US-Iran peace agreement discussion, part 4

[RedTagAlan]

Thread 4 for those following and commenting on the above subject.

Of that I have no doubt. He must be furious with Netanyahu for getting him into this mess but of course he can't express that publicly. I suspect the quietness at the moment is simply the lull before the storm. I don't know what is coming but I have a feeling it is not going to be anything good.

It's the religious fanaticism of the Iranian hardliners that is scary in the context of Iran developing the capacity for nuclear weapons.

I would have thought that was obvious, I even specified "hardliners".

If that is a matter of opinion, I'm happy with the sort of people I am sharing that opinion with.

A matter of opinion that Israel governments don’t behave as irrationally as the IRGC do ... yet the UK bans support for the IRGC as we consider them to be a terrorist organisation. A death cult that cares nothing for the life even of their own citizens.

And of course the IRGC is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, the European Union, Honduras, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, and the United States.

I have no idea if the IRGC would launch a nuclear weapon if they had one but I'm interested to hear why you think it is obvious that they are more dangerous. What evidence do you have for that?

😂

The UN’s International Maritime Organization says around 6,000 seafarers aboard roughly 400 ships are still stranded in the Persian Gulf, unable to safely exit through the Strait of Hormuz.

https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/middle-east-strait-of-hormuz.aspx

That is an interesting question, as the fear is based on a what-if. Whilst for the last almost 3 years we have seen the IDF (with the full support of America and Europe) bomb schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, apartment buildings and much more civilian infrastructure and occupy areas in other sovereign countries.

Yeah. Especially the theological evidence. What is the line in their book that says Israel must be destroyed.

But this is the norm it seems. Have a big discussion on if it is theocratic or ideological, and then boom, it's as if that conversation never happened. Back to square one that it is religion.

Flat earthers do this. I used to do a fair about of online debating against flat earthers. And after following them down into their rabbit warren, they would pop up out of the original hole, and go back to the first claim you have already debunked 2 days ago. And of course flat earthers also start multiple threads making the same claim.

As I said in a post yesterday, I know very little about Islam. But this is really one of those things where if there was that line in their book, likes of Tommy Ten names would be yelling it from the top of St Pauls.

@RedTagAlan ,

‘But this is the norm it seems. Have a big discussion on if it is theocratic or ideological, and then boom, it's as if that conversation never happened. Back to square one that it is religion.’

I think you are looking for a debating win here on the semantics between theological and ideological, rather than considering whether the Iranians consider it a sacred duty to destroy Israel.

But here is the result of a simple AI search:

1. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's Founding Doctrines

The founder of the Islamic Republic established the core religious tenets opposing Israel. In his foundational writings and sermons, Khomeini: 1, 2]

• Theological Impurity: Classified Zionism and its supporters through traditional jurisprudential concepts of ritual impurity (najis). []
• Spiritual Destruction: Framed Israel as a Western "spearhead" designed to erode Islamic values. He argued that allowing the state to exist led Muslims to spiritual deviation and prevented theological redemption. 1]
• Al-Quds Day Mandate: Instituted International Quds Day on the final Friday of Ramadan, framing the elimination of the "Zionist regime" as an active religious duty for the global Muslim Ummah (community).1, 2]

1. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Religious Sermons

Former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei expanded on these theological foundations: 1]

• "Religious Duty" Speeches: Khamenei explicitly declared during various Quds Day speeches that "the liberation of Palestine is a religious duty for all Muslims" and that Zionism is a fundamental danger to the divine order. 1]
• The "Cancerous Tumor" Metaphor: In multiple high-profile addresses, including a prominent 2020 speech, he characterized Israel as a "cancerous tumor" contradicting divine justice that must and will be eradicated. 1, 2]
• Apocalyptic Timelines: In September 2015, Khamenei famously decreed that Israel would cease to exist within 25 years (by 2040), a timeline later tied by regime media to the concept of an "Islamic awakening" and divine fulfillment. 1]
• Friday Prayer Call to Arms: In a highly publicized delivered while holding a rifle barrel, Khamenei framed military actions against Israel as "a service to all humanity" and a holy endeavor. src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/4gATxlJCJA4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen> 1]

These are all urges to fight Israel based on religion. Now you may be able to argue that Israel is becoming increasingly religious, and in certain areas it certainly is, but Netanyahu is not taking about Iran ceasing to exist or a holy duty to fight against Iran.

Again, I am not saying Iran would use a nuke against Israel, but I am saying that it is too high a probability risk to take.

I am surprised your AI did not mention doctrine.

As in, there is theological, doctrinal and then ideological.

As I said, I do not know Islam. And your AI is not coming up with theological reasons. They are doctrine/ideological. That is where the semantics are.

As an experiment, ask your AI if women can be Christian priests. It will say no, because of 1 Tim 2:12. That is firmly theological. Then ask it if male priests are banned from marriage. It won't find a bible quote for that, but rather some Papal Bull from the year 970 or something ( guessing here). That is doctrine.

If what Khamenei said was theology, then all the other Islamic clerics would be saying the same thing.

That is my non AI logic anyway.

@RedTagAlan ,

I think that you are kind of missing the point here.

If someone tells me it is my religious duty to destroy a country, I may well press a nuclear button (assuming I am religious) in order to do it and, presumably, go to heaven.

It wouldn’t really matter whether another cleric somewhere else might say God wanted something different , especially if I am in a country where all clerics are saying the same and I don’t get to hear any different.

Axios: U.S. gains the upper hand in the battle for Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz has been Iran's most powerful card since the start of the war in late February. But over the past two months, U.S. officials say the American military has steadily eroded Iran's leverage over the crucial waterway.

While the number of ships that cross the strait — and the amount of oil exported from it — remain well below* *pre-war levels, the reality on the ground has improved. Iran has lost much of its control over the strait and the U.S. military is effectively controlling most of it, U.S. officials said.

• Iran is still firing at ships but its ability to target them accurately is limited. Only 2% of the ships that transited through the strait over the last month were hit, a U.S. official said.
• More than 200 mine-like objects have been swept from the main lane of the strait. U.S. officials say only 11 of them were actual mines and just a few* *were properly deployed.
• In recent weeks, traffic through the southern channel has grown to 20 to 30 tankers every night, carrying an average of 9 to 10 million barrels, per U.S. officials. That's roughly half the pre-war volume.
• "We achieved a major milestone in the Strait of Hormuz. Internationally recognized sea routes in the strait are free of Iranian sea mines. Bottom line: Today international shipping lanes are open and momentum is building," CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper said in a video posted Thursday night.

Yes, but: Oil experts and tanker trackers are skeptical that the actual figures are that high. U.S. officials say they're undercounting.
Periodic reports of oil tankers being struck by projectiles also raise questions about the safety of commercial shipping through the strait, despite U.S. assurances.

www.axios.com/2026/08/28/trump-iran-hormuz-war-oil

Also in Axios:

The big picture: The U.S. oil export operation shows signs of momentum. The UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait have already joined, and Saudi Arabia is also expected to. U.S. officials hope Qatar will soon start sending liquefied natural gas tankers through the U.S.-protected route.

• By mid-September, the U.S. hopes to widen the main channel of the strait so that at least 50 ships can transit in and out of the Gulf every night.
• The goal is to reach 60 to 70 percent of pre-war oil exports.

State of play: Two regional sources told Axios that in recent days Iran has shown renewed interest in negotiations.

• The commander of the Pakistani army visited Tehran on Sunday to try to revive the mediation between the U.S. and Iran.
• He was followed later in the week by the foreign minister of Oman, who came to Tehran to discuss the Strait of Hormuz.
• On Thursday, the prime minister of Qatar — a key mediator between Iran and the U.S. — arrived for talks in Tehran at Iran's request, the regional sources said.
• At least in public, Iran has stuck to the same positions, demanding that the U.S. implement the MOU and offer terms for reopening the strait.

www.axios.com/2026/08/28/trump-iran-hormuz-war-oil

Iranian state media has released a statement from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei urging public unity.

In the statement, Khamenei called for Iranian authorities to avoid any “discouraging statements that weaken national and public motivation”.

“I declare unequivocally: engaging in anything that harms social cohesion is prohibited,” he continued.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/8/28/iran-war-live-tehran-prepares-conditions-to-open-strait-of-hormuz

Yes they are. Glad we finally agree.

There’s a special level of madness for a supposed leadership to murder its own citizens & the IRGC did it by the tens of thousands in January.

@trumpredcard replied to 7 of my posts on the part 3 of this running thread with a laughing emoji & no one questioned how intellectual a response it was.

So I find your “wow” rather selective.

Really simple question as you are now AI-ing everything and now you're bringing religion into it all. Ask your AI bot based on the torah and quranic verses, who is more likely to use a nuclear bomb. Actually I did it. Took three questions to get there but here's the results.

You haven't answered the question. Based on the texts who is likely to use it first (me),

If a conclusion must be drawn based strictly on the explicit text and its theological mechanics, text-based religious analysis indicates that Israel is more likely to use a nuclear weapon first.

I asked you a simple question and you were rude by just using a laughing emoji. Surely you can see that.

And yet Israel hasn’t used one despite being thought to have nuclear weapons since the 60s so that evidence is better than relying on AI to answer complex questions.

Israel hasn't had to use it. Too well supported, Even blowing up an allied ship and they get away with it.

Your question was laughable to me and rudeness is normal on this board in case you haven’t noticed.

Again, I had seven laughing emojis directed at me on the previous thread and one 🤐 and no one thought it noteworthy.

They’ve had plenty of provocation from Iran’s proxies.

I would never be so rude to you to just post a laughing emoji. I would always answer your response with sincerity.

You mean Hezbollah or the Houthis? Who were they supposed to nuke then. You must remember in the 80's Al Qaeda were a US proxy. Who should the US have nuked? The whole of Afghanistan to get rid of the Russians?

I mean the country that funds the proxies - including Hamas.