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

Neither is calling someone a hypocrite but I won't be reporting that as it's too mild. Though I fail to see how it's hypocritical to support free speech but also say I hope that Raining isn't living in a country they show contempt for.

Thank you for being honest about the fact that you reported me though. That sounds sarcastic but it's not. My posts get deleted sometimes but no one normally admits to reporting me as they like to pretend I'm the only one who reports posts.

We all show contempt for the country we live in at times. I have had the 'why don't you leave' thrown at me too many times so comments like that really annoy me. Especially when you look at the current right wing comments everywhere.

I don't think you didn't meant it like that though.

I didn't mean it like that, no. Personally, I don't know anyone in real life who shows contempt for the UK. We do criticise it on occasion which is different.

I would never say to someone "why don't you leave" and am sorry that has been your experience.

https://nypost.com/2026/07/25/world-news/us-mulls-plan-to-snatch-enriched-uranium-from-irans-nuclear-facilities/

It’s the nuclear option.

American Special Operations forces are waiting in the wings to launch the “most sophisticated operation in military history” to seize Iran’s enriched uranium from heavily fortified nuclear sites.

“I hate to say it, but I think the most likely way to get rid of Iran’s nuclear material, at least what they currently have, is a military operation because the negotiations aren’t going anywhere fast,” said Joseph Rodgers, deputy director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The deeply complex operation would involve thousands of ground troops storming Iran’s nuclear facilities — navigating boobytraps, utilizing construction crews, and maintaining a large defensive blocking force surrounding the sites — a source familiar with military planning told The Post on Friday.

Hey folk. On free speech and censorship/rules....

I might be gone soon cos MN is playing up. And I don't mean the cloudflare issues that many posters get, but this site is starting to get the "not available" screen. It's difficult to explain, because I am not an IT person, but when the firewall is tweaked there are often indicating signs beforehand. And my spider senses are tingling.

I don't like reporting. I know someone, nationality of where I am, who was reported for what she said on a SM group chat, and she got an exit ban notice put on her passport. An electronic one, before anyone asks.

If anyone claims to be fighting for the cause of free speech, then don't report. I reckon if you are not able to take a hit now and then on SM, then stay off it.

Having said that. For full disclosure, I did report @Twiglets1 once. And I feel ashamed to have done that. But in my defense, my report was on an unrelated thread to this for potential doxing. I felt Twiggers went beyond personal attack, and that Twiggers was inviting the other posters to attack me based on information TW posted. Personal information carried across threads. And I was attacked, and I reported. And believe it or not, I still feel bad for reporting Twiggers.

Play the ball please. Not the player.

By the way. I do like a good forum spat. But we can do it in a careful way. And we can do it without having the cops on speed dial. If someone hits you, hit back. But in a subtle way. It's something people in authoritarian places need to learn.

Very dramatic Red but no one is claiming to be fighting for the cause of free speech, what a load of bollocks. We're all just posting on a social media site called Mumsnet not free speech warriors.

Play the ball not the player. Is exactly what MN say but I don't see many people sticking to that on the CITME board. There would be no need for deletions ever if everyone was playing the ball not the player.

If you stick to the rules you rarely get reported and it's even rarer that those in authority have a problem with you.

It's something people in authoritarian places and moderated websites need to learn.

I am gonna give you some uncharacteristic Mumsnet hugs and ❤💖

Kind of pissed off really (at the system responsible for this) as it refreshing to have a back and forth with someone respectfully and also to learn about living in another part of the world.

If it happens, I'm gonna miss your UNCLOS analysis.

p.s. Fully agree with regarding Free speech, in over 15 years on Mumsnet I have only reported 4 posts, with 2 of them being where the poster was acting like they're a danger to themselves. I'm old school sticks and stones may break my bones lol and today's Mumsnet is soft and fluffy compared to the original nest of vipers,

Thanks belle. Yeah. Some folk are just black and white and won't budge.

And hey, transplant them into an authoritarian state, and guess who will be striding around with a cap on their head and a clipboard held out in front.

Now back on thread. I think the boundaries are now known for sure. As Pickard did not say... Do not engage.

oh back to the old "black and white" I see - let's at least have some originality in insults if you insist on ignoring the MN mantra of "play the ball not the player". Though the image of me striding around in an authoritarian hell hole with a cap on my head and a clipboard is a novel insult, I admit.

It's just not me tbh. I can't even discipline the dog let alone anyone else.

Yup, true Libertarianism embodies the principle of I may not like what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.

Thankfully my teachers decades ago made us read everything, even from sources/people we disliked in order to equip us to be able to argue from different positions and empathise with different POVs, The good old days of there only being 4 TV channels and no internet, having to use an Encyclopaedia Britannica!

