Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

(Lack of) US Iran Peace Agreement Part 5

295 replies

OnePeppyFatball · 14/09/2026 10:37

Part 5

OP posts:
Thread gallery
36
trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 18:11

Last bit on the subject - Physics did develop from Natural Philosophy (my very old uni est. in the 15th century - has a Natural Philosophy (ie Physics) building) when philosophers turned their minds to empirical investigations.
Newton did call his major work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

grokipedia.com/page/the_evolution_of_physics

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 17:57

That article was more than interesting. It was grim reading and made me despair of what Trump, his family, and his hangers on have done to the international reputation of the US. No wonder US tourists in Europe are pretending to be Canadian.

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 13:54

Read this in Foreign Policy, which I thought was interesting:

“Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly called Trump twice after the pipeline hit, asking the United States to bomb the Houthis to slow their advancement. The White House declined, and when asked about Yemen at a press conference, the U.S. president said this: “The Houthis called us. They don’t want to fight with us. They let us know they don’t want to fight with us. They don’t want us to go after them. They would much prefer not having us involved, and they are letting most ships go through. There’s just one country they’re not too happy with.”
That may be Trumpian fantasy or an actual conversation where he chose to take the Houthis at their word. Either is terrible for Riyadh.
This must be frustrating for the Saudis because they’ve been paying Trump off for years, along with his son-in-law and international envoy Jared Kushner. The U.S.-Saudi relationship has always been transactional—but at the national level of security and oil, not personalist like this.”
“The Saudis appeared to welcome U.S. democratic backsliding and corruption, using their money to take advantage. After Trump won the presidency in 2016, they started spending a lot at his hotels. Trump made Saudi Arabia his first foreign destination as president, and they showered him with opulent flattery.
At first, it looked like a successful investment. On that trip, Trump signed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $110 billion. When Mohammed bin Salman consolidated power in 2018, Kushner likely provided U.S. intelligence against Saudi family rivals to help, and the crown prince reportedly bragged that Kushner was “in his pocket.” Later that year, Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal—to Saudi approval—and publicly dismissed a CIA assessment that Mohammed bin Salman had ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
After Trump’s first term, Saudi Arabia doubled down. The Saudi-backed LIV Golf league paid Trump-owned courses to host tournaments. State-connected Saudi companies made real estate deals with the Trump Organization, paying him millions of dollars in licensing fees, with the promise of more.”
“Most blatantly, the Saudi government gave $2 billion to Kushner’s new investment firm. Saudi sovereign wealth fund managers objected, a due diligence report found Kushner’s company “unsatisfactory in all aspects,” and the deal included unusually high fees, with Kushner and Co. pocketing $25 million of Saudi money every year regardless of fund performance. Mohammed bin Salman went through with it anyway.
With Trump president again and Kushner leading U.S. diplomacy on Gaza, it looked as if that money had been well spent. Then Trump attacked Iran.
Riyadh tried to publicly stay out of the conflict while privately urging Trump to go for regime change and then, as it became clear that wasn’t happening, backed a cease-fire and negotiations. When the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding fell apart this summer and Trump tried bombing Iran again, Iran activated allied militias in Yemen and Iraq, which they were apparently restraining earlier in the war, and those groups have attacked Saudi Arabia from multiple angles.”
“From the Saudi perspective: Trump caused attacks on their country and restrictions on their shipping by launching a war of choice, then wimped out on the actions that might win it—a ground invasion and real regime change—tried diplomacy instead, failed, and got Saudi Arabia attacked more.
