US - Iran Peace agreement Part 3

[TopPocketFind]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/conflict-in-the-middle-east/5535141-us-iran-peace-agreement-part-2https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/conflict-in-the-middle-east/5535141-us-iran-peace-agreement-part-2

I meant to link this for you @BelleHathor and anyone else who might be interested. Col Baud is so intelligent, knowledgable and moderate in his delivery. I particularly enjoyed the Sun Tzu quote at the end.

The Guardian adds this to the Saudi Nuclear deal (the CNN article from a few days back said the same)

The agreement is not expected to include the IAEA’s “additional protocol”, which would allow for more monitoring, inspections and verification, according to one of the people who revealed it.

Two tier nuclear deal?

Yup. That's why I said one to watch out for. It's speculation at the moment about what is in it. But I have been reading up a wee bit about the history. There is some stuff about the mutual defence pact with Pakistan, and how supposedly Pakistan could load SA a couple of Mirage Jets loaded up.

I find it interesting geopolitically because Pakistan also flies the PRCs advanced fighter jets, but it is older non PRC kit they send to SA. We have discussed that here before.

The New Arab notes that some US lawmakers from both parties and Israeli officials have voiced opposition to a civilian nuclear project for Saudi Arabia, over fears it could be converted to eventually develop nuclear weapons.

https://www.newarab.com/news/trump-approves-saudi-nuclear-deal-uranium-enrichment

That is the speculation of course. But it is something Trump does all the time as we know.

That thing where he says something and his defenders say " HE IS RIGHT", then Trump changes what he says, and his defenders need to scramble about to see how they can reverse too.

With Nukes, we all agree that proliferation is bad. But now if Trump is going to say Saudi Arabia should proliferate, that could be awkward for his defenders.

Yesterday he backtracked on his claims about the PRC and election interference. Now he says it's no big deal, everyone does it.

Mission creep. Nuclear proliferation for perceived friends can only lead to other 'less friendly' countries, desirous of nuclear capability, following the opaque Israel model.
And who would blame them when MAD works.

Saw a couple of headlines this morning saying Andy Burnham was going to let Trump use UK bases to strike Iran - anyone know anything about this?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/07/22/world/politics/burnham-uk-bases-us-strikes-iran/

Yes, apparently for 'defense purposes' but the US under Trump has expanded the meaning of the word 'defence'.

Sorry for the poor link attached. I remember something Trump said, so the link is just evidence that he said it.

“They want to continue some enrichment,” Trump said. “When a country has that much oil, it doesn’t need enrichment at all. So I’m not satisfied with these negotiations.”

28th Feb this year.

Source :

Trump: Iran Has Oil, Doesn’t Need Uranium Enrichment - WANA (wanaen.com)

Saudi Arabia is a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a Vienna-based agency which promotes peaceful nuclear work but also inspects nations to ensure they don’t have clandestine atomic weapons programs.

But the agreement is not expected to include the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which would allow for more monitoring, inspections and verification, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.

apnews.com/article/trump-saudi-arabia-nuclear-program-uranium-6bb82164c890a7dc335cbfc2c628a3da

It's just a continuation of the same policy we had under Starmer.

Thank you - so, if I am understanding correctly, nothing changes from the current policy by Starmer?

There used to be reasons for believing that Trump is influenced by the last person he was talking to - now he just talks stream of consciousness nonsense.

This article is probably from the time when he had not yet fired all the people with ME/Iran experience and before Hegseth became a born again Christian war mongering 'warrior'. Sorry for the oxymoron.

Burnham has not announced any changes and the feeling is that he would probably have done so already if he was planning to change this policy.

Also - he had a phone conversation with Trump on Monday which Trump described as "very good" and referenced "the outstanding relationship" between the US and UK.

So it looks like the current policy will be continued. Though that is speculation really as Burnham hasn't made any announcements.

The sequence of events is:
Starmer set the "defensive use only" policy back in March, the decision to keep it running was actually taken by Starmer's team just before he left office, and Burnham — on becoming PM this week — simply endorsed and continued that existing arrangement rather than making a fresh decision of his own.

I would be asking my MP for a definition of 'defensive use only", as I think Trump has different ideas on what actions it encompasses.

eta
There is no official statement from Burnham's office on this, and no public announcement by the man himself.

Burnham is on day 3, give him time.

While the Israeli terrorists are carrying out attacks like this, we aren't going to see any lasting peace. As Trita says, zero Western MSM coverage. There was also very little coverage of the 10 million plus who turned up for Khamenei's funeral as it didn't fit with the 'all Iranians hate the IRGC' narrative.

x.com/tparsi/status/2079588732340932926

Hang on though. There was plenty in CNN about the funeral. And remember, Iran is an authoritarian state. They could have had 50 million at the funeral. That does not mean 50 million wanted to be there. Big numbers are a feature of authoritarian states.

Look at Trump. He tries to emulate that. And fails miserably.

There was plenty of coverage of the funeral. And no one says all Iranians hate the IRGC. Plenty unfortunately don't. And many of those who do probably pretend they don't, for their own safety.

Doesn’t sound like Iran are “desperate” to make this deal Donny keeps banging on about.

From the Independent just now:

“Tehran has warned it will launch a “powerful attack” against all US targets in the Gulf region, if Donald Trump follows through with his threats against Iranian nuclear sites.
Trump said the US would renew strikes on Iran's heavily fortified "Pickaxe Mountain" nuclear site, located near Iran's heavily damaged Natanz uranium enrichment facility, "pretty soon."
“America, its allies, and the supporters of that rogue and evil country will be targeted by a powerful assault from Iran's armed forces,” if the site is attacked, Tehran’s military headquarters said in a statement carried by the IRGC-affiliated Fars News Agency.
The site – known in Iran as Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La – hosts two deeply buried tunnel complexes that experts assess as beyond the reach of the most powerful bunker buster bombs in the US arsenal.
It came as the staggering human and financial toll of the five-month war between the US and Iran came into focus.
Trump's defence secretary Pete Hegseth estimated the financial toll has now reached $37.5bn, and that he is asking for another $67 billion from Congress to cover mounting costs.
US officials say at least 18 American troops have been killed and 400 injured. ”

Excerpt From
“Iran-US war latest: Tehran threatens to expand war with ‘powerful attack’ after Trump’s nuclear stockpile threat”
Shweta Sharma, James C. Reynolds, Alex Croft
The Independent
https://apple.news/AwUgnt_LhQve9rZrQImo7ug
This material may be protected by copyright.

Certainly that would be a pragmatic approach.

Agree there was lots of coverage of the funeral in UK mainstream media.

That's not how it works

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mradxkdzcq2o

Q: You argue that Iran violated the MOU. But isn't the MOU flawed since it explicitly acknowledges Iran has power in the Strait of Hormuz?

MARCO RUBIO: That's certainly not the way we interpreted it

Not a great advert coming from the fella who should have been involved in writing it.

Did he mention how they did interprete it ?

It's obvious they did not interpret it that Iran would feel free to attack commercial ships that attempted the route closer to Oman.

I'm guessing they assumed that Iran would play nice for at least 60 days in return for the lifting of sanctions. And that a longer term plan would be negotiated during the 60 day interim peace.