Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

US-Iran peace agreement discussion, part 4

1000 replies

RedTagAlan · 13/08/2026 11:40

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
85
rainingsnoring · 29/08/2026 08:03

Twiglets1 · 28/08/2026 13:50

😂

Clearly none!

Twiglets1 · 29/08/2026 08:42

rainingsnoring · 29/08/2026 07:58

You are just plain wrong Twigs.
The regime change plan came right out of Trump's mouth on the first or second day. It's strange that you are choosing to ignore selective parts of what he says and take others 100% seriously.

I'm not wrong and I didn't say that regime change wasn't an aim of the war.

I disagreed with your statement that "the nuclear weapons thing has suddenly become the alleged US chief goal".

Preventing Iran from being able to develop nuclear weapons was always a main goal to the US & Israel.

In the United States, Trump administration officials have offered various and conflicting rationales for the war,[12] such as to ward off an imminent Iranian threat, to pre-empt Iranian retaliation against US assets after an expected Israeli attack on Iran,[13][14][15][16] to destroy Iran's missile and military capabilities, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,[17] to secure Iran's natural resources.[18] Several statements were reportedly made by some United States officials such as the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, justifying the action from a Christian religious perspective, some of which described the situation as a holy war.[19]
Trump also aimed to achieve regime change by bringing the Iranian opposition to power. [20][21][22][23]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_2026_Iran_war

Rationale for the 2026 Iran war - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_2026_Iran_war#cite_note-17

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 08:57

@Twiglets1 ,

I think I may have posted this link before (and you may need to create a log in, but the article is free) but I find this to be by far the best informed and authoritative article on how and why Netanyahu persuaded Trump to attack Iran.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html

Nukes are mentioned, but they are really not the core of the reason for the attack.

Squeezingwildoranges · 29/08/2026 10:46

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 06:03

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

‘I am absolutely disgusted that you think I'm an antisemite. My argument is that Israels existence as a country which dispossesses people of their homes and lands is based purely on a religious mandate that most of the world don't share.’

You are conflating how Israel is behaving, which I agree is disgracefully at the moment, with Israel’s right to exist. For the avoidance of confusion, below is an example of antisemitism according to the official IHRA definition:

  1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

This is precisely what you are doing. Now, very few people question the United States right to existence or claim it came from a racist/religious mandate, although the Mayflower settlers certainly claimed religion and race as their right to the land. Ditto Australia and the Aborigines and Peru and the Incas. Every single one dispossessed a native population at some point in history. So why is Israel so special aside from the fact it is Jews?! The statement about Israel’s right to exist is prima facie antisemitism and, if you don’t think you aren’t happy to be called out as an antisemite, I suggest you reconsider it.

Where I agree with you and deeply sympathise is that the Palestinians got a raw deal out of it. But it was a messy compromise after a genocide which saw over 1/3 of the World’s Jews genocided in an industrial process. There was previous thought of an area between Kenya and Tanzania. Despite reference to a book earlier in this thread, experts do generally believe Jews were driven out of the Middle East in biblical times, so to some extent it was repossessing their homeland. I won’t argue that too strongly as the nation states are always forged in wars and justice doesn’t really come into it.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I favour Israel returning to her pre 1967 borders and a proper two state solution. I also favour a full boycott of Israel to stop settler violence and the potential settlement of Gaza and to pressurise Israel to stop racist and expansionist behaviour.

But Israel is not Iran and has a vote soon. Until recently it was far more secular than most realise. I hope they vote for a decent tolerant government. However, I also hope that they remain a Jewish state. Given the rise in antisemitism, we Jews (even secular ones like me) may well need one.

I would like to see justice for the Palestinians but not at the expense of the Jews. At the same time, I agree that there should be a homeland for Jews but not at the expense of the Palestinians. Although it is a small country, it is big enough for all so just bloody share it. I don't think a two state solution is the answer. As I have said before, the villages of Deir Yassin and Givet Shaul lived perfectly happily side by side for decades.