Under assault by forces they can’t sufficiently counter on their own, the Saudis really need the United States, except their decades-long security patron can’t solve the problem. Saudi forces are bombing Yemen, responding to Houthi attacks. But they bombed Yemen and backed the local government for years in Yemen’s civil war without defeating the Houthis. Saudi Arabia has a large military budget but structurally weak armed forces with a record of poor performance, which both encourages and is partially due to its dependence on the United States.
Trump’s first response to the Houthi advance was a familiar one: pretending it’s not a problem and demanding everyone else pretend, too. That has been his main strategy for the Iran war since the original U.S.-Israeli assault failed to achieve regime change or “unconditional surrender” as he first demanded.”
“Trump has a clear way of war: big threats and grandiose declared aims, a casualty-averse aerial campaign, and then backing down and lying if the bluster and bombing don’t succeed. It’s failing against Iran, but it already failed against the Houthis.
In 2025, the Houthis were shooting at Red Sea shipping, claiming solidarity with Palestinians against Israel’s war in Gaza. That March, Trump launched airstrikes into Yemen, with U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth vowing an “unrelenting” effort to restore freedom of navigation.
The United States tried an air-only campaign. A month and a half later, after burning through about $1 billion worth of munitions and losing a couple fighter jets while destroying some targets but failing to stop Houthi fire—and, in a display of Trump administration incompetence, accidentally leaking war plans via Signal—the United States quit, claiming that it was a great success.
That leaves Saudi Arabia in a tough position. Shipping lanes and pipelines are much easier to attack than reliably protect. The Saudis are trying to compensate with more tanker-to-tanker transfers off the coast of Oman, but there’s no way that can cover all the lost volume.”
“The one real positive return on Saudi Arabia’s Trump-Kushner investment this term is a nuclear deal that would facilitate Saudi uranium enrichment without the most intrusive international inspections. No previous U.S. president would do that, due to proliferation risks and it undermining the argument for stopping Iran’s uranium enrichment. But this U.S. president, the only one to get Saudi money deposited into his personal accounts, did. The White House recently submitted the deal to Congress, where Trump’s Republican Party controls both houses and has mostly acted as a rubber stamp.
But still, the Saudis might not get the nuclear benefits. Trying to parry criticism of weakness and corruption, Trump said the deal depends on recognizing Israel, and Saudi Arabia isn’t going to do that, at least not without a Palestinian state, which Israel won’t allow.
And even if it goes through, Democrats could reverse the deal whenever they next get power, not only due to the international security concerns but also because Trump’s private associates stand to corruptly profit. A poorer Saudi Arabia also means less money for lobbying in Washington to stop this.”
“It looks as if the Saudis believed that a corrupt U.S. government was in their interest, that they could get competence and relative stability without any of that pesky integrity, ethics, law, or human rights. But in reality, bribable usually means selfish and weak.
Bribable leaders are inherently irresponsible. Personalist and corrupt leaders, such as Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein, and Mobutu Sese Seko—or more recently, Viktor Orban—have a terrible record when it comes to national interests, whether their country’s or others’. We haven’t seen anything like this at the center of the world’s dominant military power before, at least in the modern era, but the U.S. descent into personalism has proved no less disastrous. A bribed leader might tell you what you want to hear, but that doesn’t mean they can deliver.
Corrupt leaders are good at breaking things, especially laws and norms, but bad at just about everything else. Saudi Arabia wrongly believed that Trump’s destruction could be limited to the United States itself and that a buyable Washington could keep serving it well.”

