(Lack of) US Iran Peace Agreement Part 5

Prosecute every targeting officer who mistakenly targets civilian infrastructure?

That's not what I said

And that would depend on how the mistake happened and who was responsible for it. Which an investigation could deliver.

Do you think military personnel should not be held responsible for their actions?
Join the armed forces and you are exempt?

@TopPocketFind ,

‘It's not just the 'baddies' who commit them. And we shouln't brush them under the carpet’

What do you suggest we do? Prosecute every targeting officer who mistakenly targets civilian infrastructure?

The thing is that won’t happen, and for very good reason. No one would join the military or agree to make targeting decisions if one careless slip up could lead to imprisonment.

It was you who posted the results of the Pentagon investigation, which gave a lot of context to this and the pressure commanders in the field must be under.

then there will be literally no nation who has fought a war who hasn’t committed a war crime.

Well, yes.
It's not just the 'baddies' who commit them. And we shouln't brush them under the carpet

@RedTagAlan ,

‘Personally, I rate UN reports as being a pretty good calibration standard to use for when checking ones own bias. That is, if an individual thinks a UN report is wrong, as in way out wrong, then maybe calibration is required.’

I kind of agree with you, they have a lot of genuine experts. And I don’t necessarily think they are wrong if you apply a rigid approach. I don’t think the U.S are generally casual about civilians, though. Their civilian casualty rates have been enviable in recent conflicts.

The UN estimates of civilian deaths in Iran due to the combined U.S and Israeli air campaign is 1,700-3,600. I think that is pretty good.

Now obviously you could make the case that this is an illegal war and one death is too many, but I do think countries will always fight wars unless human nature changes, which I don’t see happening any time soon.

If every time a missile goes astray or AI yields a bad decision (as seems to have happened this time), it is called a war crime, then there will be literally no nation who has fought a war who hasn’t committed a war crime.

Quote "It seems to me that the UN is far too quick to declare war crimes ....".

Or could be a war crime.

Anyway, last week I done a load of posts on a different thread on news being biased. I got into calibration and how we can be out of calibration with our own bias, and how do we calibrate ourselves. Oh, and even the bias checker website I quoted from.... posters accused that of being biased.

Personally, I rate UN reports as being a pretty good calibration standard to use for when checking ones own bias. That is, if an individual thinks a UN report is wrong, as in way out wrong, then maybe calibration is required.

I mean reports and the like. Not votes, where politics come into play.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-false-intelligence-china-ship

The U.S. military swung into action to intercept a Chinese ship after an “entirely false” AI-generated intelligence report inaccurately identified what the vessel was carrying

It also “almost started a war,” a source told CNN.

And me

Fog of war. The school had been there for 10 years not 10 days.

Stupid things happen in the fog of war and innocent people will inevitably die.

If I say what I really think about this casually dismissive statement, you will be justified in reporting my post.

@TopPocketFind ,

‘A UN report said the failures "went beyond negligence" and may constitute war crimes.’

I read that report.

It seems to me that the UN is far too quick to declare war crimes and that the Pentagon report explains it pretty well. Stupid things happen in the fog of war and innocent people will inevitably die. War will never be pure and clean and we will end up when any country who goes to war will be accused of war crimes, rendering the term pretty meaningless.

I think that this is very different to the kinds of things Israel and Iran have both done, where too many civilians have been willingly (and sometimes enthusiastically) slaughtered.

They don't appear to be, no.

Rational would have been to welcome the MoU and the unfreezing of Iranian assets etc but they didn't appear to welcome it. Because it wasn't perfect for them.

Despite it was obvious from the start neither side will achieve everything they want.

A Pentagon investigation found that the murder of 123 Iranian children at the school in Minab resulted from a cascade of failures, Bloomberg reports.

• Outdated intelligence that still classified the school as an IRGC facility
• compressed timelines as the administration demanded 1,000+ strikes in 24 hours
• over-reliance on Palantir's Maven AI system, which personnel wrongly expected to flag old data
• and Hegseth's 90% cuts to civilian-harm-mitigation teams.

The site had operated as a school for nearly ten years, was on Google Maps, and had its own website.

A UN report said the failures "went beyond negligence" and may constitute war crimes.

The Pentagon investigation has been complete for months but hasn’t been released.

Whatever you think of IRGC and the Iranian leadership is irrelevant. They have shown the world an absolute masterclass in asymmetrical warfare. I wouldn't call them irrational, I would say they have been absolutely consistent and calculated. If anyone has been irrational it has been the US. A catastrophic failure in military intelligence and strategic planning led to this war of choice. I think all in is a very risky option in terms of a ground invasion. When Araghchi said in the interview, "We are ready for them, let them come", I think military intelligence, having been stung once, will not simply dismiss it as bluster. Trump is still praying the sanctions are going to have an effect but he's clutching at straws now with oil over a hundred dollars a barrel. Iran and the US are locked in a high stakes game of chicken, where both sides are accelerating toward a potential full scale conflict while hoping the other blinks first. The problem is, whichever one blinks first, it will show weakness which may have devastating domestic consequences.

Look for an October surprise

Snap!

It's still relevant because subsequent Trump action showed that the US couldn't be trusted and then the ensuing war showed Iran that they could charge a toll for passage even if they rebrand it as a maintenance fee in the future.

A bit like HOA's fees that go up all the time with little relationship between actual cost and fees charged.

Yup, and the MOU that Trump signed in Versailles stipulated that the Strait would be toll free for 60 days then subject to an arrangement to be negotiated between Iran and Oman be that tolls or an environmental "levy". It also did not include Iran’s nuclear file.

TBH it will likely be war. The MOU although only explicitly naming Lebanon included a stop to fighting on all fronts (Yemen, Palestine et al).

The Iranians are not stupid, they know that Trump doesn't have the power to stop the fighting and has to answer to the Republicans and other lobbyists.

Look for an October surprise, Jimmy Carter lost his re-election due to the hostage crisis in Iran. It is alleged that the Iranians colluded with individuals in the Reagan Campaign to delay the release of the hostages in exchange for weapons and punishing Carter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_October_Surprise_theory

I think the U.S can also rally the Gulf States and maybe even the EU to reopen Hormuz and the Red Sea passage.

If it was possible to reopen Hormuz by rallying the GCC then this would have already happened imo.
What we have seen instead is a breakdown in GCC relationships as countries pursue their own interests.
To what extent will the EU be willing to get involved, seeing that they now have a Russian threat at their door?
I could be completely wrong, but I think that China, behind closed doors, might be able to unblock the deadlock. It all depends on what benefit it sees for itself.
I'm also inclined to believe reports of background proxy negotiations that both Iran and the US can deny.

PS
If you're interested, Youtube might have videos of the UK tv shows where modern day teams refight famous ancient battles. It's fascinating stuff and they didn't always win!

That was happening according to the news I see. It was the US "smuggling" ships out that broke the MOU.

@trumpredcard ,

‘Isn't that what was the case before the war started. No tolls and regular inspections under the 2015 JCPOA?’

Not sure that is relevant now. I don’t think anyone believes Trump had covered himself in glory any more.

@trumpredcard ,

I am not a military strategist, but I think all in means taking and holding Kharg Island, a lot of dumb bombs on Iraq’s infrastructure and the retargeting of Iran’s leadership.

I think the U.S can also rally the Gulf States and maybe even the EU to reopen Hormuz and the Red Sea passage.

It would be costly for everyone.

I agree, if Iran are remotely rational, they could come out of this quite well via negotiations, but are they?

Isn't that what was the case before the war started. No tolls and regular inspections under the 2015 JCPOA?

As mention in my post, a negotiated settlement. Iran will have to give up some things, in the same way that the US will have to do the same. Whatever happens, each side will then spin it as a win. I think that Iran is already preparing for post Mid-terms and renewed US actions.

Let me put it back to you.
How will Trump go all in?

But then, so does Iran, including toll free passage through the straits of Hormuz for all vessels and negotiating away their nuclear ambitions.

Do you see that happening?

All has to do is meet the terms of his own MOU. The one he already agreed to.

@trumpredcard ,

If you don’t think he can go all in, how do you think this plays out?

I am just not sure I see Iran giving much up in a negotiation, and I don’t see Trump effectively surrendering.

I'm another who doesn't think that Trump can go all in. A best case scenario will be a negotiated peace with the help of other nations which will then allow Trump to claim a Vietnam style victory.

This article
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/09/yemen-china-exploits-us-security-gap-while-seeking-curb-houthis

coupled with
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/09/18/china-red-sea-strategy-ports-maritime-influence/

highlight the shadow cast by China in the ME.

The bigger story is not that China is replacing the United States overnight as the Gulf’s security guarantor, military partner, or dominant external power. It is that a more fragmented, post-US security order is already emerging in the Gulf, one in which China can gain influence by selectively engaging actors that Washington cannot, or will not, fully confront.