Twiglets1 · 29/08/2026 11:59

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 08:57

@Twiglets1 ,

I think I may have posted this link before (and you may need to create a log in, but the article is free) but I find this to be by far the best informed and authoritative article on how and why Netanyahu persuaded Trump to attack Iran.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html

Nukes are mentioned, but they are really not the core of the reason for the attack.

Your link invited me to a 7 day free trial but the problem with those is that they take all your details (with the risk of selling them on) and I may forget to cancel it within the trial period. I don't join free trials very often for this reason so I will politely decline. If you copy and paste the relevant part, I will read it.

I am acknowledging that there are lots of reason for the attack not just nukes. However, I have read a lot around the subject myself from multiple sources so I doubt that an opinion from a NYT journalist is likely to change my opinion.

Nukes were not the only reason but I believe it was made clear from very early on that they were one of the main reasons. Obviously you don't share that opinion, fine.

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 12:02

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

‘Although it is a small country, it is big enough for all so just bloody share it. I don't think a two state solution is the answer. As I have said before, the villages of Deir Yassin and Givet Shaul lived perfectly happily side by side for decades.’

This is getting off the topic of the thread but a one state ‘solution’ is denying the Jews a right to their only state in the World. How could you have a one state solution and keep it Jewish, or even safe for Jews? And that is why not believing in a Jewish state starts to look antisemitic.

It would become a reproductive and immigration race, which the Jewish population would probably lose. And then if could end up being run by the likes of Hamas, and we know how that would end.

I guess that if I wanted to hypothesise a path to an ideal solution, you could see a two state solution become a free trade zone, then have a single currency. But, until antisemitism ends, and I don’t see that happening soon, Jews do deserve one small country where they know that they are safe and can go to in extremis.

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 12:08

@Twiglets1 ,

I’d say it is a lot more than an opinion. They had unparalleled access.

I will try and send the article as a gift link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9FA.5wfi.EF4AcBxf83aj&smid=url-share

Let me know if that works for you.

Twiglets1 · 29/08/2026 12:13

@Newbutoldfather I think Trump's statement on Truth Social on Feb 28 2026, the day the war started, makes it clear that the nuclear threat was one of the main reasons for US choosing to start a war in Iran.

Trump's full statement on Iran attacks

A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. A vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world.

For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted Death to America and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops and the innocent people in many, many countries. Among the regime's very first acts was to back a violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding dozens of American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, Iran's proxies carried out the marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel.

In 2000, they knew and were probably involved with the attack on the USS Cole. Many died. Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq. The regime's proxies have continued to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East in recent years, as well as U.S. naval and commercial vessels and international shipping lines. It's been mass terror, and we're not going to put up with it any longer.

From Lebanon to Yemen and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts. And it was Iran's proxy, Hamas, that launched the monstrous Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, slaughtering more than 1,000 innocent people, including 46 Americans, while taking 12 of our citizens hostage. It was brutal, something like the world has never seen before.

Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror, and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested. It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again, they can never have a nuclear weapon. That is why in Operation Midnight Hammer last June, we obliterated the regime's nuclear program at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

After that attack, we warned them never to resume their malicious pursuit of nuclear weapons, and we sought repeatedly to make a deal. We tried. They wanted to do it. They didn't want to do it. Again they wanted to do it. They didn't want to do it. They didn't know what was happening. They just wanted to practice evil. But Iran refused, just as it has for decades and decades.

They've rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore. Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing the long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland. Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had, and actually were armed with nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message.

For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally again obliterated. We're going to annihilate their navy. We're going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs, or roadside bombs as they are sometimes called, to so gravely wound and kill thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans. And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. It's a very simple message. They will never have a nuclear weapon.

To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces and all of the police, I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity. Or in the alternative, face certain death. So, lay down your arms. You will be treated fairly with total immunity, or you will face certain death.

Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.

For many years, you have asked for America's help. But you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let's see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny, and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/read-trumps-full-statement-on-iran-attack

Read Trump's full statement on Iran attacks

President Donald Trump said in an 8-minute video posted on his Truth Social that the U.S. has begun “major combat operations in Iran.” He claimed Iran has continued to develop its nuclear program and plans to develop missiles to reach U.S. and appealed...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/read-trumps-full-statement-on-iran-attack

Twiglets1 · 29/08/2026 12:18

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 12:08

@Twiglets1 ,

I’d say it is a lot more than an opinion. They had unparalleled access.

I will try and send the article as a gift link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9FA.5wfi.EF4AcBxf83aj&smid=url-share

Let me know if that works for you.

That does work, thank you - I will take a good look and give my thoughts. In return I would be interested in your thoughts on the Trump speech I just posted.

Personally I think it confirms that Trump made it clear from very early on that the nuclear threat was one of the main reasons for starting the war.

(Edited to add sorry - it does seem more evidence based than the usual opinion pieces that people post on here, that was an assumption I made before I could actually see the article).

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 12:29

@Twiglets1 ,

In the same sense as Bush claimed his war against Saddam Hussein was about them imminently attacking the west with weapons of mass destruction, Trump needed an urgent cassus belli (an imminent threat) to escape the legal processes that normally take place around going to war.

He should have warned Iran, gone through the U.N to get a resolution and, domestically, got congress to authorise the war. The only way around this is to posit an imminent and serious threat so that he can use his presidential authority to go to war.

So, of course he talked about nukes. He may even have believed it when he said it; I think he is quite good at that! However, as you will read in the article that I sent you, the timing was due to the possibility of a decapitation strike. And the fact that he hasn’t tried to manage the ‘nuclear dust’ to date, despite having total aerial dominance, shows that he doesn’t see it as any kind of an imminent threat.

Squeezingwildoranges · 29/08/2026 12:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Twiglets1 · 29/08/2026 12:47

It is an interesting article @Newbutoldfather and does paint a convincing picture of Trump being hugely influenced by Netanyahu re the timing & rationale for the war and in the (false) belief that joint goals could be quickly achieved.

I don't see that it does anything but agree though with my opinion that the nuclear threat was one of the main reasons for the war.

When others in the room asked the prime minister about possible risks in the operation, Mr. Netanyahu acknowledged these but made one central point: In his view, the risks of inaction were greater than the risks of action. He argued that the price of action would only grow if they delayed striking and allowed Iran more time to accelerate its missile production and create a shield of immunity around its nuclear program.

Re regime change, the article quotes Trump as dismissing that as a goal he was taking responsibility for.

Mr. Trump quickly weighed the assessment. Regime change, he said, would be “their problem.”

The article does point to several reasons for the war, which is to be expected.

Of all the foreign policy challenges Mr. Trump had confronted across two presidencies, Iran stood apart. He regarded it as a uniquely dangerous adversary and was willing to take great risks to hinder the regime’s ability to wage war or to acquire a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, Mr. Netanyahu’s pitch had dovetailed with Mr. Trump’s desire to dismantle the Iranian theocracy, which had seized power in 1979, when Mr. Trump was 32. It had been a thorn in the side of the United States ever since.

The timing of the attack was due to new intelligence that would significantly accelerate their timeline. The ayatollah would be meeting above ground with other top officials of the regime, in broad daylight and wide open for an air attack.

Mr. Trump gave Iran another chance to come to a deal that would block its path to nuclear weapons...That same week, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff called from Geneva after the latest talks with Iranian officials. Over three rounds of negotiations in Oman and Switzerland, the two had tested Iran’s willingness to make a deal. At one point, they offered the Iranians free nuclear fuel for the life of their program — a test of whether Tehran’s insistence on enrichment was truly about civilian energy or about preserving the ability to build a bomb.

The Iranians rejected the offer, calling it an assault on their dignity.

On Thursday, Feb. 26, around 5 p.m., a final Situation Room meeting got underway. By now, the positions of everyone in the room were clear.

When it was his turn to speak, Mr. Rubio offered more clarity, telling the president: If our goal is regime change or an uprising, we shouldn’t do it. But if the goal is to destroy Iran’s missile program, that’s a goal we can achieve.

“I think we need to do it,” the president told the room. He said they had to make sure Iran could not have a nuclear weapon, and they had to ensure that Iran could not just shoot missiles at Israel or throughout the region.

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 13:03

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

‘Well that's where our opinions differ. I believe in total secularism and disagree that any country should define itself by a religion. I believe in freedom of religion.’

I agree with your view on religion but, as I explained upthread, Judaism is not just a religion and those who persecute us don’t care whether we attend synagogue or eat pork (I love a good roast pork with crispy crackling).

If you believe in a one state solution, how are you going to keep it safe for Jews and stop it becoming yet another Islamic Middle Eastern state?

Squeezingwildoranges · 29/08/2026 13:14

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 13:03

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

‘Well that's where our opinions differ. I believe in total secularism and disagree that any country should define itself by a religion. I believe in freedom of religion.’

I agree with your view on religion but, as I explained upthread, Judaism is not just a religion and those who persecute us don’t care whether we attend synagogue or eat pork (I love a good roast pork with crispy crackling).

If you believe in a one state solution, how are you going to keep it safe for Jews and stop it becoming yet another Islamic Middle Eastern state?

You're right we are going off topic but try this.

https://www.alandforall.org/english-vision/

Twiglets1 · 29/08/2026 13:19

The article does convince me that "the timing was due to the possibility of a decapitation strike" @Newbutoldfather but not that the nuclear threat wasn't an important reason for the US wanting to attack Iran.

And Trump's statement on Truth Social on Feb 28 2026 does disprove the assertion by Raining that the nuclear threat has only suddenly become a major goal. It was always listed as a major goal (albeit you feel cynical about Trump's real motivations). I can't argue with how you feel only about what was actually said at the time.

RedTagAlan · 29/08/2026 13:45

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 07:48

@Twiglets1 ,

I would honestly be surprised if these financial sanctions made a lot of difference.Surely, it is the blockade that’s really hurting Iran.

Prior to the war 80% of Iranian exports were hydrocarbon based products; without oil it would be a dirt poor country. And of that 80%, 90% went to China.

So, if Iran could get oil out, China would continue to buy it, and I think Iran would happily accept CNY for it, which the U.S can do little about.

If is extraordinary that Trump has spent so much on a kinetic war if financial pressure would have sufficed.

Quote " Prior to the war 80% of Iranian exports were hydrocarbon based products; without oil it would be a dirt poor country. And of that 80%, 90% went to China."

See this is where I don't see the facts that match the claim being made.

I am not disputing the numbers at all, and I am not about to fact check it, This is just a demo of how I think. Probably from my exposure to propaganda.

Lets say there is an export unit, and he will call it a unit. And lets say Iran exports 100 units, and 80 of them are petro. Fair enough.

But that is not enough to say that Iran would be dirt poor without those 80 petro units. Because they still have the 20 units. And for all we know, the country next door, or a few doors away, might not be dirt poor, but actually only export 15 units.

All adjusted per capita of course.

And this is before we even get into the ratio of internal v external economy. Because Iran has had sanctions for decades. The export side of it's economy might be a small part of overall. Self-sufficiency and all that. And it's not as if their petrol pumps will run dry if they can't buy oil.

So yup. I am just saying the info you presented and the conclusion don't match.

And of course, it is not unusual at all to have mineral and petro rich countries where the masses are dirt poor. VZ for example are not rich, And it seems they never will be. Trump has just announced he us taking a fifth of all their oil.

OP posts:
Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 13:48

@Twiglets1 ,

‘And Trump's statement on Truth Social on Feb 28 2026 does disprove the assertion by Raining that the nuclear threat has only suddenly become a major goal. It was always listed as a major goal (albeit you feel cynical about Trump's real motivations). I can't argue with how you feel only about what was actually said at the time.’

I can’t know what was going on in the mind of a ‘very stable genius’, especially one who ‘aces’ all his ‘cognitive tests’!

I just feel that his actions in not doing anything about the uranium, other than writing a document, suggest he isn’t that bothered about it, especially as a matter of urgency.

But, with the U.S military being distracted by a potential war with anyone who doesn’t step up and buy at the next round of treasury sales, it is kind of understandable.

(I do jest somewhat!)

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 14:03

@RedTagAlan ,

you make some fair points which I should have considered. I posted too hastily.

Most of Iran’s economy is domestic (around 75%) and its oil is, in total, only about 1/4 of the economy. Half of it is services.

They definitely aren’t rich (gdp/capita $4,700) but, on a ppp basis, they aren’t dirt poor either.

Squeezingwildoranges · 29/08/2026 14:09

Twiglets1 · 29/08/2026 13:19

The article does convince me that "the timing was due to the possibility of a decapitation strike" @Newbutoldfather but not that the nuclear threat wasn't an important reason for the US wanting to attack Iran.

And Trump's statement on Truth Social on Feb 28 2026 does disprove the assertion by Raining that the nuclear threat has only suddenly become a major goal. It was always listed as a major goal (albeit you feel cynical about Trump's real motivations). I can't argue with how you feel only about what was actually said at the time.

It was an excuse, not a goal. Multiple reliable sources such as the IAEA had stated Iran was not preparing to build a bomb. Netanyahu has been saying for the last thirty years that Iran was weeks away from a bomb with no credible evidence. US intelligence agencies have consistently concluded that Iran is not actively building a nuclear bomb. They needed an excuse to try to topple the regime and that was it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/americas-spies-say-iran-wasnt-building-a-nuclear-weapon-trump-dismisses-that-assessment

America's spies say Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon. Trump dismisses that assessment

Trump's national intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard, told Congress in March that Iran's supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/americas-spies-say-iran-wasnt-building-a-nuclear-weapon-trump-dismisses-that-assessment

TopPocketFind · 29/08/2026 14:09

Menawhile Trump hails 'historic' deal for US to control 65bn barrels of Venezuela's oil with the regime still in place.

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 14:13

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

What that article proposes is a two state solution, but leaving the settlements in place. I am not against that, although I think most Palestinians would be.

Squeezingwildoranges · 29/08/2026 14:20

Newbutoldfather · 29/08/2026 14:13

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

What that article proposes is a two state solution, but leaving the settlements in place. I am not against that, although I think most Palestinians would be.

I think the majority of Palestinians would welcome any solution which would give them dignity, self determination and basic human rights over what they have been going through for the last 80 years. It is getting the Israelis to agree that is the issue as it requires them making the bigger sacrifice in terms of giving up land.

RedTagAlan · 29/08/2026 14:20

TopPocketFind · 29/08/2026 14:09

Menawhile Trump hails 'historic' deal for US to control 65bn barrels of Venezuela's oil with the regime still in place.

He is singing the praises of the current dictator. The one who was Maduros number 2.

OP posts:
TopPocketFind · 29/08/2026 14:24

RedTagAlan · 29/08/2026 14:20

He is singing the praises of the current dictator. The one who was Maduros number 2.

Iran was supposed to be as easy as Venezuela

“What we did in Venezuela, I think, is the perfect, the perfect scenario,”

BelleHathor · 29/08/2026 14:24

RedTagAlan · 29/08/2026 14:20

He is singing the praises of the current dictator. The one who was Maduros number 2.

But don't you know Red she is his dictator now, so fair do's. She is the equivalent to MBS in Saudi Arabia, hanging dissidents and murdering journalists, perfectly fine when you are on the right side.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread