'd like to quickly address this one.

I've addressed the MAD point in another thread.

Mutually Assured Destruction is one of the least convincing arguments I have encountered in it concerns the issue of nuclear proliferation across the Middle East.

The remedy for instability is not greater instability - The idea proliferation of nuclear weapons in one of the world’s most volatile regions would somehow yield peace is flawed (IMO of course) - its just not a sound strategy nor a solid theory.

The concept of Mutual Assured Destruction functioned, if imperfectly, between two highly structured superpowers with disciplined command-and-control systems. It is far less applicable to a region characterised by proxy conflicts, non-state actors, and governments with a documented history of supporting armed groups.

Iran, after all, is not a neutral or insulated actor; its involvement in regional militancy is well established.

Which raises a rather fundamental question: what is the intended outcome of such a proposal?

To extend nuclear capability to a state already associated with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and then rely on the hope that such influence would never intersect with nuclear risk, is not deterrence in any meaningful sense. It is a wager with consequences that extend far beyond the region itself.

Moreover, this line of reasoning overlooks a critical foundation of nuclear deterrence - namely, the assumption of rational state actors. Non-state networks do not necessarily operate within the same frameworks of deterrence or accountability.

Many analysts have long warned that increased proliferation heightens the risk of nuclear terrorism or the loss of control over sensitive materials.

In light of this, the proposal does not appear reassuring so much as deeply concerning.

To introduce multiple nuclear arsenals into an already fragile landscape of ideological tension, proxy warfare, and political volatility is not a path to stability - it is an invitation to outcomes that are, at best, unpredictable and, at worst, catastrophic.

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I think I have covered those seperate point off in my comprehensive reply (polemic?) to your other post or I hope so !

Yes, you have - thank you. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the strength of your points.

I’d like to respond properly, but that will require a bit more time and research than I can give today.

While I’ve spent many years working across the Middle East, I don’t claim to have all the answers and knowledge, and I recognise how perspectives can differ even when based on the same information.

What I do value is this kind of exchange - reasoned, constructive, and open. I may not agree with everything, but it’s exactly the kind of perspective worth hearing rather than bouncing around in my own echo-chamber which quite frankly would be boring.

So +1 from me - even if we don't agree - we can discuss constructively.

Yes, the theory of MAD only works when both actors value their own lives above all.

However, if one side is convinced killing infidels results in a glorious afterlife with virgins galore despite losing one's own life, then the deterrent is gone.

6 hours ago, IsmeUno said:

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

Is hate different from despise in your world?

Yes as they are 2 different words with 2 different meanings....aren't they . When have we ever talked about my voting in the past ? Please show me where I called you a liar..

Again you are making assumptions.

45 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Yes, you have - thank you. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the strength of your points.

I’d like to respond properly, but that will require a bit more time and research than I can give today.

While I’ve spent many years working across the Middle East, I don’t claim to have all the answers and knowledge, and I recognise how perspectives can differ even when based on the same information.

What I do value is this kind of exchange - reasoned, constructive, and open. I may not agree with everything, but it’s exactly the kind of perspective worth hearing rather than bouncing around in my own echo-chamber which quite frankly would be boring.

So +1 from me - even if we don't agree - we can discuss constructively.

And +1 from me as Ronnie Barker didn't say !

5 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Yes as they are 2 different words with 2 different meanings....aren't they . When have we ever talked about my voting in the past ? Please show me where I called you a liar..

Again you are making assumptions.

You said that I made it up when I wrote about your hate. Instead you suggested disdain.

It seems that you prefer to squirm and play childish games than to admit what is so obvious to everyone else.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/despise

despise

verb

di-ˈspīz 

Definition of despise

1

as in to hate

to dislike strongly. I despise anchovies on pizza, and I refuse to eat them!

Synonyms & Similar Words

Relevance

• hate

• detest

• loathe

• abhor

• abominate

• disdain

• execrate

• have it in for

• disapprove (of)

• scorn

• deplore

• deprecate

• discountenance

• disfavor

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

You said that I made it up when I wrote about your hate. Instead you suggested disdain.

It seems that you prefer to squirm and play childish games than to admit what is so obvious to everyone else.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/despise

despise

verb

di-ˈspīz 

Definition of despise

1

as in to hate

to dislike stronglyI despise anchovies on pizza, and I refuse to eat them!

Synonyms & Similar Words

Relevance

• hate

• detest

• loathe

• abhor

• abominate

• disdain

• execrate

• have it in for

• disapprove (of)

• scorn

• deplore

• deprecate

• discountenance

• disfavor

You did make it up in didnt say hate. You roll with whatever you want. I know what I said and what I meant. You keep assuming. Bye.

Taiwan has got the message from Trump's epic debacle. Arguably China is the biggest winner here with it's powder fully dry and a mass of data to process re US militray capability.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0krnz7mmmjo

Her trip comes amid growing scepticism about the US in Taiwan "largely stemming from [Donald] Trump's mixed signals on his Taiwan policy and the Middle East conflict", says William Yang, North East Asia analyst at the non-profit think tank International Crisis Group.

"Cheng sees this as an opportunity for her to present herself as the political leader capable of maintaining cross-strait exchange and potentially reducing cross-strait tension," Yang says.

Although the US has formal ties with Beijing rather than Taiwan, it has for decades remained the island's biggest arms supplier. In recent years Trump has said that Taiwan should pay the US for defending it against China.

7 minutes ago, blaze master said:

You did make it up in didnt say hate. You roll with whatever you want. I know what I said and what I meant. You keep assuming. Bye.

Pathetic...as if it makes a difference to your attitude which word you use. The behaviour towards others is the same.

3 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

[Clipped]

Well, that's what I think, anyway !

I think I have covered those seperate point off in my comprehensive reply (polemic?) to your other post or I hope so !

I chopped off most of your post to limit the length of post (people can scroll up and read your original comment if they have the attention span to read serious and valuable input thats longer than two lines).

I'll deal with your points in order posted:

The US has not “abandoned” the Middle East. It still maintains an extensive, active military footprint across the region, even under sustained attack from Iran and its proxies.

Current major active US bases include:

- Bahrain - Naval Support Activity Bahrain, headquarters of the United States Fifth Fleet, still operational despite Iranian missile and drone strikes targeting critical infrastructure

- Qatar - Al Udeid Air Base, CENTCOM’s forward headquarters and the largest US base in the region (~10,000 personnel), repeatedly targeted but still fully functional

- Kuwait - Camp Arifjan (Army HQ), Ali Al Salem Air Base, Camp Buehring (logistics and staging for Iraq/Syria), all within range of Iranian proxy attacks

- UAE - Al Dhafra Air Base (F-22s, ISR operations) and Jebel Ali port (major naval hub), both subject to Iranian-linked drone and missile threats

- Iraq - Ain al-Asad Airbase and Erbil Airbase (training, counterterrorism, logistics), regularly attacked by Iranian-backed militias

- Saudi Arabia - Prince Sultan Air Base (air defence and regional air operations), repeatedly targeted by Iranian-aligned forces

- Jordan - Muwaffaq Salti Air Base (air missions across Syria/Iraq theatre), damaged by attacks linked to Iran’s wider network

On top of that, the US still has a major naval presence - carrier strike groups, destroyers, and patrol vessels operating across the Gulf, Red Sea, and eastern Mediterranean, constantly responding to Iranian threats to shipping and regional security.

That is not withdrawal. That is active war-fighting posture under persistent Iranian pressure.

Gulf weapons are not “worthless” either. What this conflict has shown is a mismatch - billion-dollar systems being used to intercept cheap Iranian drones and missiles. That is a procurement and doctrine problem, not proof Western capability has collapsed.

Saudi hedging is real, but not dramatic. Yes, there is a Pakistan defence pact and long-standing nuclear ambition. But Riyadh is still deeply tied to US security and has explicitly said any move toward a bomb depends on Iran crossing that line first - which says everything about where the real threat is perceived to be.

IMO your argument starts to go off track when treating Iran as a largely defensive actor.

Iran is not just a civilisation reacting to pressure. For decades and decades and particularly since 1979 it has aggressively projected power beyond its borders through militias, missiles, terrorism, and covert operations.

It funds and directs armed groups across multiple countries - Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza. The IRGC’s Quds Force exists specifically to run these foreign networks. These groups have attacked US forces, Israeli civilians, Gulf infrastructure, and international shipping.