Unfortunately, that is less so the case these days and people are less able to see nuance.

On Authoritarianism, history shows it doesn't always pan out for the one's who enforce the rules, just look at Trotsky or many historical revolutionaries. Power after all is intoxicating.

Yup, true Libertarianism embodies the principle of I may not like what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.

Agree totally. I can honestly say that in spite of having been on the receiving end of reported posts, I have never reported a post, except for the spamming advert ones. Wrongly or rightly, I look at people who report multiple posts as any combination of:
a. lacking capacity to defend their arguments
b. being thin skinned
c. wanting to control others

@RedTagAlan I hope your fears are unfounded and MN is not blocked where you are. You have my vote for being a free speech advocate in practice.

This is how the coversation went from bottom to top.
Just to clarify once again, I called you a hypocrite because you appear to support free speech but then do not think I should be able to freely criticise anything in the UK and, if I do, I apparently don't deserve to live there.

As I've said previously on other threads, I am very concerned about the rise in authoritarian behaviour by the UK authorities and the way that people are personally attacked online for disagreeing with the most prevailing opinion. I have no problem with people disgareeing with me at all but it is the venom in so many replies that is worrying.
Thanks to @TopPocketFind and others.

rainingsnoring · Today 08:10
I thought it was a free world and that free speech was allowed in the UK!

Twiglets1 · Today 07:04
That shows your contempt for the UK so I hope you don't live here too.

Quoting Twiglets1
rainingsnoring · Today 07:01
I thought you were in the UK Twigs! 😂

Quoting rainingsnoring
Twiglets1 · Today 06:53
It's a free world isn't it? Where I am, anyway.

Quoting Twiglets1
rainingsnoring · Today 06:48
Disagree Twigs. There's really no need for you to wade in again and try to inflame things and cause problems as usual. I'm sure the other posters are perfectly capable of expressing themselves.

Yes, good all empathy and manners!
I think we have all got so much worse at these things as we deal with faceless people online. I know that Tim Berners Lee was very unhappy about some of these unforseen consequences of his amazing idea.

Trump has set aside plans for a major escalation in Iran, at least in the short term, after Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen Dan Caine privately warned it could deplete US air defence supplies in the Middle East to dangerous levels, the NYT reports.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/25/us/politics/trump-iran-military.html

So it's pause, build up stocks of missiles, start again. Rinse and repeat. As we have discussed at length here.

Basically, we could set a US missile production spreadsheet up, start off with all the published data on worldwide stocks and production output prewar (easily found and previously posted), work out production increase, put in missile usage from the war reports - and we could map out the war cycle for the next year or two.

We could even improve that model by adding in world oil stockpiles, work out oil use, and oil that gets out of the gulf during the "pauses". Then take that model and use it to set up a Gant chart set up in "2 weeks", time segments.

I wonder if Iran have worked that out ?

Unfortunately, Gant charts don't have a timeline for the length of a piece of string.

More detail from the BBC on the multi billion deal between the US and Saudi Arabia to help the Gulf kingdom develop nuclear energy:

"The Civil Nuclear Deal (There will be no enrichment of material!)... which pertains only to non-military use... will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords," Trump said on Truth Social.

It was not immediately clear if the condition of joining the accords was stipulated in the text of the nuclear deal - which has not been released - or that Saudi Arabia had agreed to that condition. The agreement is currently with US Congress for review.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwye71yq8wwo

Well lets hope the US do their homework better on this deal than they did on the MOU, otherwise we will be left with a whole new can of worms.

The deal announced Wednesday creates a framework for American safeguards, but The Wall Street Journal previously reported that it lacks Saudi Arabia’s sign-on to the “gold standard” no-enrichment pledge, or an agreement to allow broad International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.
That bypassing those safeguards, which were requirements for the 2009 nuclear deal with the United Arab Emirates, made some staunch nuclear nonproliferation advocates on the Hill anxious Wednesday, saying the deal could open the door for Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium domestically down the road.
Others warned that the deal could push Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

Also, Saudi didn’t sign the AA due to Palestine. And that small problem hasn’t gone away.

I'm sure you can research this yourself. There is plenty of information available online and I don't want to derail the thread!

Deals encouraging another country in the region to enrich uranium, especially a country such as Saudi with a long history of violence sounds extremely unwise. As you say, it is likely to cause other countries to want to acquire these dangerous weapons, particularly Iran. As the Americans and Israelis have murdered the previous leader, who did not develop a nuclear weapon, and then failed to achieve their regime change, they now have a new leader who may be more likely to seek this.

It's irrelevant whether the new leader wants a nuclear weapon more than the last leader did. Let's face it, he hasn't been seen in months so is probably dead or a vegetable.

Iran is not going to be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon - that is something that almost every other country can agree on. The more aggressive they get the further away the possibility recedes that they will be allowed to do so.

BBC: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Thursday that it was aware of US and Saudi plans for a "bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement and the plan to ask the IAEA to implement verification measures in relation to this".

"We look forward to receiving the request for such verification and to working with the US and KSA [Kingdom of Saudi Arabia] in ensuring the implementation of those measures."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwye71yq8wwo

I vaguely remembered the very Game of thrones esque Palace coup that MBS carried out in 2017. Lots of backstabbing, murders (remember Khashoggi?) , kidnaps and arrests and phone calls to Kushner trying to curry favour with Trump.

It's a long read but well worth it,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/mbs-v-mbn-the-bitter-power-struggle-between-rival-saudi-princes

“On July 22, United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright and his Saudi counterpart signed an agreement for a Saudi-U.S. civilian nuclear partnership. The multi-decade, multibillion-dollar deal allows American companies to develop and operate commercial nuclear power plants on Saudi soil, potentially including a uranium-enrichment facility. The Saudis have sought such a deal for almost 20 years. United States presidents from Barack Obama onward have expressed openness to it, but on two conditions: Any deal must include safeguards against Saudi use of enrichment for nuclear weapons and also a normalization of relations with Israel.”
“With the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2024, the Saudis surely hoped their moment had arrived. Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in Trump and the Trump family, including licensing deals with the Trump Organization potentially worth billions of dollars and a huge commitment to the private-equity firm founded by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. This week, those investments seemed to have paid off. Details on Wednesday’s agreement are sparse, but The Washington Post reported that the pact, by clearing a way to nuclear enrichment, opened a path to an eventual Saudi nuclear weapon. The deal also reportedly dropped the precondition that Saudi Arabia recognize Israel.”
“The Saudis, essentially, had got everything they wanted, with little sacrifice in return. But no sooner was the deal signed than the reneging began. In a Truth Social post yesterday, Trump insisted that the deal did not, in fact, include uranium enrichment and that it is “totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords”—that is, to normalized relations with Israel. Utter chaos and confusion duly erupted over what Trump meant to accomplish with these words. Is Trump attempting to blow up the freshly inked deal after hearing Republicans criticize it on Fox News and elsewhere, as CNN suggests? Or was the outburst simply Trump bluster without real-world consequences?”
“No one seems to know. Trump did not consult the Saudi leadership before adding a late condition to the deal they had just celebrated. Just what this means for the deal’s fate in Congress is unclear too. Congress can block it, but would need a veto-proof majority in both the House and Senate to do so—presuming Trump even wants the deal to go ahead.
The Saudis must be puzzled. They paid their “quid” to the Trump family. Where is their “quo”? Can criticism on Fox News cancel billions paid for the Trump family’s favor?”
“This turnabout comes at a very bad time for Saudi Arabia. The country has already been left stranded and exposed by the failure of Trump’s Iran war, which has emboldened Iran and tightened its hold on the Strait of Hormuz, Saudi Arabia’s most important maritime connection to world oil markets. Saudi Arabia needs protection. Its traditional protector has been exposed as fickle and weak. The kingdom may now see a nuclear force of its own as a condition of its survival in a post-American Middle East.”
“Which brings us back to Saudi Arabia’s Plan A. Is the nukes plan cooked? Trump often announces things on social media that don’t come true in real life. In his first term, he announced on Twitter in 2019 that he had ordered all U.S. businesses out of China. The “order” was dropped three days later. In June 2025, Trump announced a pause on immigration enforcement on farms, and at hotels and restaurants. The pause was reversed several days later. Trump has repeatedly announced tariff increases that are then shelved and military strikes that are never carried out, including a vow last November to invade Nigeria “guns a-blazing” to wipe out that country’s Islamic insurgents. So it may be with Trump’s after-the-signature demand that Saudi Arabia recognize Israel as an additional price for a deal greased by the flow of funds to Trump companies and relatives.”
“America’s traditional democratic allies feel betrayed and baffled by the unpredictability of Trump’s pay-for-play diplomacy. But those willing to pay can suffer betrayals and bafflements of their own. If not even the Saudis, who showered Trump and his family with cash and gifts, can trust Trump’s diplomacy, who else on earth can feel any confidence at all?”

Excerpt From
“The Saudis Learn the Truth About Trump”
David Frum
The Atlantic
https://apple.news/AZn-0jPHRQbOKUJJLErjrGQ
This material may be protected by copyright.

I did. It seems like he bas banned for spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda, not truth.