Iran

#22,127
#22,127
Shrimp&Grits&Vols said:
Iran debacle going so bad they decide to throw FLOTUS on TV to deflect back to Epstein. If you still support this man, stand in front of of a mirror and slap yourself 3 times. In the junk.
Click to expand...
Iran: Distraction for Epstein!

At the same time as

Epstein: Distraction for Iran!

Seriously. Are you that lost? I’d invite you to slap yourself in the junk as well, but I doubt you can find it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, SpaceCoastVol, rikberry31 and 2 others
#22,130
#22,130
Ritzwatch said:
We obliterated the Iranian people. No, wait we didn’t. Iran opened the Strait, except they didn’t. Israel and the US are perfectly aligned on goals for a potential peace plan, except for the areas where they are not. Lebanon and Iran are now the same country, I think.

@MAD hasn’t been seen since his expression of disgust on Sunday, and regardless of whether I agree or disagree with him on issues in the politics thread (and there have been both), I miss the ole’ guy, especially in the baseball forum.
Click to expand...
He’ll be back as soon as Arsenal clinches. Hopefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Persian Vol and Ritzwatch
#22,132
#22,132
Ritzwatch said:
We obliterated the Iranian people. No, wait we didn’t. Iran opened the Strait, except they didn’t. Israel and the US are perfectly aligned on goals for a potential peace plan, except for the areas where they are not. Lebanon and Iran are now the same country, I think.

@MAD hasn’t been seen since his expression of disgust on Sunday, and regardless of whether I agree or disagree with him on issues in the politics thread (and there have been both), I miss the ole’ guy, especially in the baseball forum.
Click to expand...
His account is still active. If you click on a banned one it says it doesn’t exist or is unavailable or something like that. PJ isn’t gonna ban MAD just due to them going back and forth even if heated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, NashVol11, Persian Vol and 2 others
#22,134
#22,134
NorthDallas40 said:
His account is still active. If you click on a banned one it says it doesn’t exist or is unavailable or something like that. PJ isn’t gonna ban MAD just due to them going back and forth even if heated.
Click to expand...
Good to know. I didn’t know if I missed something that got nuked. Hope he takes the time he needs. I understand and appreciate Mad’s deep connection and conviction to the issues being discussed, if the discussion gets out of hand, I hope he would step away before it adversely affects him.

Then again, he may have just gone fishing. What do I know? 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, MemphisVol77, StarRaider and 3 others
#22,135
#22,135
rikberry31 said:
Have you been living under a rock? They have been the World's biggest terrorist menace since the 80's. Ever heard of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Al Qaeda (they are headquartered in Teran). How about the USS Cole. They killed and maimed thousands of our soldiers in Iraq. They have sponsored several plots to kill our President. And much, much more.
Other than that they are practically Eagle Scouts.
Click to expand...
The question remains, where did you get that supposed fact? Maybe they are and maybe they aren’t. They’ve got some competition. Where’s the data that says they’re #1?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#22,143
#22,143
volbound1700 said:
Actually the Soviets did just thst to East Germany and we nuked Japan... so... again human right violations galore by all groups. Look uo the fire bombings of Dresdan, Hamburg, and Tokyo as well. Hell, even the Civil War had Sherman burning down Atlanta. Wars are won with atrocities. That is why you have to be very careful about starting them in the first place.
Click to expand...
The reason Germany, Japan and the Confederacy surrendered is that they were defeated militarily. They didn't have enough soldiers, weapons or provisions to continue effective resistance. If you remember, several Confederate officers wanted to continue the war as a guerilla fight but Lee said no.
 
#22,146
#22,146
Orangeslice13 said:
That’s why we won’t. That doesn’t address why we can’t.
In fact at this point we need them more than they need us
Click to expand...

The nation has fought so many wars on Israel's behalf.. and for what exactly? Same strategic back room deal that promises to better American's lives?

When in fact Iran has been "2 weeks away" from nukes for the past 30 years. Israel's prime minister is laughing at the politicians here.

I understand being a strategic partner in the middle east. But their people have free healthcare. An excellent military (Until recently). All at the cost of American tax payers.
 
#22,147
#22,147
Ritzwatch said:
Respectfully, PV, (and I think you know that I mean that, you have always had to intelligent, thoughtful takes whether I shared your position or not). Does Pakistan announcing it mean it happened?

If one country announcing a resution to a dispute made it true, we’d be in a great position today, with all the proclamations our blow-hard in chief makes.

FTR, I stated at the outset of this that I thought Rubio’s take was legit: Israel was gonna attack, so we joined because we knew Iran would start lobbing missles at everyone, and that would endanger Americans in the region. So, we tried to get ahead of it.

That said, theee is no way anyone actually believes we agreed to the Iranian 10 point plan.

Enriched uranium? Nah.
US military withdrawal from the Middle East?Nah.
End of Sanctions? Nah.
Iranian control of Hormuz? Nah.

Only the unserious believe this stuff.
Click to expand...
AI does a pretty good job of detailing the nebulous ceasefire terms.

IMO, Trump grabbed onto Pakistan's proposal not because he necessarily agreed with any of Iran's terms, but rather he agreed to the ceasefire SOLELY to save face, as he had backed himself into a corner with his absurd threats of ending Iran's civilization altogether.

What this means in practical terms is that the ceasefire is most likely going to fail all other factors held equal. So my expectation is that the bullets will start flying again sooner than later.

Alternatively, Trump just walks away and declares victory where none actually exists.

But that alternative is tricky now isn't it given that Iran has closed the strait, still retains its nuclear program, and apparently has an even more die-hard leader in place.

###

Here’s a clear breakdown of how Iran’s reported 10-point proposal compares with what Donald Trump actually included in the ceasefire announcement:

🇮🇷 Iran’s reported 10-point proposal (simplified)​

While the full text hasn’t been officially published, reporting consistently points to these core demands:

1. Full sanctions relief​

  • Immediate lifting of U.S. economic sanctions
  • Access to frozen Iranian assets

2. U.S. military drawdown​

  • Reduction or removal of U.S. forces from the region

3. Security guarantees​

  • No future U.S. or allied attacks on Iran

4. Nuclear recognition​

  • Acceptance of Iran’s right to civilian nuclear enrichment

5. Regional de-escalation framework​

  • Limits on proxy conflicts (Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon)

6. Strait of Hormuz security​

  • Iran retains a major role in controlling or policing the waterway

7. Prisoner exchanges​

  • Mutual release of detainees

8. Unfreezing financial channels​

  • Banking access via international systems

9. Energy export guarantees​

  • Ability to sell oil freely on global markets

10. Phased implementation timeline​

  • Step-by-step verification rather than immediate compliance

🇺🇸 What Trump’s ceasefire announcement actually included​

The ceasefire described by Donald Trump was much narrower and more immediate:

✔️ Included (short-term, tactical)​

  • Immediate halt to hostilities
  • De-escalation commitments (at least temporarily)
  • Signals toward future negotiations
  • General openness to diplomacy

❌ Not included (major gaps)​

  • No confirmed sanctions relief
  • No troop withdrawal commitments
  • No recognition of nuclear rights
  • No formal Strait of Hormuz arrangement
  • No detailed regional proxy agreements

⚖️ Key differences (why this matters)​

1. Ceasefire vs. comprehensive deal​

  • Iran’s plan = long-term political settlement
  • Trump’s announcement = short-term pause in fighting

2. Economic vs. military focus​

  • Iran prioritized sanctions and economy
  • The U.S. focused on stopping immediate conflict

3. Level of commitment​

  • Iran proposed structured, multi-step obligations
  • The ceasefire is loosely defined and reversible

🧠 The real takeaway​

Trump’s reference to the plan was essentially:

“We see it, we might use parts of it later.”
Click to expand...
But:

  • The ceasefire is not built on the 10-point plan
  • It’s more like a holding pattern while negotiations might happen
If you want, I can map which of those 10 points are most likely to be negotiated first (and which ones are basically non-starters).
 
#22,148
#22,148
Orangeslice13 said:
We are not willing to hit infrastructure. We’re not winning a war unless we do. Since we’re not willing to do what is required to win, then we probably shouldn’t have started it
Click to expand...
This is the reason I think the US should logistically support Israel and let them go in and do the dirty work. IMO they’re more likely to do what needs to be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Vol since 77 and StarRaider
#22,149
#22,149
Persian Vol said:
I don’t disagree with the notion that the Iranian regime must be eliminated, but I don’t think people have a realistic expectation of what that entails. We can’t bomb our way out of this. And they will do anything in their capacity to prevent that, even if that means setting other countries in the Middle East on fire with them.

If Americans want to rid ourselves of an Iranian threat I simply do not see a way to do so other than two options.

1) A full scale ground invasion with aims of regime change, that would make the Iraq war look like child’s play economically and in terms of causalities.

2) Counter intuitively we tell Israel to kick rocks, relieve sanctions, and pull out of the Middle East altogether, lowering all incentive for Iran to be hostile. The likelihood of nuclear war in this scenario is non zero, but no more than with China or Russia currently.
Click to expand...
How much if at all do you think US and other countries' antagonism toward the regime helps or hurts a) their ability to maintain power and b) political opposition to the regime?
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top