Excerpt From
“Saudi Arabia Bribed the Wrong People”
Nicholas Grossman
Foreign Policy
https://apple.news/AVwNRZkfIRZKkvUUgL5z4UQ
This material may be protected by copyright.

They Went to Jared — Mother Jones

How Donald Trump’s son-in-law used his position to hop in bed with autocrats—and sell out America.

https://apple.news/Ampr4T4I8S_u2YDqKDpBmAA

OP posts:
Squeezingwildoranges · 25/09/2026 13:45

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 09:56

Quote " The Lebanese would love Hezbollah to go, but they won’t."

That is an interesting statement to me. We see it all over, or variations of. It has an implication that Hezbollah are somehow foreign and should somehow be ejected. Send back home.

But that is not the case really, is it ? It is a loaded phrase in many ways, because a large number of them, if not most, are Lebanese Shiites. So go where ?

I think phrases like that can lead people to think they are all Iranian soldiers. And that follows onto "destroy Iran, and Hezbollah will vanish". But that is not how it works. It's their cause that need to be tackled. Or at least talked about, and deals made.

I am not posting to argue. I just think it is an interesting point to consider how such phrases work.

"Hezbollah ("Party of God," also spelled Hizballah) is an Iran-backed Lebanese Shia militia."
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10703

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 13:42

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 11:33

you would have to define what you mean by ‘accept’.
In this context, can it have any meaning other than to believe that something is true?

But, if I play your game
Sorry, not my 'game'. In Philosophy, a method for determining whether a person has a genuine belief. So close adjacent to phrases such as 'walk the talk', and 'actions speak louder than words'.

@RedTagAlan Useless fun fact. Physics (which I assume you studied) evolved from Natural Philosopy.😀

I could be well off the mark here, but I think that if whoever on the US side agreed on the wording of the recent MOU had studied Philosophy things could well be different now. Without any evidence whatsoever, I suspect that the Iranian side had the intellectual edge. 🤔

Agree with you partially re the MOU. Partially because, as an Engineer ( You were spot on with that), I would say the scientific method, if applied would give Iran an edge over the US, who appear to be using the "Sycophantic" system.

And yes. Of course philosophy came before the scientific method. But that does not mean the latter evolved from the former. And I might be totally wrong here, not having studied philosophy, but we did spend thousands of years sitting in select groups wearing robes, discussing "what is the meaning of life, the world and everything", until some 18th century fella in a boiler suit figured out that boiling water in a closed container and adding bits of linkages, could be used to pump water out on mines.

I oversimplify of course. Light hearted post.

But what happened with engineering and the scientific method, is it exploded. Suddenly near anyone ( with a blacksmiths shop) could invent and improve. And it all happened so fast that it is near impossible to put it into chronological order.

I liken it to a dandelion. There we were, on the stalk of the plant growing taller as time passed, and boom, it flowers. And such a mass of seeds are scattered that one can't follow where they land.

I know I missed out Newton. And he fits firmly into my model. But I think that is maybe beyond the scope of this thread.

On Iran though. Communism tends to take it leaders from Engineers. And although Iran is a Theocratic militaristic state, I wonder if they do the same for their "civilian" leaders.

That is an interesting thought. And might be worth looking at a few bios to explore ?

:-)

Twiglets1 · 25/09/2026 13:24

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 12:17

Meanwhile injuring 4,000 civilians. 12 dead civilians for 28 Hezbollah.

Maybe not so clever.

Hezbollah terrorists aren’t civilians so no reason to include them in the count of dead or injured civilians.

Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 12:24

‘More than 3,000 members of the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon were seriously wounded’

Source: NDTV

If you accept Hezbollah and Israel were at war, the pagers had an incredibly good civilian/combatant ratio in terms of both deaths and injuries.

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 12:17

Meanwhile injuring 4,000 civilians. 12 dead civilians for 28 Hezbollah.

Maybe not so clever.

OP posts:
Twiglets1 · 25/09/2026 12:08

Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 07:36

@OnePeppyFatball ,

‘Well the realia he used this time was holding up a pager. Some of which killed children in Lebanon. And people laughed’

The pagers were really clever and held by members of a terrorist organisation. They were an incredibly efficient way to attack the enemy with minimum civilian casualties.

Far better than massive ordnance from the air.

You’re brave to say that on this board but I agree.

They were very clever and targeted terrorists.

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 11:33

you would have to define what you mean by ‘accept’.
In this context, can it have any meaning other than to believe that something is true?

But, if I play your game
Sorry, not my 'game'. In Philosophy, a method for determining whether a person has a genuine belief. So close adjacent to phrases such as 'walk the talk', and 'actions speak louder than words'.

@RedTagAlan Useless fun fact. Physics (which I assume you studied) evolved from Natural Philosopy.😀

I could be well off the mark here, but I think that if whoever on the US side agreed on the wording of the recent MOU had studied Philosophy things could well be different now. Without any evidence whatsoever, I suspect that the Iranian side had the intellectual edge. 🤔

Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 10:43

@trumpredcard ,

‘Agreeing with the 'pragmatic view' ipso facto means that you agree with your own and innocent family members' lives ending is acceptable colateral damage.’

Not really, and you would have to define what you mean by ‘accept’.

But, if I play your game and assume that London has been take over by an Iranian proxy, who are lobbing missiles out of Kensington Gardens, targeting New York, and we have let our military and police get so run down that they can’t get this group out (maybe not so far fetched), then I know America will be attacking London soon, targeting the Iranian proxy.

And then, if I had the choice of pagers going off in London and a tiny chance of me and my family dying, or being targeted by cruise missiles and bombs and a larger chance of losing my family, I choose the former.

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 10:42

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 10:01

@RedTagAlan Time to investigate Wittgenstein and the philosophy of language?

I am not keen on philosophy. First up, I am not really smart enough to understand it. And second, it's a bit like that scene in Hitch hikers. Where they have just built deep thought and the philosophers are complaining they will be made redundant.

Philosophy just seems a bit pointless to me in so many ways. But I do sometimes ponder if I just think that because I am not able to understand it.

But how propaganda works. I do understand that. Sort of. But then again, that might be the Dunning-Kruger thing at work.

:-)

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 10:01

@RedTagAlan Time to investigate Wittgenstein and the philosophy of language?

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 09:56

Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 08:35

@OnePeppyFatball ,

‘And injured a hell of a lot of people. Yet another example of disproportionate killing of innocents to get a few.’

As I said, I don’t think international law deals well with terrorist or narcotic organisations that are parasitic on weaker states.

The Lebanese would love Hezbollah to go, but they won’t.

I don’t think (please correct me if I am wrong) that the civilian casualties and deaths were even close to the Hezbollah casualties and deaths, so they were very proportionate.

Without the pager attacks, there would have been far more large blind ordnance from the air falling on Beirut and killing and maiming far more civilians.

Quote " The Lebanese would love Hezbollah to go, but they won’t."

That is an interesting statement to me. We see it all over, or variations of. It has an implication that Hezbollah are somehow foreign and should somehow be ejected. Send back home.

But that is not the case really, is it ? It is a loaded phrase in many ways, because a large number of them, if not most, are Lebanese Shiites. So go where ?

I think phrases like that can lead people to think they are all Iranian soldiers. And that follows onto "destroy Iran, and Hezbollah will vanish". But that is not how it works. It's their cause that need to be tackled. Or at least talked about, and deals made.

I am not posting to argue. I just think it is an interesting point to consider how such phrases work.

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 09:54

Not sure what I am trying to say really. Just that it is a powerful phrase.

It's powerful because on the surface it sounds reasonable. Choosing when, where and how to apply it however...

eta
eg Is this a reason enough for unaliving Trump, Vance, Rubio etc and where does it stop?

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 09:40

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 08:51

I take a pragmatic view that the pagers probably net saved civilian lives, given the alternative

This is the Utilitarian 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' argument. Not agreeing with this view is why capital punishment is banned in some countries. One innocent life being ended unnecessarily is one too many for some governments.

Agreeing with the 'pragmatic view' ipso facto means that you agree with your own and innocent family members' lives ending is acceptable colateral damage.
However, I also note that other Philosophy argument on Truth and Lies that statements made are only true when followed by the relevant action.

Where there no alternatives that would only involve combatants?

Edited

Quote " 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'"

It's a powerful phrase isn't it. One that communism uses. And I think we can say the Iranian Government too, in a religious context. As in, we can save lots of souls at the cost of a few.

Even suicide bombers can use it.

Not sure what I am trying to say really. Just that it is a powerful phrase.

