13 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

So then, what is the alternative? Please craft a better deal if you want. Or vote to keep the war going, expand it to paradropping on Tehran, etc.

I'll give it a go. I doubt the responses will be all that respectful, but hey ho.

The main elements of a better deal would deal with:

1. Restrictions on an Iranian domestic nuclear capability

2. Establishment of a regional enrichment programme.

3. Iran's missile programme

4. Iran's interactions with proxy groups

5. Sanctions Relief.

For (1), Cap enrichment permanently at 3.67%, export or blend down all uranium enriched above 5% within 90 days. Set up challenge inspections at undeclared sites within a fixed period, say, 14 days rather than going through what is likely months of negotiation. Obviously freeze installation of advanced centrifuges and dismantle excess cascades into monitored storage. Convert the underground facility at Fordow into an internationally supervised isotope production and research centre.

To have a chance for Iran to do any of that (and the negotiations indicated that Iran wouldn't rule any of this out), the United States would need to explicitly recognise Iran's right to a peaceful civilian nuclear programme. AND accept low-level enrichment inside Iran, avoiding Tehran's principal red line of "zero enrichment",

To make (1) possible, the innovative step would have been step (2); to propose a regional enrichment consortium with other Gulf states. Iran could retain a symbolic enrichment capability, perhaps producing only a small proportion of its fuel requirements, while most fuel production would occur under multinational control and continuous monitoring. This idea had already appeared in earlier discussions and seems more acceptable to the Iranians than complete dismantlement.

Moving to point (3), the missile programme. The President has already indicated he's quite OK with Iran having a ballistic missile force (note, not SAM capabilties) equal to that of its neighbours, which by inference, would include Israel. Practically, that means a missile force equal to the combined capabilities its neighbours and the regional powers. Excluding Iran, extending as far West as Turkey, including the "Stans, including Pakistan, the number of regional ballistic and cruise missiles is about 4000. Prewar, Iran had about 3000 ballistic missiles, so on the face of it, Iran can restore its pre-war capacity, and the Americans are likely to be fairly relaxed with even a 25% increase

But its not all gravy for Iran. As part of that granting of capabilities, Iran would need to concede no missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload, range limited to 2000kms, and no transfers of precision weapons to non-state actors.

One of the weakest areas of the MOU is about the support to proxy groups. There should have been more work here. Naturally, a better agreement would (4) include no transfers of precision weapons to Hezbollah and the Houties. You could also ask for a complete halt to arms deliveries, but I think Iran would resist that one, so instead, push for limited arms transfers, with a mechanism for verification. At the same time, the US will need to expend considerable resources making sure the Baghdad and Beirut governments as the monopolies of force.

The carrot is sanctions relief (5). The current MOU offers far too many concessions to Iran on sanctions relief. Its giving away, far too early, oil waivers, asset releases and even a large reconstruction package.

Instead, release a limited amount of frozen assets for humanitarian purchases, AND issue a six-month oil export waiver capped at a specified volume. Monitoring oil exports is very easy, you don't even need to board ships to know how much is aboard, because you can analyse how the ship sits with respect to its waterline.

When, and only when, the IAEA releases its certification with respect to the Additional Protocol (fairly standard, Additional protocol for verification of nuclear safeguards), then suspend the secondary sanctions. Then over a 2 year period, subject to verification, walk back remaining sanctions. Include a 30 day snapback if there are infractions, something which is not in the current MOU.

The US would provide security assurances about not seeking regime change, not attacking, putting in mechanisms to avoid incidents at sea. The US to support Iranian reintegration into global financial institutions

As part of this agreement, you establish Permanent freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and no transit fees or discriminatory restrictions.

Now Iran might not accept this, but you need to move their motives to agreeing to an agreement, not because of the alternative is getting killed, but because its worth their while.

So what might be worth their while is money, or rather, another revenue stream. I'd bush off the idea of an International Straits Authority, and think of the Montreux Convention where Turkey regulates what goes through the Straits of the Bosphorus. The actual enforcement is by the Turkish Department of Transport. Turkey has a right to levy transit fees, as laid out in the Convention, with a formula applied to ensure the costs update with inflation (its a fee based on ship tonnage). Its called a Transit fee and is supposed to cover sanitary controls, lighthouses, and life-saving operation. The convention also gives Turkey a complete monopoly on pilotage and towing services, which must always be offered to transiting vessels, though they are not obligated to take them.

This would be my joker card, but it will also help with the actual intention all along for Iran to start acting like a normal country. Give control of collection of the fees to an international authority, who disburses, minus admin fees, to both Iran and Oman, allowing for acknowledgement by the rest of the world of the generosity of the Omani and Iranian people for allowing such a volume of shipping to pass through their waters for the betterment of the wider world; symbolic I know.

I would see if the money collected could be put towards port development projects in Iran, particularly major container facilities. Currently mega container ships with cargo for East Africa unload in the UAE, which basically has a monopoly, the cargo split down and reloaded onto smaller ships, for continued transit to East Africa which lacks large port facilities. There is a huge humanitarian angle there; currently East Africa is seeing healthcare supply shortages, because its all stuck in Dubai. But also trade, and potentially trade to the advantage of one of the US's strategic goals.

Iran makes a lot of money from oil. But unlike the Arab states, which are little more than desert and resorts for the mega wealthy, Iran has a diverse economy. It has a rich agricultural sector (self sufficient in food). It has a decent car industry. One of the reasons the British first involved themselves in Iran wasn't oil, but tobacco. Its highly likely if you ate pistachios, some of them would have come from Iran. Improved port facilities would drive more trade between Iran and India, and all the Indian Ocean States, a useful trading counterweight to China, who is intent on developing Karachi to be the port rail head of exports to Africa, where they hope to dominate. Competition is always good, and the Iranian people are a mercantile people.

Game theory means you want Iran to want this, that they want to be making money, and, if along the way, they become a regional power, but one that is not based on the boorish Arab-Israeli fracas, I don't mind.

Palmerston summed it up: We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Iran and US one day allies? Maybe not, but one day, respectful relations. If Vietnam can get over Agent Orange and Carpet Bombing by Nixon, I'm sure the US an get over the Iran Embassy Hostage Crisis (which is really where all the enmity comes from).

As for "tolls" or "freedom of passage". Freedom of Passage doesn't mean passage for free. There can be costs, but in any case, treaties aren't forever. They get renegotiated, torn up. Take GATT, which is basically dead. The era, for the moment, of free trade is over, and the US won't be the last country to use tariffs as part of fiscal (revenue raising ) policy.

Freedom of Passage comes from an early 80s treaty, UNCLOS. The US might have signed it, but never ratified it, citing that they were unhappy about the concessions the US made about their own territorial waters. Its a different maritime world in 2026 from 1982. Climate change is a reality, and the Northwest Passage will soon be navigable. That's why the US was prepared to hack off its Allies over Greenland; it was never about mining. If the US wants that, then they can just buy the mining licences. There is no way the US will be happy with Chinese ships transiting through US waters to make money from Europe. I expect lots more imaginative mechanisms to make transit fees a normal thing.

Freedom of Passage is not as cast in stone as some might think.

nice copy and paste

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

hahaha....loser.....all you can is screech hysterically as trump beats your garbage philosophy back into the sewers

looooooooser.

This is exactly like something Trump would have written himself..

What the heck is wrong with you MAGA folks? All you can do is spew up garbage and hate like this. Are you all 12 years old?

I would have been utterly ashamed of myself. You show all signs of belonging to a cult. Just sayin'.

Only totally brainwashed cult members could buy the big lie that this was a win for Trump and that the entire war of choice wasn't a massive mistake.

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

I'll give it a go. I doubt the responses will be all that respectful, but hey ho.

The main elements of a better deal would deal with:

1. Restrictions on an Iranian domestic nuclear capability

2. Establishment of a regional enrichment programme.

3. Iran's missile programme

4. Iran's interactions with proxy groups

5. Sanctions Relief.

For (1), Cap enrichment permanently at 3.67%, export or blend down all uranium enriched above 5% within 90 days. Set up challenge inspections at undeclared sites within a fixed period, say, 14 days rather than going through what is likely months of negotiation. Obviously freeze installation of advanced centrifuges and dismantle excess cascades into monitored storage. Convert the underground facility at Fordow into an internationally supervised isotope production and research centre.

To have a chance for Iran to do any of that (and the negotiations indicated that Iran wouldn't rule any of this out), the United States would need to explicitly recognise Iran's right to a peaceful civilian nuclear programme. AND accept low-level enrichment inside Iran, avoiding Tehran's principal red line of "zero enrichment",

To make (1) possible, the innovative step would have been step (2); to propose a regional enrichment consortium with other Gulf states. Iran could retain a symbolic enrichment capability, perhaps producing only a small proportion of its fuel requirements, while most fuel production would occur under multinational control and continuous monitoring. This idea had already appeared in earlier discussions and seems more acceptable to the Iranians than complete dismantlement.

Moving to point (3), the missile programme. The President has already indicated he's quite OK with Iran having a ballistic missile force (note, not SAM capabilties) equal to that of its neighbours, which by inference, would include Israel. Practically, that means a missile force equal to the combined capabilities its neighbours and the regional powers. Excluding Iran, extending as far West as Turkey, including the "Stans, including Pakistan, the number of regional ballistic and cruise missiles is about 4000. Prewar, Iran had about 3000 ballistic missiles, so on the face of it, Iran can restore its pre-war capacity, and the Americans are likely to be fairly relaxed with even a 25% increase

But its not all gravy for Iran. As part of that granting of capabilities, Iran would need to concede no missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload, range limited to 2000kms, and no transfers of precision weapons to non-state actors.

One of the weakest areas of the MOU is about the support to proxy groups. There should have been more work here. Naturally, a better agreement would (4) include no transfers of precision weapons to Hezbollah and the Houties. You could also ask for a complete halt to arms deliveries, but I think Iran would resist that one, so instead, push for limited arms transfers, with a mechanism for verification. At the same time, the US will need to expend considerable resources making sure the Baghdad and Beirut governments as the monopolies of force.

The carrot is sanctions relief (5). The current MOU offers far too many concessions to Iran on sanctions relief. Its giving away, far too early, oil waivers, asset releases and even a large reconstruction package.

Instead, release a limited amount of frozen assets for humanitarian purchases, AND issue a six-month oil export waiver capped at a specified volume. Monitoring oil exports is very easy, you don't even need to board ships to know how much is aboard, because you can analyse how the ship sits with respect to its waterline.

When, and only when, the IAEA releases its certification with respect to the Additional Protocol (fairly standard, Additional protocol for verification of nuclear safeguards), then suspend the secondary sanctions. Then over a 2 year period, subject to verification, walk back remaining sanctions. Include a 30 day snapback if there are infractions, something which is not in the current MOU.

The US would provide security assurances about not seeking regime change, not attacking, putting in mechanisms to avoid incidents at sea. The US to support Iranian reintegration into global financial institutions

As part of this agreement, you establish Permanent freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and no transit fees or discriminatory restrictions.

Now Iran might not accept this, but you need to move their motives to agreeing to an agreement, not because of the alternative is getting killed, but because its worth their while.

So what might be worth their while is money, or rather, another revenue stream. I'd bush off the idea of an International Straits Authority, and think of the Montreux Convention where Turkey regulates what goes through the Straits of the Bosphorus. The actual enforcement is by the Turkish Department of Transport. Turkey has a right to levy transit fees, as laid out in the Convention, with a formula applied to ensure the costs update with inflation (its a fee based on ship tonnage). Its called a Transit fee and is supposed to cover sanitary controls, lighthouses, and life-saving operation. The convention also gives Turkey a complete monopoly on pilotage and towing services, which must always be offered to transiting vessels, though they are not obligated to take them.

This would be my joker card, but it will also help with the actual intention all along for Iran to start acting like a normal country. Give control of collection of the fees to an international authority, who disburses, minus admin fees, to both Iran and Oman, allowing for acknowledgement by the rest of the world of the generosity of the Omani and Iranian people for allowing such a volume of shipping to pass through their waters for the betterment of the wider world; symbolic I know.

I would see if the money collected could be put towards port development projects in Iran, particularly major container facilities. Currently mega container ships with cargo for East Africa unload in the UAE, which basically has a monopoly, the cargo split down and reloaded onto smaller ships, for continued transit to East Africa which lacks large port facilities. There is a huge humanitarian angle there; currently East Africa is seeing healthcare supply shortages, because its all stuck in Dubai. But also trade, and potentially trade to the advantage of one of the US's strategic goals.

Iran makes a lot of money from oil. But unlike the Arab states, which are little more than desert and resorts for the mega wealthy, Iran has a diverse economy. It has a rich agricultural sector (self sufficient in food). It has a decent car industry. One of the reasons the British first involved themselves in Iran wasn't oil, but tobacco. Its highly likely if you ate pistachios, some of them would have come from Iran. Improved port facilities would drive more trade between Iran and India, and all the Indian Ocean States, a useful trading counterweight to China, who is intent on developing Karachi to be the port rail head of exports to Africa, where they hope to dominate. Competition is always good, and the Iranian people are a mercantile people.

Game theory means you want Iran to want this, that they want to be making money, and, if along the way, they become a regional power, but one that is not based on the boorish Arab-Israeli fracas, I don't mind.

Palmerston summed it up: We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Iran and US one day allies? Maybe not, but one day, respectful relations. If Vietnam can get over Agent Orange and Carpet Bombing by Nixon, I'm sure the US an get over the Iran Embassy Hostage Crisis (which is really where all the enmity comes from).

As for "tolls" or "freedom of passage". Freedom of Passage doesn't mean passage for free. There can be costs, but in any case, treaties aren't forever. They get renegotiated, torn up. Take GATT, which is basically dead. The era, for the moment, of free trade is over, and the US won't be the last country to use tariffs as part of fiscal (revenue raising ) policy.

Freedom of Passage comes from an early 80s treaty, UNCLOS. The US might have signed it, but never ratified it, citing that they were unhappy about the concessions the US made about their own territorial waters. Its a different maritime world in 2026 from 1982. Climate change is a reality, and the Northwest Passage will soon be navigable. That's why the US was prepared to hack off its Allies over Greenland; it was never about mining. If the US wants that, then they can just buy the mining licences. There is no way the US will be happy with Chinese ships transiting through US waters to make money from Europe. I expect lots more imaginative mechanisms to make transit fees a normal thing.

Freedom of Passage is not as cast in stone as some might think.

The irony is that Obama had a better deal with Iran in 2013, than the actual 'deal' Trump and co. are announcing today, after scrapping the original one in his first term.

After spending billions and billions of American's tax money on a total unnecessary war, what did he actually gain? Close to nothing.

On the contrary, Iran has shown that they won't budge to any power or country in the world even at war, and that they can hold the world hostage at any time by closing the Hormuz strait.

No regime change has happened, the current regime is standing stronger than ever, and the Iranian people are more united than before, after Trump's countless threats and crazy rants.

And no, their military ain't obliterated either.

Edited June 18Jun 18 by thaibreaker

3 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

The irony is that Obama had a better deal with Iran in 2013, than the actual 'deal' Trump and co. are announcing today, after scrapping the original one in his first term.

After spending billions and billions of American's tax money on a total unnecessary war, what did he actually gain? Close to nothing.

On the contrary, Iran has shown that they won't budge to any power or country in the world, and that they can hold the world hostage any time by closing the Hormuz strait.

No regime change, the current regime is standing stronger than ever, and the Iranian people are more united than before, after Trump's countless threats and crazy tweets.

And no, their military ain't obliterated.

Hence you make it in their interest ($$$) by keeping the straits open.

And it gets worse.

China got a front row seat to the display of Trump’s utter failure.

The U.S. cannot sustain its military operations for more than a couple of months, and that’s without having lost any major assets in battle.

The American Century is dead.

Everything Trump touches dies.

Comp[ain. bitch, moan..whatever. He's still there and there's a line of people behind him waiting to eat whatever falls out of his behind.

His name...as he wants...will be spoken everyday until the end of time. WTF

1 hour ago, thaibreaker said:

This is exactly like something Trump would have written himself..

What the heck is wrong with you MAGA folks? All you can do is spew up garbage and hate like this. Are you all 12 years old?

I would have been utterly ashamed of myself. You show all signs of belonging to a cult. Just sayin'.

you lost too i see. hahaha

next, cuba

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Only totally brainwashed cult members could buy the big lie that this was a win for Trump and that the entire war of choice wasn't a massive mistake.

war of choice. got it. bet you are unhappy that israel won too

Edited June 19Jun 19 by Yagoda

5 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

I'll give it a go. I doubt the responses will be all that respectful, but hey ho.

The main elements of a better deal would deal with:

1. Restrictions on an Iranian domestic nuclear capability

2. Establishment of a regional enrichment programme.

3. Iran's missile programme

4. Iran's interactions with proxy groups

5. Sanctions Relief.

For (1), Cap enrichment permanently at 3.67%, export or blend down all uranium enriched above 5% within 90 days. Set up challenge inspections at undeclared sites within a fixed period, say, 14 days rather than going through what is likely months of negotiation. Obviously freeze installation of advanced centrifuges and dismantle excess cascades into monitored storage. Convert the underground facility at Fordow into an internationally supervised isotope production and research centre.

To have a chance for Iran to do any of that (and the negotiations indicated that Iran wouldn't rule any of this out), the United States would need to explicitly recognise Iran's right to a peaceful civilian nuclear programme. AND accept low-level enrichment inside Iran, avoiding Tehran's principal red line of "zero enrichment",

To make (1) possible, the innovative step would have been step (2); to propose a regional enrichment consortium with other Gulf states. Iran could retain a symbolic enrichment capability, perhaps producing only a small proportion of its fuel requirements, while most fuel production would occur under multinational control and continuous monitoring. This idea had already appeared in earlier discussions and seems more acceptable to the Iranians than complete dismantlement.

Moving to point (3), the missile programme. The President has already indicated he's quite OK with Iran having a ballistic missile force (note, not SAM capabilties) equal to that of its neighbours, which by inference, would include Israel. Practically, that means a missile force equal to the combined capabilities its neighbours and the regional powers. Excluding Iran, extending as far West as Turkey, including the "Stans, including Pakistan, the number of regional ballistic and cruise missiles is about 4000. Prewar, Iran had about 3000 ballistic missiles, so on the face of it, Iran can restore its pre-war capacity, and the Americans are likely to be fairly relaxed with even a 25% increase

But its not all gravy for Iran. As part of that granting of capabilities, Iran would need to concede no missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload, range limited to 2000kms, and no transfers of precision weapons to non-state actors.

One of the weakest areas of the MOU is about the support to proxy groups. There should have been more work here. Naturally, a better agreement would (4) include no transfers of precision weapons to Hezbollah and the Houties. You could also ask for a complete halt to arms deliveries, but I think Iran would resist that one, so instead, push for limited arms transfers, with a mechanism for verification. At the same time, the US will need to expend considerable resources making sure the Baghdad and Beirut governments as the monopolies of force.

The carrot is sanctions relief (5). The current MOU offers far too many concessions to Iran on sanctions relief. Its giving away, far too early, oil waivers, asset releases and even a large reconstruction package.

Instead, release a limited amount of frozen assets for humanitarian purchases, AND issue a six-month oil export waiver capped at a specified volume. Monitoring oil exports is very easy, you don't even need to board ships to know how much is aboard, because you can analyse how the ship sits with respect to its waterline.

When, and only when, the IAEA releases its certification with respect to the Additional Protocol (fairly standard, Additional protocol for verification of nuclear safeguards), then suspend the secondary sanctions. Then over a 2 year period, subject to verification, walk back remaining sanctions. Include a 30 day snapback if there are infractions, something which is not in the current MOU.

The US would provide security assurances about not seeking regime change, not attacking, putting in mechanisms to avoid incidents at sea. The US to support Iranian reintegration into global financial institutions

As part of this agreement, you establish Permanent freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and no transit fees or discriminatory restrictions.

Now Iran might not accept this, but you need to move their motives to agreeing to an agreement, not because of the alternative is getting killed, but because its worth their while.

So what might be worth their while is money, or rather, another revenue stream. I'd bush off the idea of an International Straits Authority, and think of the Montreux Convention where Turkey regulates what goes through the Straits of the Bosphorus. The actual enforcement is by the Turkish Department of Transport. Turkey has a right to levy transit fees, as laid out in the Convention, with a formula applied to ensure the costs update with inflation (its a fee based on ship tonnage). Its called a Transit fee and is supposed to cover sanitary controls, lighthouses, and life-saving operation. The convention also gives Turkey a complete monopoly on pilotage and towing services, which must always be offered to transiting vessels, though they are not obligated to take them.

This would be my joker card, but it will also help with the actual intention all along for Iran to start acting like a normal country. Give control of collection of the fees to an international authority, who disburses, minus admin fees, to both Iran and Oman, allowing for acknowledgement by the rest of the world of the generosity of the Omani and Iranian people for allowing such a volume of shipping to pass through their waters for the betterment of the wider world; symbolic I know.

I would see if the money collected could be put towards port development projects in Iran, particularly major container facilities. Currently mega container ships with cargo for East Africa unload in the UAE, which basically has a monopoly, the cargo split down and reloaded onto smaller ships, for continued transit to East Africa which lacks large port facilities. There is a huge humanitarian angle there; currently East Africa is seeing healthcare supply shortages, because its all stuck in Dubai. But also trade, and potentially trade to the advantage of one of the US's strategic goals.

Iran makes a lot of money from oil. But unlike the Arab states, which are little more than desert and resorts for the mega wealthy, Iran has a diverse economy. It has a rich agricultural sector (self sufficient in food). It has a decent car industry. One of the reasons the British first involved themselves in Iran wasn't oil, but tobacco. Its highly likely if you ate pistachios, some of them would have come from Iran. Improved port facilities would drive more trade between Iran and India, and all the Indian Ocean States, a useful trading counterweight to China, who is intent on developing Karachi to be the port rail head of exports to Africa, where they hope to dominate. Competition is always good, and the Iranian people are a mercantile people.

Game theory means you want Iran to want this, that they want to be making money, and, if along the way, they become a regional power, but one that is not based on the boorish Arab-Israeli fracas, I don't mind.

Palmerston summed it up: We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Iran and US one day allies? Maybe not, but one day, respectful relations. If Vietnam can get over Agent Orange and Carpet Bombing by Nixon, I'm sure the US an get over the Iran Embassy Hostage Crisis (which is really where all the enmity comes from).

As for "tolls" or "freedom of passage". Freedom of Passage doesn't mean passage for free. There can be costs, but in any case, treaties aren't forever. They get renegotiated, torn up. Take GATT, which is basically dead. The era, for the moment, of free trade is over, and the US won't be the last country to use tariffs as part of fiscal (revenue raising ) policy.

Freedom of Passage comes from an early 80s treaty, UNCLOS. The US might have signed it, but never ratified it, citing that they were unhappy about the concessions the US made about their own territorial waters. Its a different maritime world in 2026 from 1982. Climate change is a reality, and the Northwest Passage will soon be navigable. That's why the US was prepared to hack off its Allies over Greenland; it was never about mining. If the US wants that, then they can just buy the mining licences. There is no way the US will be happy with Chinese ships transiting through US waters to make money from Europe. I expect lots more imaginative mechanisms to make transit fees a normal thing.

Freedom of Passage is not as cast in stone as some might think.

Thanks, that is a very reasonable response- rather rare around here!

I would say that the timing is also crucial. Trump wants to get a "win" before the midterms and get gas prices moving downwards before summer vacation. He can always go back and flatten Iran after November if needed.

If the long term result is that Iran's nuclear ambitions are thwarted for 15-20 years, that is a good result. As well as support for their terrorist proxies, but that remains to be seen. Also good to see the Gulf states all working together and realizing that Iran is a very real and direct threat to their prosperity. I think you will see a frantic round of building pipelines across the desert, anything to avoid the chockepoint of Hormuz. And countries diversifying their suppliers of petroleum products, even if it costs a bit more.

24 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Thanks, that is a very reasonable response- rather rare around here!

I would say that the timing is also crucial. Trump wants to get a "win" before the midterms and get gas prices moving downwards before summer vacation. He can always go back and flatten Iran after November if needed.

If the long term result is that Iran's nuclear ambitions are thwarted for 15-20 years, that is a good result. As well as support for their terrorist proxies, but that remains to be seen. Also good to see the Gulf states all working together and realizing that Iran is a very real and direct threat to their prosperity. I think you will see a frantic round of building pipelines across the desert, anything to avoid the chockepoint of Hormuz. And countries diversifying their suppliers of petroleum products, even if it costs a bit more.

What a typical Arrogant yank misinformed view

Technetium-99m which iran cannot buy due to sanctions is required for the well being of its people to make TCC99 The isotope itself is the decay product of Molybdenum-99 which is historically and currently produced by irradiating targets of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) in research nuclear reactors or Cyclotron Method By destroying its Cyclotrons you are denying medical treatment

Building of pipelines IS NOT the solution to chock points and that this another discussion just read up on it

Worse blunder?

Perhaps expense wise but the "raid " on

Grenada must come a close second !

Donald change your negotiation team to someone who has a full deck.

funny how people back and around Iran are reacting to Trump's and Iran deal, all the promises and nothing concrete but say for sure that any type of deal will fail

"Any deal with this regime will ultimately fail," he told ITV News. "It can never be trusted. It will continue to blackmail the world, brave, innocent Iranians, and spread terror and instability in the region and internationally."

'Full-scale hybrid war''....Any deal will ultimately fail'...

From regime change to regime deal? How Tehran's political camps are reacting to leaked US-Iran deal

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/top-stories/from-regime-change-to-regime-deal-how-tehran-s-political-camps-are-reacting-to-leaked-us-iran-deal/ar-AA25TgPl?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=6a33501b52b04c7b8a452a85678e7c3e&ei=119

9 hours ago, Yagoda said:

got it. you post iranian propaganda

You prefer the American kind? How about listening to all and then making a decision as to what is right. What about all the bluster and BS you have posted about winning, when everyone else was telling that he would have to give in before oil supply and related products dropped to critical levels? In addition, before the mid-terms and before their idiotic move drove the whole world into a depression?

I don't need to ask who is screeching now, as you were the one screeching then. Once a screecher, always a screecher.

4 hours ago, FigLeaf said:

You prefer the American kind?

depends on where it comes from.

4 hours ago, FigLeaf said:

What about all the bluster and BS you have posted about winning,

so you say iran won, right?

4 hours ago, FigLeaf said:

In addition, before the mid-terms and before their idiotic move drove the whole world into a depression?

which countries are in a "depression"?

keep screeching 55555555555 this topic is hysterical

43 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

so you say iran won, right?

Are you discussing that with yourself?

45 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

which countries are in a "depression"?

Trump, while saying the deal was “very strong,” appeared to concede that he signed it in order to prevent “economic catastrophe”

Not my words. But your 'winner'.

46 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

keep screeching 55555555555 this topic is hysterical

Your words...screeching hysterically. Calm down, it will all be okay.

Name a single commentator of your choice that disagrees with Iran having prevailed. Tell me about the concessions they have made in comparison to the bluster of Trump and Netanyahu. Try to communicate your argument calmly, without screeching nonsensically.

Show your sources that suggest the the USA won. Screeching, crapping on the board and strutting around pretending that you won doesn't count.

A compelling argument if you please. I'm okay with Israeli or US sources. At your leisure...

Edited June 19Jun 19 by FigLeaf

1 minute ago, FigLeaf said:

Are you discussing that with yourself

are you saying that iran won? dont want to answer lol

2 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

Not my words. But your 'winner'.

so you lied whe you said the world was in a depression? got it.

3 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

Name a single commentator of your choice that disagrees with Iran having prevailed.

wow. groupthink huh

3 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

Show your sources that suggest the the USA won.

ok. immutable facts. iran is broke. irans economy is a shambles. iran is totally at our mercy should we decide to wipe them out. iran is unable to menace its neighbors.

you cant show otherwise.

11 hours ago, Yagoda said:

you lost too i see. hahaha

next, cuba

I can't figure out whether you are just a troll or stupid but have reluctantly had to come to the conclusion you may well be both.

2 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I can't figure out whether you are just a troll or stupid but have reluctantly had to come to the conclusion you may well be both.

got it, you support the cuban regime. carry on, bet you support blm too

8 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

are you saying that iran won? dont want to answer lol

I'm not that simple minded. I'm saying that Trump did not win and he had to surrender to avoid 'economic catastrophe'. Iran suffered from the attack, but could hit Israel and surrounding countries at will and still can.

10 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

so you lied whe you said the world was in a depression? got it.

No, you are lying by suggesting that I did write that. Though I'm happy to make allowances for your apparently severely limited ability to understand simple sentences or to even construct them.

13 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

wow. groupthink huh

No, that is why I suggested a single commentator that agrees with your assessment. Since you appear to be deranged and screeching hysterically, I'd like a link to a respected voice.

15 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

ok. immutable facts. iran is broke. irans economy is a shambles. iran is totally at our mercy should we decide to wipe them out. iran is unable to menace its neighbors.

They seem to be able to hit the American bases and Israel at will. So your 'facts' are hardly immutable. Try harder, but without screeching. At your leisure...

Edited June 19Jun 19 by FigLeaf

2 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

I'm not that simple minded. I'm saying that Trump did not win and he had to surrender to avoid 'economic catastrophe'. Iran suffered from the attack, but could hit Israel and surrounding countries at will and still can.

well clearly you are. so you consider the fact that iran still retains the potential to lob a few missles 'victory'? when was the last one to hit the ground in the little satan

4 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

No, you are lying by suggesting that I did write that

better read what you wrote. so you agree we are not in a worldwide depression? check the price of oil today?

6 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

No, that why a suggested a single commentator that agrees with your assessment. Since you appear to be derange and screech hysterically, I'd like a link to a respected voice

the us government. eurotrash may not trust it but lots of us do

7 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

They seem to be able to hit the American bases and Israel at will.

examples? so blowing up a jeep and killing a few jewish grannies is a victory. well to your lot dead jews are, but regardless, are you saying that trump will let them get away with it?

Some low value posts have been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

29 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

well clearly you are. so you consider the fact that iran still retains the potential to lob a few missles 'victory'? when was the last one to hit the ground in the little satan

Does your tiny brain allow you to comprehend asymmetric warfare?

30 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

better read what you wrote. so you agree we are not in a worldwide depression? check the price of oil today?

I can read. It's obvious that you cannot. Quote what I wrote , so that we can all laugh at your stupidity.

Price of oil futures today? Yeah...cos he surrendered and they are still higher than before they attacked Iran.

34 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

the us government. eurotrash may not trust it but lots of us do

Bwahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

34 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

examples? so blowing up a jeep and killing a few jewish grannies is a victory. well to your lot dead jews are, but regardless, are you saying that trump will let them get away with it?

American bases and equipment in the Gulf region. The ability to control the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb strait. Maybe if you weren't so drugged up all the time, I wouldn't need to explain this all to you.

You don't have to perpetrate indiscriminate mass killings in order to prevail.

You lost.

16 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Thanks, that is a very reasonable response- rather rare around here!

I would say that the timing is also crucial. Trump wants to get a "win" before the midterms and get gas prices moving downwards before summer vacation. He can always go back and flatten Iran after November if needed.

If the long term result is that Iran's nuclear ambitions are thwarted for 15-20 years, that is a good result. As well as support for their terrorist proxies, but that remains to be seen. Also good to see the Gulf states all working together and realizing that Iran is a very real and direct threat to their prosperity. I think you will see a frantic round of building pipelines across the desert, anything to avoid the chockepoint of Hormuz. And countries diversifying their suppliers of petroleum products, even if it costs a bit more.

Your assumption that the Gulf states can simply build pipelines and bypass the Strait of Hormuz overlooks a number of realities. Replacing Iranian leverage with dependence on Saudi transit infrastructure merely concentrates power in the hands of another authoritarian regime whose interests will not always align with those of its neighbours. Saudi Arabia has faced for a long time the same sort of opposition the Shah faced in 1978. The difference is the Islamic opposition in Iran was actually very sophisticated, having been exiled in France, and adopting a constitution based on the French constitution which itself was based on the US one. By contrast, the opposition in Saudi Arabia, blooded on the streets of Syria and Northern Iraq, very working class and unsophisticated, and who literally want to turn the clock back to the days of slavery.

The West desperately needs lower oil prices or a complete pivot away from oil. The Saudi government only exists because of oil. Like the Gulf Monarchies, it exists not through wise governance, but through bribery. Bribery of the population gives them non-jobs, free houses, wedding money etc. When the oil price falls, like in 2016, the Saudis are all over the place. Yes, Saudi Arabia seems to weather the storms because of their foreign reserves. Provided they can actually access them.

Moreover, Gulf exports routed westward remain dependent upon two alternative choke points: the Suez Canal, whose capacity is substantially lower than the volume that can transit Hormuz and which has been blocked before, and the Bab al-Mandab, whose security ultimately depends upon Yemen and Somalia, two states with long histories of instability.

Pipelines can't solve every problem. Qatar's globally important exports of helium and urea require shipping, as do refined petroleum products such as aviation fuel, while the Gulf itself depends heavily upon maritime imports of food, manufactured goods and industrial inputs because of its limited agricultural productivity.

Supplying the GCC states by fleets of refrigerated trucks (what they are doing now) crossing the Saudi desert would be environmentally, economically and logistically difficult to sustain on the scale required. Plus, in the era of suicide and ambush drones, even more prone to interdiction.

A more durable approach may be to recognise that Iran is not a transient problem to be managed until the next American administration, but a large, populous and historically significant regional power that will remain in the Gulf long after outside powers have reduced their presence.

Iran will always be the more populous, the most sophisticated power in the Gulf, compared the the Arab camel herders. The Arabs will need to learn where the true power in the region lies, and, ultimately, will have to kiss the ring.

The Gulf monarchies and Iran ultimately inhabit the same space and have a shared interest in stability, trade and economic diversification. As the world moves gradually towards lower hydrocarbon consumption, the assumption that oil and gas exports will forever provide effortless prosperity is rather optimistic.

Rather than organising regional policy around the premise of permanently containing Iran, there is a strong argument for encouraging an accommodation that accepts Iran's natural pre-eminence while binding it into a cooperative regional framework that reduces incentives for confrontation and prepares all Gulf states for a post-oil future.

On 6/18/2026 at 12:20 PM, thaibreaker said:

Hope you Americans now wake up and vote for a sane and uniting president next time, not endless babbles of lies, hate, deception and corruption.

Sadly, no upstanding qualified folks of merit run for office anymore. Can't really blame them. Thus, we're stuck with the Kamala Harris's of the world to run against lying megalomaniacs that can easily entice a sadly increasing number of non thinking Americans.

You know where he had that thumb, right? Up.

and the controversies keep mounting as what Trump says about the deal and what Iran says about the deal appears that both are talking about 2 different things

"It's an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That's existing international law," Rubio said.

US top diplomat Rubio said Washington will not accept tolls on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. But Iran has said they want to charge "maritime service fees."

Also on Tuesday, Iran and Oman said they would explore how navigation in the Strait of Hormuz should be "administered," including related services and charges.

Rubio's comments come after Iran's chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Tuesday told Iranian state media that "everyone should know that the administration of the Strait of Hormuz will never go back to the way it was before the war."

US, Iran give conflicting claims over Hormuz fees

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/us-iran-give-conflicting-claims-over-hormuz-fees/ar-AA26kgfu?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=6a3b3745f09a448c96cc5781cd61dfc8&ei=41

and again another version of the deal, this is how Iran (the dealer) is playing the cards, the Trump version that we all expected embellished to make him look like a winner

Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level nuclear inspections long into the future (infinity!!!)," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Tuesday.

"This will ensure 'nuclear honesty,'” Trump added. "If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations."

IRAN sees it completely different

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei contradicted US Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday by stating that no visits have been scheduled for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to examine Iranian nuclear sites bombed by the US last June.

“Iran has no plans to allow IAEA inspectors to enter nuclear sites that were damaged during the war,” Baghaei said, adding that Iran made "no new commitments" on nuclear materials, a crucial long-term demand by Washington.

Iran has rejected having any plans of creating nuclear weapons, while insisting it has a right to maintain its stockpile of radioactive materials.

Iran sharply contradicts the US, pushing its own view of framework deal

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/top-stories/iran-sharply-contradicts-the-us-pushing-its-own-view-of-framework-deal/ar-AA26lLBu?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=6a3b3745f09a448c96cc5781cd61dfc8&ei=84