That is not passive defence. That is deliberate, organised destabilisation.

Iran’s conflict history reflects that pattern:

- Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) - began defensively, but Iran chose to prolong the war and invade Iraqi territory rather than accept peace.

- Lebanon (since 1982) - creation and long-term backing of Hezbollah, effectively turning Lebanon into a permanent front line against Israel.

- Israel proxy conflict (decades) - funding and arming Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad to wage continuous war by proxy (don't forget - Israel and Iran were trading neighbores before the Iranian revolution).

- Iraq (post-2003) - backing militias that killed coalition troops and undermined Iraqi sovereignty.

- Syria (since 2011) - deploying IRGC forces and foreign militias to prop up Assad at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

- Yemen (since 2014) - arming the Houthis, fuelling a catastrophic war and threatening Red Sea shipping

- Gulf and Hormuz - repeated harassment, seizures, and attacks on global energy routes.

- Ongoing Israel escalation (2020s-present) - missile strikes, proxy warfare, and direct confrontation.

This is not occasional involvement. It is sustained, deliberate, multi-front destabilisation for over 40 years.

Iran calls this “forward defence” or “strategic depth”, in reality it is exporting conflict so that the consequences are borne by everyone else.

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen have all paid the price for Iran’s model. Entire states have been hollowed out, turned into battlegrounds, and kept weak enough to be controlled.

Proxy warfare allows Tehran to apply force while avoiding accountability, but the result is permanent instability across the region.

That is not defence. That is strategic chaos by design.

On human rights, there is no moral high ground whatsoever. Iran executes protesters, suppresses dissent, and enforces brutal social controls - including recent executions of young demonstrators.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have poor records, but Iran is not meaningfully better - and in many cases is just as repressive, recently far worse.

The historical grievances are also real and matter.

The 1953 coup happened. Western backing of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War happened.

But those facts do not excuse what Iran has chosen to become - a state that exports violence as policy.

On Israel, it is fair to say the creation of the state and the unresolved Palestinian issue remain central drivers of tension. But claiming that most or all regional instability flows from that alone ignores the reality that Iran has spent decades actively fuelling and expanding conflict across the region.

Trump and Netanyahu did not create this system, but they did escalate this phase of it.

However, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis were already actively engaged in sustained conflict long before that escalation.

So the defensible position is this (IMO)

The US is not a neutral stabiliser. Israel is not an innocent bystander. Western actions helped shape Iranian hostility. But, Iran is not a passive victim. It is a revisionist regional power that uses militias, missiles, and coercion to expand influence and entrench instability.

Its strategy has kept the regime alive and avoided direct invasion. But it has done so by spreading conflict outward and keeping much of the region deliberately unstable.

Iran hasn’t simply “stood its ground”. It has built a system designed to fight everywhere except at home - and to ensure the cost of resisting it is paid by its neighbours.

At some point we also have to be honest about the 'chicken-or-egg' problem here.

The US has contributed to regional instability - Iraq, sanctions, coups, selective alliances. That is real.

But Iran is not reacting in a vacuum. It has been a persistent and active source of instability in its own right, particularly since 1979.

For decades, Iran has built a model based on:

- arming non-state actors

- embedding itself inside weak states

- and using proxy warfare to dominate without direct accountability

This isn’t speculation - it is the core of Iranian regional strategy.

That approach has had clear consequences:

- It has destabilised Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen

- It has turned weak states into permanent conflict zones

- It has ensured that local wars never stay local

So yes - the US has destabilised the region.

But Iran has systematised and normalised destabilisation as a long-term strategy.

One is episodic and often blunt.
The other is continuous, calculated, and embedded.

So the real question isn’t “who started it?”

The real question is "Which is more destabilising?"

A superpower that intervenes badly and inconsistently, or a regional power that has spent decades building a system designed to keep multiple countries permanently unstable as leverage?

IMO this is the reality - because once we strip away the rhetoric, this isn’t good vs bad.

It’s two competing sources of instability - but only one of them has made instability itself the strategy and it needed to be stopped.

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Taiwan has got the message from Trump's epic debacle. Arguably China is the biggest winner here with it's powder fully dry and a mass of data to process re US militray capability.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0krnz7mmmjo

Her trip comes amid growing scepticism about the US in Taiwan "largely stemming from [Donald] Trump's mixed signals on his Taiwan policy and the Middle East conflict", says William Yang, North East Asia analyst at the non-profit think tank International Crisis Group.

"Cheng sees this as an opportunity for her to present herself as the political leader capable of maintaining cross-strait exchange and potentially reducing cross-strait tension," Yang says.

Although the US has formal ties with Beijing rather than Taiwan, it has for decades remained the island's biggest arms supplier. In recent years Trump has said that Taiwan should pay the US for defending it against China.

Taiwan hasn’t suddenly “got the message” because the US stumbled in one theatre. That’s far too simplistic.

What you’re seeing is not a full display of US capability - it’s a managed, limited engagement. Any serious military strategist understands that you don’t empty your hand in a regional conflict when you’re also pacing a peer competitor like China.

This isn’t incompetence - it’s calibration.

If poker players understand the concept of holding back, deception, and not showing your full hand, then military planners absolutely do. In fact, modern deterrence depends on exactly that - ambiguity, reserve capability, and escalation control.

The US is deliberately not committing everything it has. It can’t. Its entire long-term strategy is built around maintaining credible deterrence across multiple theatres, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

That means:

- holding back advanced capabilities.

- preserving force readiness.

- avoiding over-commitment in secondary conflicts.

- and keeping escalation thresholds under control.

China knows this.

Beijing’s strategists are not sitting there thinking, “this is all the US has”. They are analysing what is being used, what is not being used, and why. They understand signalling, restraint, and reserve just as well as Washington does.

In fact, China is playing the same game - observing, learning, but also keeping its own powder dry.

So yes, there’s data being gathered on US performance. But the idea that this represents the full extent of US military capability is naïve in the extreme.

What we’re seeing is not the whole arsenal. It’s a carefully chosen subset, deployed under political and strategic constraints. This isn’t a reveal. It’s a controlled hand in a much larger game.

And anyone assuming they’re seeing everything on the table fundamentally misunderstands how great power competition actually works.

On 4/8/2026 at 4:33 AM, earlinclaifornia said:

The lack of poster admitting his mistake not surprising but really expected.

TACO Trump has caved and the fact he lies we now have come to admire the quirk.

The other poster who made the point Trump was using some seriousy exceptional 1980's negotiating techniques joining hands in silence.

Care to admit your own mistakes after horrible predictions during the last election ? You went over a year without posting after the embarrassment.

5 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Care to admit your own mistakes after horrible predictions during the last election ? You went over a year without posting after the embarrassment.

How Trump won a reelection stumps me seriously.

Do you see why now I felt so certain he could not sucesseflly lead America.

Vindicated 101 This has been exactly what I expected.

Do you like brag you won again then is that it?

14 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

How Trump won a reelection stumps me seriously.

Do you see why now I felt so certain he could not sucesseflly lead America.

Vindicated 101 This has been exactly what I expected.

Do you like brag you won again then is that it?

Where did I brag about anything ? Simply pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment.

If you dont see how he won then you still don't get it. Please dont take this comment in any way as support for Trump. had you been here i have said I wouldnt have voted for him if I was american.

Im simply saying are you man enough to admit how totally wrong you were ?

On 4/8/2026 at 1:55 AM, 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.

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

Quoting myself from April, because:

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/16/trump-administration-oil-tankers-hormuz-passage-00963910

Trump administration officials are discussing ideas to kick-start oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, including a plan that would offer a fee-based “VIP pass” naval escort through the waterway, three people familiar with the discussions said.

President Donald Trump and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles have called for ideas to convince ship owners to take the risk of transiting the strait as the United States and Iran continue peace talks, said two energy industry officials familiar with the talks. The discussions so far have centered on ways to convince insurance companies to offer coverage to travel through a narrow waterway in which Iran has successfully attacked vessels.

When they realise the money to be made, its going to be a 3 way split, with the US taking a finders fee, and it will be hailed as a terrific business deal. It won't be called a toll, it will be a transit fee, justified through the need to maintain the passage way (can never guarantee all mines have gone, so Iranian and Omani Navies will be on continuing operations), protect the delicate ecosystems, whatever.

Like the security line at an airport, there will be a premium fast track, following the pre-war route, versus the later route that is further north, close to the Iranian coast.