US - Iran Peace agreement Part 2

[JadeHare]

Doesn’t really look like anyone believes that Donald is going to come out of his stupid war with any kind of better deal.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/26/trump-us-iran-capitulation/

I didn't say you did shout. I said shooting questions at me not shouting questions at me. When people reply to a question with a question I will be doing the same as them: not answering the question.

The article you posted was behind a paywall so I couldn't see much of what it did say apart from the US had not publicly acknowledged the damage that was caused to their naval base.

Not publicly acknowledging something is not as severe as covering it up (your words). To cover something up is to deny it happened which I could not see enough of the article to judge if the US did deny it or not. Maybe you can copy and paste the part of the article that said the US had tried to cover up the damage to their naval base?

Here you go Twigs

https://archive.ph/OEWwk

Maybe next time don't use goady questions when you haven't read the article.

I am confused here. Yes, the article you posted was paywalled, but in your very next post you linked an article with the same story on a link that even I could open.

I thought that was very considerate of you to do that.

And yes, it is another example of what appears to be the US doing a cover up. Personally, I consider that to be the US admin disrespecting their military. Because it looks like the US military is at real risk of death and injury, and the Pentagon are denying it. And they are lying to the US taxpayer too.

What’s so goady about asking what the article actually said? I couldn’t read it beyond the first few sentences.

Will take a look at it later thank you as going out now.

Now I can read the article - and the same thing is being reported by the Times of Israel without a paywall - I can see that the WSJ says Iran’s retaliatory strikes did greater damage to the Middle East’s only US Navy base, in Bahrain, than the Pentagon has acknowledged.

No one was killed at the base, according to the US military, the Journal said.

The WSJ do not accuse the US of a "cover up" - that was your interpretation.

I prefer to read news stories as they are written without them being interpreted as saying something they don't actually say.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-considering-moving-gulf-bases-hit-by-iran-westward-including-to-israel-report/

Maybe have a read what is happening in the US Congress and Hegseth's evidence giving.

Or not.

I prefer not to quibble about semantics and gotchas

Meanwhile, what’s happening in third world countries like Madagascar thanks to this war:

Before the Iran war, a gas cylinder for cooking cost 4,000 ariary.
According to Hasina, it now costs 10,000, or around £1.80 – a sum that, in a country where most of the population lives on less than £2 a day, can mean the difference between eating and going without food.

Today, hundreds of ships remain backed up at the Strait of Hormuz, and shipping experts warn it could be months before global supply chains recover.

Rural communities rely on flights for food, medicine and other supplies.
For wealthier countries, that means higher prices and economic uncertainty.
But for Madagascar, it means something more immediate.
It means flights that may not fly, food that may not arrive, operations that may not happen, and lives that may not be saved.
For people like Moussa, the margin between survival and death was already measured in hours.
Now, it is shrinking further still.

Lol it's hardly semantics to say you shouldn't put your own interpretation when citing a source like the WSJ. If they thought it was a cover up they would have called it a suspected cover up.

You could have copy and pasted from the actual article and let people interpret it themselves. Or posted the story from a news source not behind a paywall like the Times of Israel.

Israel has been dropping leaflets again in Southern Lebanon urging people to leave

Yep it will be “well we did tell them to leave, so we had no option but to kill them after that”. Remember when they used to order Gazans to another area then kill them when they got there? As if it was a fucking game!

Yep, plenty to unpack.

"The recent wars in Gaza and Lebanon weren't started by Netanyahu so I don't agree they provided "excuses" for him to stay in power."
It depends on what 'started' means. Netanyahu was in power on October 7 and has been in power long before that. He's been responsible for stealing more land in the last year than the decade prior. His response of razing Gaza and killing its people was the choice of him and his Government. He was struggling to keep his coalition together and stay in power plus he had those awkward investigations that didn't want to answer to. The attack provided an excuse for a 'powerful' response that made him look strong.

"Plus the wars aren't necessarily popular with Israeli people so they may harm rather than help him when it comes to the elections in Israel."
Unfortunately Israel largely seems to be split now between people who agree with Netanyahu and people who don't think he's gone far enough. Overall, the wars do seem popular which is a tragedy. I do believe that the average Israeli is scared and that's driving their response. Obviously there is some segment of the population who are religious extremists and believe that they have a God given right to neighbouring lands.

"We all know the war didn't start on 7/10/23. Nevertheless, Hamas actions that day triggered the Gaza war and all the awful repercussions. Hezbollah could have learnt from that not to follow Hamas into certain war for the sake of their civilians but they didn't."
Yes, terrorist organisations need to understand what Israel will do now that they're backed by the USA to do whatever they want. Perhaps they know that and don't care, I don't know. None of that makes Israel's response anywhere near right. Israel need to be prevented from being able to respond with genocide. Hopefully the USA will radically limit the weapons they're providing.

"My reply to that is no country at war can protect the civilians of the country they are at war with, it is up to each country to put resources into defence. Plus I never claimed that Israel did care about civilians who are not their own; neither does any other country at war and they shouldn't be held to higher standards than other countries in this regard."
I strongly disagree. This isn't a war, it's a genocide. They have all the weapons thanks to the USA. They are invading Gaza and slaughtering its citizens. But let's say that it's a war. War crimes exist for a reason. You absolutely cannot slaughter the citizens and children of another country and say 'oh well.' Israel don't care about the civilians that they're genociding, I agree with you. They don't want these countries to have a future and killing their children is the best way to achieve that. But that is horribly, horribly wrong. The idea that they can just not care about the children that they're killing is chilling. They absolutely have a legal and moral obligation to care. Prior to that, they locked Gazans in a prison and Palestianians in an apartheid. They took forcible control over these areas and forced the civilians to submit to their will. They MUST care about those people.

You seem critical of my belief that Hamas and Hezbollah put their hatred for Israel above the safety of their civilians, calling it "a line". Yet you also agree that "Hamaz and Hezbollah probably do hate Israel more than they care for their citizens" so maybe it's "a line" often used because it's an obvious truth?
I called it a line because many Israelis hate Palestians with a passion (not the majority). That's very obvious when you watch documentaries such as Louis Theroux. It's sad with disgust about the Palestinians but it's also absolutely true of some Israelis. Let's not pretend that the hatred is one sided. Israel have gotten away with this lie for FAR too long. They've painted everyone else as blood thirsty and themselves as evolved. They are just the same. There is no 'more moral' side or 'right' side.

We agree on the Settlers - their hate is very clear and I don't support their actions now or in the past.
I appreciate that. It's good to consider what we can agree with as well as where are our differences lie.

Yes it is good to consider what we can agree with as well as where are our differences lie. We can agree that some Israelis hate Palestinians with a passion - the settlers for example include extremists and extremists are always hate filled and dangerous. The hatred is not one sided, no.

We agree that "Hamaz and Hezbollah probably do hate Israel more than they care for their citizens." I don't think that's true of Israeli extremists though (bad as they are). Israel are very concerned about Jewish lives, as evidenced by the huge efforts they make with defensive measures and their fury when Israeli lives are endangered. However, I didn't mean to imply - if I did - that the IDF don't care about killing other countries children. I think they care about the same amount as any army cares about the loss of civilian life (including children) in a war. British soldiers, German soldiers, Russian or Ukraine soldiers for example all kill children in wars and especially in densely populated areas.

It would be impossible to imagine that any army really enjoys killing children unless you believe that the people in the army (in this case, predominantly Jewish people) aren't quite human and are especially evil.

We are not going to agree on whether Gaza is a war or genocide, it's actually pointless going over old ground re legal definitions and courts of law. I think this is something we will have to agree to disagree on because I'm waiting to see what the international court decides, whatever anyone says. I respect your opinion on this and there is certainly lots of evidence of war crimes (on both sides). But genocide is different to war crimes and I don't necessarily believe the same sources you believe and vice versa - so we won't agree on this until the international court has made a judgement.

Anyway, thank you for debating politely.

Are those leaflets only for Hezbollah to leave because that's the only reason the IDF are in Lebanon . Must not apply to the civilians.

Senior US official said US military has begun striking Iranian targets in response to Iranian breach of MOU and ceasefire and attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.-Fox News

Thanks TopPocket

One day ago on Irans attack at the Strait from the bbc

The attack came after Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned that attempts to cross the strait along a route designated by the IMO would be "unacceptable and completely dangerous" and vessels should coordinate with Iran.

