Trump throwing a lot of people under the bus because of stock markets?

[mids2019]

When you start a war you finish it in my opinion. There has been no other war that has been stopped because of a slide on the Dow Jones or an oil price spike. For Trump to now prematurely call an end to the war simply because of economics will simply mean IIrans drone terrorism has worked.

The people of Iran will be left with a job half done without the space needed for an uprising.

A new leader with good reason to ideological hate Israel and the US will realise the only method of future deterrence of Iran is through acquiring a nuclear weapon as their conventional weapons were obliterated. Iran will now do everything possible to acquire such a weapon.

This is a time for resolve Mr. President. There is still a chance to destroy this regime maybe with limited target ground troop assaults. The world actually will be safer if you continue.

I have never bought the "but he's a madman " explanation, whether that be Saddam Hussein, Putin or Trump.

Sure I completely get the miscalculation explanation (Hussein never thought the West would intervene over Kuwait). But Trump will be guided by "military experts " and I believe that there is "a plan and a strategy " - though accepting it might be a complete miscalculation of "a plan and strategy ".

So a few questions- with oil prices rising do you accept that oil demand will decrease? (This is entry level economics)
Do you think that decreased use of oil is a good thing or a bad thing environmentally? (Note: I am asking about the environment not economic impact).
Do you think that this reduction in demand is greater or less than that achieved by the Just Stop Oil campaign?
If you truly believed in the Just Stop Oil campaign do you see the reduction in oil usage as a good thing or a bad thing?

Hard to know which way it’ll go re Kharg whether it’ll go ahead but I do think the IRGC are extreme enough to do end of days stuff as put below.

The problem is leaving them to it with that just mounts threats in years time with worse outcomes.

TBF @EasternStandard though I appreciate your defence, I have little interest in engaging in internet battles.
There's a mix of information, hyperbole and vitriol on here. The former I absorb and follow up, the latter I occasionally respond to but mostly ignore.
Some posters are venting, as we all do. It's futile to engage with them.

Probably true and a good way to go. Although @1dayatatimeclearly lays out the economics of it which is what I was thinking of too.

They can send their own troops to retake Kharg Island without bombing it. They had plenty of time to prepare.
But, I think they will have no dilemma. They will do what they have said that they will do: go for any asset in reach, oil, water, gas...

10,000 US troops to hold Kharg Island (per The Times). What could possibly go wrong.

Kharg is only 20 km2 and only 15 km off the coast of Iran. Concentrating 500 marines per km2 within artillery range of Iran would not be a smart move.

Better off with 1,000 Marines, digging very deep bunkers and hardened shelters.

However once taken there is no way Iran could retake it with ground troops- they simply don't have the amphibious landing capability.

This article suggests more that 3,200 troops to take Kharg and yet larger number to hold it for any period of time.
Can the US take Kharg Island? How an invasion could play out

https://www.thetimes.com/article/278700c8-f535-4078-96f5-95b7005bd353?shareToken=843a6fcd2b464c93eb99d3f496a3f19b

What about if, just a little suggestion, Iran uses undersea tunnels or maintenance tunnels for the pipelines that they have from land to the island to retake it. Or they have prepared a surprise within the many tunnels we know about in the island itself.
I would have done my preparations at the time I built the pipelines and depos and tunnels, if I was in charge. I am not buying that this place is not defended. Or, if it is not, that they do not have a plan B to ship their oil out.
It does sound to me like the dumb after dumb move.
They should focus on stopping this shit show.

The Iranians export 90% of their oil through Kharg and they don't have any alternative facilities to use - building an oil export terminal is not a quick thing to do.

That's not to say that taking Kharg would be easy (as the Times article suggests) and it would be even harder to keep it. But if the Iranians rain missiles and shells on to Kharg island they will not just kill US forces but also destroy the export facility. At which point once Kharg has been destroyed by the Iranian regime then there is no point in USforces staying there as it can't be used anyway and for many years to come.

But if they don't rain down missiles and shells then the US Marines could stick around. That said it would be difficult to keep the ground forces supplied.

Get your own

https://bsky.app/profile/angrystaffer.bsky.social/post/3mie37lh52s2c

Yeah.. the "plan" makes so much sense that Trump lashes out to other nations... to come help him, but not that he needs help, but how dare we not send ships, but do not send ships to an already won war, we cowards, our toy ships.. blah blah blah
He thinks he can manipulate the world in the way he bullies his business buddies into selling him, let's say.. Maralago.

Hegseth says the US will negotiate with bombs till Iran agrees to a ceasefire....
So we are back at the origin of the war. They have completed a circle on their tiny little thinking horizon. A bit narrow vision field for the government of any country, isn't it?

How many time has the war been won now?

I think around 5 or 6 times.... from top of my head.
Maybe Trump think he won enough this time??
The Royal Navy can go and free Hormuz for him...

😂indeed. But serioiusly, it's sad and not a laughing matter. He's a strange one and the leader of the most powerful country in the world.

I still understand why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons though.

That's why in 2015 the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was agreed

Yes but many weaknesses to the plan and that they have enriched Uranium far in excess of the percentage agreed shows that Iran had no intention of sticking to the deal.

"Weaknesses and Criticisms of the JCPOA
One of the main arguments used against the JCPOA was that it allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and move closer to nuclear capability while remaining technically in compliance. The JCPOA also contained so-called “sunset provisions” on various aspects of the deal such as lifting limits on centrifuges after 10 years or reduced enrichment beyond 3.67% only lasting for 15 years. This led to concerns that the deal would only temporarily delay Iran’s nuclear program while preventing parties from finding a more permanent solution. Additionally, critics worried that lifting sanctions on Iran in return for the JCPOA’s focus on constraining Iran’s nuclear program would diminish the United States’ ability to address other security concerns such as Iran’s missile program or its funding of violent non-state groups in the Middle East."

Then, we had more chances to have a deal with Iran about nuclear enrichment levels, no nuclear weapons and well managed nuclear energy power plants than we have now. That is for sure.
It was Trump who tore the deal appart. And Trump and Netanyahu who have bombed Iran twice, during nuclear negotiations.
But... no worries. Trump obliterated their nuclear program, twice, at least. Now he wants the uranium, that he had destroyed already. But he needs to find it. But they found it. But the new regime is much better. But they are not...

Trump is now offering the same minus Obama's signature.

If they agreed, would they keep to it. Already been proven that they are far beyond the single digit enrichment.

What has been proven?

According to this article-

in 2017 the JCPOA had eliminated 98% of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile.
And capped enrichment at 3.7%. It was verifiably complying with terms - in exchange for sanctions relief.

Trump tore it up.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/jun/comment-trumps-first-term-lies-heart-escalation-between-iran-and-israel

Thank you.

Without a link to the article quoted, it is difficult to know what @Ihatetomatoes is referring to.