(Lack of) US Iran Peace Agreement Part 5

Clearly, though, Iran has access to targeting information which only comes from satellite images.

True, but there are several commercial companies which provide Earth's surface imaging at well under 1 metre resolution.

Now they probably won't be in the business of knowingly selling images to Iran (sanctions) but of course Iran might have proxies.

Long link to one such source, Airbus.

space-solutions.airbus.com/imagery/how-to-order-imagery-and-data/?utm_term=&utm_campaign=002423+-+G-ADS+-+VKS+-+PerfMax+-+Branding+-+AlwaysOn+-+EU&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=6084062488&hsa_cam=22309614677&hsa_grp=&hsa_ad=&hsa_src=x&hsa_tgt=&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23601447754&gbraid=0AAAAABLeC4pHr7IHZ3N8uPtfbUImmk2_p

I agree that Trump seems to respect Xi. I think he seems to respect most successful leaders of countries he sees as powerful.

British press is critical of every leader so maybe that’s right that the US audience will not have seen as much previous criticism of China as we’ve had easy access to.

China have appeared to sit on the fence while not really doing so. From a strategic point of view, quite sensible.

@Twiglets1 ,

I think that Trump respects and even envies Xi. I am not sure the U.S press, on average, criticises China as much as our press and European press, especially after the debacle when China cut off American rare earth supplies. So, maybe it is more of a surprise to them.

Clearly, though, Iran has access to targeting information which only comes from satellite images.

Interesting article.

Though I don’t think it was really a “secret” that China was helping Iran in the war, as the title suggests. Still, the article does provide more details.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/china-iran-aid-xi-trump-summit-e6541ae8?st=hHzN6C&reflink=article_copyURL_share

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/23/iran-denies-dropping-preconditions-very-productive-three-hour-un-talks-new-york

Iran denies dropping preconditions amid ‘very productive’ three-hour UN talks in New York

Trump says further talks possible as barrel of Brent crude falls to below $100 for first time in two weeks

Iran has pushed back on claims that it dropped former preconditions for reopening the strait of Hormuz in surprise talks held in New York under the mediation of Qatar between Tehran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, and Donald Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

Trump said the three-hour talks held in a room at the UN headquarters had gone very well and been very productive. He suggested further talks were possible imminently, which led to the price of a barrel of Brent crude to fall to below $100 (£75) for the first time in two weeks. Witkoff said the talks had been “encouraging, constructive and successful”.

Yes. And it is not AI or photoshoped. Sorry, it not AI now, Trump declared at the UN that it is to be called SI. Super intelligence.

Here is his 2024 diagram. Not a bomb that time. Att.

I daresay if the Iranian clerics held up similar at the UN, there would be calls to bomb them. And yup, I know they make threats too. But hey, they are mad, so there is that.

Source for att photo.

Netanyahu holds up maps illustrating the 'blessing' and 'curse' facing Mideast | The Times of Israel

Sorry for this massive tangent. I remember a wedding, and the best man pulled a pair of Y fronts out his sporran. " I have a visual aide", he said. "Be wise".

Then he pulled out a torch.

" And enlightened", he said.

Maybe he should get up onto the UN podium :-)

Iran's Masoud Pezeshkian addresses UN general assembly at the moment

I will start with "two weeks".

That second link you posted. In the abstract

" In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI said that widespread use of condoms could worsen the situation, a position rejected as ‘unscientific’. Recently, however the Pontiff stated that because the Church considers acts of prostitution and homosexuality to be gravely immoral and disordered, in such specific cases use of a condom might become an initial step in the direction of a moralization leading to an assumption of responsibility and a new awareness of the meaning of sexuality. In doing so, he reaffirmed his belief that condoms cannot solve the problem of STI spread, stressing the Church’s position that modern societies no longer see sexuality as an ‘expression of love, but only as a sort of drug that people administer to themselves’."

To me, as an atheist, I would say that reasoning is nuts. But freedom of religion and all that.

But if an Iranian cleric was to say that, or similar, as they do, the reaction from many is - "MAD MULLAHS, BOMB THEM".

I do see an equivalence there. The Vatican and Iran that is. And I can expand that to the anti Gay US evangelists who played such a big part in anti gay laws, in Uganda for example. And away from religion, am I allowed to mention the US NRA, and the deaths that result from their work ?

In terms of risk to the greater number of people, I doubt the Iranian Clerics even make the top 10. In fact, I can get UN stuff. And they do a global risk report.

United Nations Global Risk Report | United Nations

Nope. Batshit Iranian clerics don't even make it into that. Climate change is right at the top though. And did we not just have a POTUS stand in front of the UN and say climate change is a hoax ? Mad as a hatter that fella.

A quick check on Iran and climate. No Paris agreement, they don't rank well on commitment, but they did set a target to-

"In its 2015 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), Iran committed to reducing emissions by 4% (unconditional reduction) or 12% (conditional reduction) below business as usual (BAU) by 2030. Iran is expected to significantly overachieve both targets, with currently implemented policies. The main reason for this is the highly inflated BAU scenario it used as a basis for the target."

Iran (Islamic Republic of) | Climate Action Tracker

That might rate them higher than Trump for taking action ?

It did but it also says that the total number of deaths is 44.2 million. If just 1% are as a result of not being allowed to use a condom by the Catholic Church that is almost half a million deaths as a result of that policy.

To get back to the purpose of the thread:

But the Iranian leaders don’t care about their people at all
I too had raised eyebrows at the generalisation but chose not to address it. Instead I started to think of all the ways in which a government cares for its people and wondered how many the Iranian leaders could actually tick off. I then wanted to discuss this with two Iranian friends with opposing views of the current regime. My thinking is that why would anyone support a gov't/leader that demonstrates no care for the people (even when that person is abroad and outside the control of said gov't). Which then led me to conclude that the statement about the gov't not caring at all is questionable.

Generally speaking, I think that many people, either through ignorance or deliberate will, seem to misunderstand the Muslim religion and think the personal interpretations of the Koran by extremist Imams are the teachings of the religion itself.

On another note, I would really like an attempt answer to my question upthread, of what Iran could have done differently as I can't come up with anything.

@RedTagAlan ,

‘So I think it is a fair conclusion that the "no condom" rule causes more death than the Iranian clerics ?’

I think that would be a ridiculous and incorrect conclusion and there is no data to back it up.

Firstly, you are assuming that every AIDS death is caused by lack of condom use, as opposed to blood transfusions etc etc. Secondly, you are assuming that only catholics have unprotected sex!

And, of course, you are failing to combine the anti condom doctrine with the rest of catholic teaching which is abstinence before marriage, faithfulness within marriage etc, which is AIDS protective.

‘No, predominantly Protestant countries actually tend to have higher HIV/AIDS prevalence rates than predominantly Catholic countries.
While the Roman Catholic Church's official global doctrine opposing condom use has historically drawn criticism from public health agencies, macroeconomic and demographic studies in sub-Saharan Africa show that the Protestant population share—rather than the Catholic share—is more strongly correlated with higher regional HIV transmission rates’

Apologies, I thought you were saying number of infections. Deaths have dropped dramatically because unlike the 90's it is now classed as a manageable condition.

Here's some but they are mostly abstracts.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349311512_Condom_Use_and_Culture_of_Life_The_Roman_Catholic_Church_Dilemma_in_the_Wake_of_New_HIV_Infections
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1472648311001143
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/hivaids/condoms1204/3.htm
https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/resource-library/humanae-vitae/humanae-vitae-and-the-aids-epidemic/

Thanks for that.

So I think it is a fair conclusion that the "no condom" rule causes more death than the Iranian clerics ?

Certainly since 1981 anyway. I remember Reagan was blamed for much of the spread in the US too.

Anyway. Back to Iran and how they need to be bombed. Cos religion, or something.

@RedTagAlan ,

I didn’t put links in mine as I assumed that they would not work for you.

@Squeezingwildoranges included a link to a WHO article, which confirmed the number of deaths in 2025 which I stated.

What WHO link ? I cant see any links in your post. You posted "Secondly, your guess as to numbers was way out. I think the UN estimates 570,000 worldwide, which is actually a major medical triumph. I am amazed it is so low."

I had a look for that UN number, and it said that was for 2025.

Edit. Total since 1981, I get 44 million deaths. Source - WHO

HIV (who.int)

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

Ummm, I think I specifically said 570,000 deaths, which the WHO link confirms. I also cited it as a medical triumph, meaning antiretrovirals.

The WHO article is separate to the link (as WHO don’t mention Catholicism). Do you have a link for the second paragraph or is it your personal opinion or knowledge?

I don’t think that there is a robust link between Catholicism and HIV at population level.

I have no idea of your location and no interest in finding out either. You're the one that keeps mentioning how you can't get full internet access where you are or we would be none the wiser you aren't in the UK.

There was some upset when I referred to you as "he" but noted not an issue as far as you're concerned now.

The doxing was a different thread. And it was not about sex, it was about them trying to guess my location.

But yeah. Here we go again. The thread is in danger yet again of becoming about who is posting what, rather than what they post.