Iranian state media is also reporting on Friday fresh assertions from the IRGC that the strait is Iran's territory.

According to British maritime security agency UKMTO, the ship was struck 7.5 nautical miles southeast of Oman's port of Dahit by "an unknown projectile".
The Ever Lovely, a Singapore-flagged ship, had been following the UKMTO's recommended route through the strait when it was struck, the ship's owner, Evergreen, said.

The vessel followed a southern route identified by the IMO on Thursday morning, data from the ship-tracking website MarineTraffic reviewed by BBC Verify shows.

IMO chief Dominguez said in a statement on Thursday the ship "did not transit under IMO's evacuation framework", without going into further detail.

After announcing the pause of the evacuation plan on Thursday, Dominguez on Friday said he was working with parties, including the US, Iran and Oman, to obtain guarantees vessels would not be targeted.
"As soon as I get further confirmations of that, we're ready to re-initiate the process of evacuation," he said.

The IMO said some 115 vessels and 2,500 seafarers had been able to cross the strait before the evacuation was paused.

Here is the evacuation process
from the IMO

Immediate instructions for vessels
1. What should vessels do at this stage?
Vessels should remain in their current position and await further instructions.
2. Should vessels start navigating toward the Strait or the waiting area now?
No. Vessels should not initiate any movement at this stage.
3. Why must vessels wait?
To allow safe sequencing, avoid congestion, and mitigate risks related to mines and degraded navigation conditions.
4. Who will trigger vessel movements?
Movements will only begin once vessels are contacted through the coordinated mechanism involving IMO, UKMTO, and MICA Center, followed by coastal State coordination.
5. What is the key message to shipmasters right now?
Do not move. Wait to be contacted. Strictly follow instructions issued by relevant coastal States.
Initial Contact & Coordination
6. Do vessels need to proactively contact any authority?
No. Vessels do not need to initiate contact.
7. Who will contact vessels?
UKMTO and the MICA Center will contact vessels directly. See: UKMTO Advisory
In certain circumstances, where necessary, with the assistance of coastal States, vessels may be contacted via VHF channel 16 International Hailing and Distress Channel.
8. What happens once a vessel is contacted?
A vessel will receive instructions to proceed to a designated waiting area and prepare for routing. A vessel can begin coordinating its desired route with the relevant coastal State (Islamic Republic of Iran or Sultanate of Oman) at any time after notification.
9. What if a vessel is not contacted?
Vessels will be contacted in due course. IMO is actively working to ensure accurate awareness of all vessels in the Gulf who desire to be evacuated. IMO is also working closely with industry representative groups with consultative status at IMO.
Waiting Area
10. Where is the waiting area located?
The coordinates are specified in the Notice to Mariners issued by Oman: 3 NM RADIUS OF POSITION 26-16.17N/055-46.52E
11. Can vessels proceed to the waiting area without instruction?
No. Vessels should wait for instructions before proceeding. Crowding the waiting area will only result in the need to pause further notifications for the safety of navigation.

It seems the ship did not evacuate under the orders of the IMO
and as such
had not been given instructions to proceed and therefore would not have had a Co ordinated route agreed with Iran or Oman. The later Co ordination follows on as part of the IMOs framework and according to the bbc Dominguez said they weren’t following it as stated in the bbc article

Clearly transiting without permission isn’t safe
No idea why the US thought they could start bombing.

That’s as much as we seem to know do far

Apologies for such a long post but important to list the procedure agreed I think

Thanks for info. Too many cooks comes to mind. That is a bit confusing.

From the IMO info above "No. Vessels do not need to initiate contact."

But click the link in the above to the UKMTO, and that says this : "Maintain reporting to UKMTO in accordance with the Voluntary Reporting Area (VRA) "

And on the UKMTO site linked, there is a link to an IMO page, and that has a link back to the IMO page posted above, and a link to an Omani page that says the IMO will say go to the waiting area, then "UPON ARRIVAL AT THE DESIGNATED WAITING AREA, VESSELS SHALL CONTACT THE RELEVANT COASTAL STATE OF THEIR SELECTED ROUTE TO CONFIRM THAT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT THEM TO PROCEED. FOR THE SULTANATE OF OMAN, VESSELS SHALL ALSO RE-CONTACT RADIO STATION “A4N” ON VHF CH. 16 WHEN 1NM FROM THE FIRST WAYPOINT BELOW. That is followed by an Omani route plotted in coordinates.

Note how it says contact the country of YOUR SELECTED ROUTE, then gives the Oman route, and no info on how to contact Iran.

Article 5 of the MOU says : "5. Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz. "

So the MOU says that IRAN is to do the passage of vessels with talks to happen with Oman about FUTURE arrangements, but the IMO info to Mariners is only about an Oman route, and does not mention Iran.

I get the feeling not everyone is on the same page here and have not read the MOU.

From the Wall Street Journal:

“Under the memorandum of understanding signed by the U.S. and Iran last week, both sides agreed to stop striking each other and lift their blockages in the Strait of Hormuz, then begin 60 days of talks on Iran’s nuclear program.
Tehran committed to make its best efforts to reopen the strait after its attacks during the war halted traffic through the strategic oil export route. But the pact also stipulates that the future administration of the waterway would be based on talks between Iran and Oman, which controls the strait’s southern shores.”

Excerpt From
“U.S. Launches Fresh Attacks on Iran”
Alexander Ward, Benoit Faucon, Rebecca Feng
The Wall Street Journal
https://apple.news/AlQMMetlnQqaTx9O29K1V0A
This material may be protected by copyright.

Re link to contacting Oman route only and not Iran
The screen shot I posted is from
that moment in time ie yesterday 23:32

It will vary depending on which route at that moment in time is being used.

Basically
Everyone queues
no one contacts anyone because
the IMO will contact them first
The IMO tells them to go to the waiting area and gives them a route
The vessel contacts Iran or Oman ie which ever is relevant for their given route

The vessel that was shot at, according to the IMO, didn’t do this.
Apart from all the middle men it’s basic stuff to contact relevant authorities when you’re in their waterways and airspace.

Im guessing they had moved to the waiting area and proceeded forward without instruction
Just a guess but follows on from ‘ not followed procedure ‘ comment from IMO 🤷‍♀️

Thanks for clarification.

Exactly so what the f… is the US sticking their noses in again and bombing people

From my understanding
US news notes
Iran fired three shots
The US retaliated taking out two but the hit on the third left debris falling on the boat. It caused damage but no one was hurt

So stepping aside
Country A has a vessel navigating their dangerous waterways
and that country was say ????? Australia . They fire warning shots ( that’s procedure and they don’t have mines )

Country U doesn't know what’s going on, reacts too quickly and tries to take out the warning shots
In so doing debris damages the boat

The IMO mention mines aswell hence boats need a clear and safe route so
That’s my take

On this, CNN-

"“If any vessel attempts to transit in the Strait without our permission…or outside of the designated route, it is responsible for any consequences.”

The warning was broadcast on Thursday by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, the vital oil chokepoint which is emerging as one of the biggest tests of the agreement between Iran and the United States to end their war."

That was before the ship was hit.

And CNN also saying in that article that their emails to the Iranian Gulf Transit authority are "bouncing back.

US and Iran may have agreed in negotiating rooms, but at sea, Hormuz remains “chaotic” | CNN

Thanks
That CNN article states

‘The competing corridors have left them confused, forcing them to navigate not only the treacherous waters – facing threats from sea mines, aerial drones, and Revolutionary Guard patrol boats – but also the complex political currents across the strait.
If ships opt for the non-Iranian routes, they risk being attacked. If they comply with the Revolutionary Guards’ demands and use the Iranian route, they fear the risk of Western sanctions should the agreement collapse.’

but this from CNN is nonsense
The ships don’t get to chose the route, the IMO do at the moment.

They are trying to clear the strait and fearing the risk of Western sanctions may be an issue they might worry about in the further but irrelevant atm

And the Trump side stay pretty much quiet. Because even though the MOU that they signed says Iran is to do it, it is not politically good for Trump etc to acknowledge that. They appear to want to hide what is in the MOU from their MAGA base.

What a mess.

Trump wants to make out he’s in charge
he loves to flex 💪
He isn't in charge because for one thing
he ball's everything up
Just like this US attack

US news interestingly, but not surprisingly, aren’t reporting any of that
Wonder how long we’ll have to wait for the truth….a lifetime like the murdered 165 children