I suppose the real problem with it comes from how selectively it is applied ? And maybe who it is applied to, and by whom ?

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 08:51

I take a pragmatic view that the pagers probably net saved civilian lives, given the alternative

This is the Utilitarian 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' argument. Not agreeing with this view is why capital punishment is banned in some countries. One innocent life being ended unnecessarily is one too many for some governments.

Agreeing with the 'pragmatic view' ipso facto means that you agree with your own and innocent family members' lives ending is acceptable colateral damage.
However, I also note that other Philosophy argument on Truth and Lies that statements made are only true when followed by the relevant action.

Where there no alternatives that would only involve combatants?

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 08:45

I agree that Hezbollah needs to fuck off.

I could only find this on stats from Wiki:
According to the Lebanese government, the attack killed 42 people,[11] including 12 civilians,[12] and injured 4,000 civilians (according to Mustafa Bairam ar; de], Minister of Labour and a member of Hezbollah).[13][14]Especially affected were women and children.[15] Victims had injuries including losing fingers, hands, and eyes, as well as brain shrapnel

2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks#cite_note-:10-13

OP posts:
Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 08:35

@OnePeppyFatball ,

‘And injured a hell of a lot of people. Yet another example of disproportionate killing of innocents to get a few.’

As I said, I don’t think international law deals well with terrorist or narcotic organisations that are parasitic on weaker states.

The Lebanese would love Hezbollah to go, but they won’t.

I don’t think (please correct me if I am wrong) that the civilian casualties and deaths were even close to the Hezbollah casualties and deaths, so they were very proportionate.

Without the pager attacks, there would have been far more large blind ordnance from the air falling on Beirut and killing and maiming far more civilians.

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 08:30

Yes, I understand that they were supposed to target Hezbollah. However, the devices went off in cafes, shops, streets etc when innocent Lebanese people were just going about their daily lives. And injured a hell of a lot of people. Yet another example of disproportionate killing of innocents to get a few.

OP posts:
Squeezingwildoranges · 25/09/2026 08:25

Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 08:00

@OnePeppyFatball ,

It’s an interesting one. I don’t think you get many countries where terrorist organisations are stronger than the national army. It is almost like the problems dealing legally with Pablo Escobar.

I take a pragmatic view that the pagers probably net saved civilian lives, given the alternative. But I understand why you might disagree.

Actually the pagers were in contravention of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). They contained only a very small amount of explosive and were designed to maim, not kill, as can be seen by the stats of how many were killed as opposed to injured. These are expressly forbidden under the convention. Additionally, booby trapping devices which look like normal everyday civilian objects is also illegal under the convention. Israel may have thought it was being clever but once again, it was committing an internationally recognised crime.

Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 08:15

Most of the injured and dead were Hezbollah! That is a positive.

That was the whole point of them. I can’t see how many civilians were injured or killed separately, but at least 1,500 Hezbollah could not fight on due to them.

These pagers entire purpose was to allow Hezbollah to attack Israel without their communications being traced. They weren’t for the general population.

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 08:10

2,931 people injured. 37 dead. Two children aged 11 and 9.

OP posts:
Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 08:00

@OnePeppyFatball ,

It’s an interesting one. I don’t think you get many countries where terrorist organisations are stronger than the national army. It is almost like the problems dealing legally with Pablo Escobar.

I take a pragmatic view that the pagers probably net saved civilian lives, given the alternative. But I understand why you might disagree.

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 07:52

Depends on your definition of clever I suppose.

From Amnesty International:
The evidence indicates that those who planned and carried out these attacks could not verify who else in the immediate vicinity of the devices would be harmed at the time of the explosion, or even whether only fighters had been given the pagers and radios. Therefore, the attacks were carried out indiscriminately, would be unlawful under international humanitarian law and should be investigated as war crimes. The attacks also violated at a minimum the right to life under international human rights law, which continues to apply in situations of armed conflict, and likely other human rights, depending on the various impacts of the attack on the Lebanese population and their daily lives.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread