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
Twiglets1 · 06/09/2026 03:38

The BBC has approached CENTROM for comment about Iran’s latest claims to have targeted US ships.

rainingsnoring · 06/09/2026 04:33

Newbutoldfather · 05/09/2026 11:36

@rainingsnoring ,

‘I think the 2% target is a rather arbitrary one’

Nearly all the central banks have adopted 2%. I think if had been quite carefully chosen as a level that protects the value of money while avoiding deflationary spirals, which are very hard to correct once they start. I am sure you could argue for 1.5% say or 2.5%, but I don’t think you could make a sound economic argument for much higher or lower.

’ I don't think food and energy inflation are short term factors at all’

That’s hard to know but, if we persist with wars, they won’t be. Ultimately as the global population declines and we switch to cheap alternative energy sources, energy should decline in price. But that is a way off.

As for Warsh, I think we will have to agree to disagree. Our first clue will be in about 10 days at the September Fed meeting.

What cheap alternative energy sources are you thinking of here? Renewables are more expensive, not less.
I think it's certain that the cost of essentials such as energy and food will continue to increase, regardless of wars, which obviously make the situation even worse, over the coming years and decades. Sure, when we hit if we hit a recession, oil prices will fall temporarily but I think the general trend will be up.

As you say, let's see what Warsh does in September and in his term in general.

rainingsnoring · 06/09/2026 04:43

Newbutoldfather · 05/09/2026 18:36

It seems the Iranians fired some ballistic missiles af the aircraft carrier and the Americans responded by taking out 3 oil tankers.

That’s quite a significant escalation.

No idea what the Iranians were thinking. Of course, hitting it would be a huge coup, but I suspect the protection around a U.S aircraft carrier is pretty impregnable.

The war is clearly ongoing. The Iranians want to continue the pressure on Trump, knowing he has the mid terms coming up fairly soon. They may well escalate even more nearer this time. For Iran, this war is existential. It is apparently 'not logical' in the eyes of some Westerners on here but that is because they do not understand things from the Iranian perspective at all. What was it that Sun Tzu said?

The US committed a war crime in taking out civilian oil tankers. I guess no one has noted that because it's just another in a very long list. Iran has apparently retaliated by doing the same. It's a terrible situation.

RedTagAlan · 06/09/2026 06:20

rainingsnoring · 06/09/2026 04:43

The war is clearly ongoing. The Iranians want to continue the pressure on Trump, knowing he has the mid terms coming up fairly soon. They may well escalate even more nearer this time. For Iran, this war is existential. It is apparently 'not logical' in the eyes of some Westerners on here but that is because they do not understand things from the Iranian perspective at all. What was it that Sun Tzu said?

The US committed a war crime in taking out civilian oil tankers. I guess no one has noted that because it's just another in a very long list. Iran has apparently retaliated by doing the same. It's a terrible situation.

Yup. I don't see anything illogical about Iran firing on US Navy ships. To me it is totally logical. There is a war going on, and enemy ships off the coast that are launching attacks are legitimate.

Is it a waste of time firing at them because of defenses ? No. Because they want to test the defenses and one might just get through. It also uses up defensive ammo.

What is illogical though is the US firing on civilian ships in retaliation. And really, that US thing of you fire at us, and we will fire on more of your civilian ships, how infantile is that ? The reeks of " My dad is bigger than your dad, and he is coming over to smack your baby sister.

If there were Chinese carriers and ships off the coast of Hawaii launching attacks, would the Americans be saying they can't fire back because of "rules".

The double standards are astounding.

OP posts:
JadeHare · 06/09/2026 06:38

From the Trump hating WSJ??

“As the Trump administration tightens its economic squeeze on Iran, it faces a surprising weak link in its campaign to cut off the regime from the global financial system: America’s own banks.
Billions of dollars of Iranian funds are flowing through clearing accounts at American banks each year, Western officials and researchers say, despite sanctions that prohibit anyone subject to U.S. law from taking part in almost all financial activity linked to Tehran.
Iran accesses the accounts through foreign partners that maintain relationships with U.S. banks, part of a more than century-old system called correspondent banking that helps tie the global financial system together, while also providing Tehran with plenty of ways to secretly infiltrate it.”
“The Trump administration has recently moved to put foreign banks that process dollar transactions with Iran via U.S. correspondent accounts on alert. Officials have also been pushing American banks to step up their vigilance on Iran-related transactions.
But detecting them can be difficult, since Iran uses a complicated network of front companies and other means to disguise them.
On Aug. 28, the U.S. Treasury identified the Emirati branch of a state-owned Egyptian bank as one of the foreign institutions it believes are helping Iran access the U.S. banking system, and said it would move to cut it off. Banque Misr’s United Arab Emirates branch accessed U.S. correspondent accounts and routed as much as $1.8 billion for companies that were potentially part of Iranian shadow-banking networks, officials said.”
“The Treasury said Misr UAE had U.S. dollar accounts with three U.S. banks but didn’t name them. Misr on its website lists JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup as institutions where it has correspondent accounts. Both banks declined to comment on the Treasury action.
Egypt’s Foreign Ministry said it was communicating with U.S. authorities about the Treasury’s allegations. Misr has said it is engaging with the Treasury and respects “relevant regulatory and legal frameworks.” Its Emirati branches are operating normally, the bank said last weekend.
The latest move was part of the Trump administration’s new “Operation Economic Outcast,” a wide-ranging pressure campaign aimed at squeezing Iran financially to force concessions and end Middle East hostilities. Washington is warning global leaders to sever ties with Iran or face secondary sanctions—the threat of being cut off from the U.S. dollar financial system entirely. ”
“But some financial experts say Washington’s efforts could have limited impact if it doesn’t put more pressure on U.S. lenders to scrutinize their correspondent banking relationships more closely. The Treasury last year said it had identified about $9 billion in Iranian funds that moved through American banks in 2024, a figure that some Iran researchers say could be brought down if U.S. banks were more proactive.
“Shadow banking networks are extremely difficult to detect, but by no means is it impossible to track Iran’s financial flows,” said Elaine Dezenski, a former senior Department of Homeland Security official now at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank. “U.S. and correspondent banks are squarely on the hook, and that pressure is only increasing.”
U.S. financial institutions say they work closely with the Treasury to enforce sanctions, including by filing legally mandated reports on any suspicious activity that could be linked to Iran.”
“U.S. officials typically only move to penalize banks if they discover a significant failure to implement a sanctions-compliance program and police transactions. Increasing the pressure on U.S. banks and even many foreign ones could come with downsides, sanctions experts say, including closing a key avenue of insight into Tehran’s financial dealings.
Still, the Trump administration has encouraged U.S. institutions in private meetings with bank compliance officials to better monitor Iranian money flows.
“Under President Trump, Treasury has made clear that compliance with U.S. sanctions and other legal obligations is not optional, and failure to comply will carry consequences. Financial institutions are on notice,” said Gene Lange, a senior Treasury official who oversees the department’s counterterrorism financing office. The department is now “moving faster and more aggressively than ever to identify, disrupt, and penalize any institution or intermediary that continues to enable business with the Iranian regime.””
“The Treasury also has published alerts for global banks laying out red flags that suggest shell companies could be using the U.S.-led financial system for Iran. These signs include an opaque ownership structure of a firm based in the U.A.E. or a company registered in Hong Kong that uses a Chinese bank account and has no online presence.
Complex problem
The root of the issue is the correspondent-banking process itself, in which any dollar-denominated transaction anywhere must ultimately be cleared by an American lender. The system gives Washington the ability to monitor most international dollar transactions and cut off users’ dollars if necessary, crippling their operations.
While Iran increasingly prefers to do business in Chinese yuan or cryptocurrency to avoid that scrutiny, it still must use dollars sometimes to conduct trade, support Middle Eastern allies and buy restricted technology and components for its military. ”
To do so, U.S. officials and researchers say, Iran has built an elaborate shadow banking network that includes shell companies and currency exchange houses in places such as Hong Kong and Dubai.
“Typically, those entities avoid opening direct accounts at U.S. banks, which would likely refuse their business. Instead, they tap partners in China, the U.A.E. or elsewhere that maintain correspondent relationships with American banks, U.S. officials and researchers say.
Those institutions then move the money on behalf of Iran’s front companies, without disclosing their ties to Tehran, while a U.S. bank settles the transfers.
Iranian officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.
China has said it opposes “illegal and unreasonable unilateral sanctions” by Washington and will take necessary measures to safeguard its interests. In a press briefing following the launch of Operation Economic Outcast, a Foreign Ministry spokesman added that economic warfare could disrupt the global economy.
Hong Kong’s government has said it vigorously enforces United Nations sanctions but not those imposed unilaterally by individual nations, which it says violate international law.
The U.A.E. Foreign Ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment. ”
“A recent real-world example looks like this: an Iranian engineering firm put in an order with a Chinese supplier to buy 150,000 circuit boards and sensors—electronic components that are used in car manufacturing but are also sought by Iran for weapons and drones—according to an invoice viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The invoice from the supplier contained the details of its Chinese bank account, and noted that the $650,000 payment should be routed via a U.S.-based clearing partner in New York.
The documents viewed by the Journal showed that the Iranian engineering firm agreed to make payment via Bank Tejarat, an Iranian financial institution sanctioned by the U.S. Tejarat didn’t respond to a request for comment.
But an Iranian bank can’t just transfer dollars to a Chinese firm’s account via the U.S. In such a scenario, the payment to the account of the Chinese supplier would likely have to move from a shell company that had access to a foreign bank with a U.S. correspondent banking relationship, researchers say.
It is unclear whether the payment reflected in the invoices viewed by the Journal was ultimately made.”
“Correspondent banking is vital to a well-functioning global financial system because it allows lenders to settle cross-border payments without transporting physical cash. When a foreign company transfers funds, the U.S. clearing bank effectively deletes dollars from the foreign company’s account and adds them to the other party’s.
For U.S. institutions, correspondent services can be very profitable, generating fees or funding through deposits and enabling a bank to provide more services to customers abroad.
The question is whether U.S. banks are doing enough to ensure they aren’t clearing transactions that benefit Tehran.
It is a challenge that has long bedeviled Washington. If it enforces restrictions loosely, more transactions get through. But clamping down risks damaging the dollar’s dominance, as countries look for alternatives such as China’s yuan. ”
“The more you use the tools, the more you create incentives for alternatives” to the dollar, said Alex Zerden, a former Treasury official who founded financial technology and risk advisory firm Capitol Peak Strategies.
In the case recently announced by the Treasury, U.S. authorities stopped short of imposing secondary sanctions on Banque Misr UAE. Instead, the Treasury said it would restrict Misr’s Emirati branch from accessing U.S. correspondent accounts.
The restrictions don’t go into effect immediately. Misr will have a chance to comment on the Treasury action over 30 days before winding down the U.S. correspondent relationships of its Emirati branch. The Treasury didn’t threaten any actions against U.S. banks.
The choice of a less disruptive approach highlights the dilemma facing Treasury officials. ”
“Cutting off a foreign bank from the U.S. has in the past effectively destroyed the foreign institution being targeted, while punishing U.S. lenders could make them rein in their correspondent banking activity. Both could have knock-on effects, either for the economy where the foreign bank is located, or the broader financial system.
“That’s why they can’t take an all-at-once approach, because it might have ripple effects that are counter to what the U.S. government is trying to accomplish,” said Jason Prince, a partner at the law firm Akin Gump and former Treasury sanctions official.”

Excerpt From
“How Billions in Iranian Money Passes Through U.S. Banks”
Dylan Tokar, Rory Jones
The Wall Street Journal
https://apple.news/AXs2rk1btQkujl2IcB_F_rQ
This material may be protected by copyright.

How Billions in Iranian Money Passes Through U.S. Banks — The Wall Street Journal

Illicit Iranian funds are flowing through U.S.-dollar clearing accounts, creating an enforcement dilemma for Washington

https://apple.news/AXs2rk1btQkujl2IcB_F_rQ

Newbutoldfather · 06/09/2026 07:02

@RedTagAlan ,

‘Yup. I don't see anything illogical about Iran firing on US Navy ships. To me it is totally logical. There is a war going on, and enemy ships off the coast that are launching attacks are legitimate.’

The hot war was kind of paused but, of course, enemy ships are a legitimate target. However, it was always going to generate a huge response (to be honest, I am surprised how measured the response was).

‘Is it a waste of time firing at them because of defenses ? No. Because they want to test the defenses and one might just get through. It also uses up defensive ammo.’

I think one getting through is extremely unlikely. And, in the vanishingly unlikely event that they sank an aircraft carrier, it would bring down a response that would be horrific.

You have to ask what Iran was trying to achieve. As it was they wasted some ballistic missiles and lost 3 oil tankers. Various posters have said that they have hit some oil tankers in retaliation, but that story isn’t in any many stream news, so I suspect it isn’t true and their capacity to do this at will has been severely blunted.

‘If there were Chinese carriers and ships off the coast of Hawaii launching attacks, would the Americans be saying they can't fire back because of "rules".’

I don’t think wars are won and lost in the fine print of international law. Once the missiles start flying, it means that the rules have broken down. It is not legitimacy but outcome that matters. In a symmetrical war, firing on your enemy’s navy makes perfect sense. But this is a very asymmetrical war. The Iranian regime’s main chance is tiring out the U.S and raising the price of oil to such a point that the U.S has more interest in peace than victory. Attacking the navy won’t achieve that goal.

Twiglets1 · 06/09/2026 07:57

The word being used is that Iran “targeted” US ships, not hit them and even this claim hasn’t been verified though I expect more details today.

As @Newbutoldfather says, just as well for Iran that the aircraft carrier wasn’t destroyed as the retaliation would have been worse than the gain.

RedTagAlan · 06/09/2026 08:05

Newbutoldfather · 06/09/2026 07:02

@RedTagAlan ,

‘Yup. I don't see anything illogical about Iran firing on US Navy ships. To me it is totally logical. There is a war going on, and enemy ships off the coast that are launching attacks are legitimate.’

The hot war was kind of paused but, of course, enemy ships are a legitimate target. However, it was always going to generate a huge response (to be honest, I am surprised how measured the response was).

‘Is it a waste of time firing at them because of defenses ? No. Because they want to test the defenses and one might just get through. It also uses up defensive ammo.’

I think one getting through is extremely unlikely. And, in the vanishingly unlikely event that they sank an aircraft carrier, it would bring down a response that would be horrific.

You have to ask what Iran was trying to achieve. As it was they wasted some ballistic missiles and lost 3 oil tankers. Various posters have said that they have hit some oil tankers in retaliation, but that story isn’t in any many stream news, so I suspect it isn’t true and their capacity to do this at will has been severely blunted.

‘If there were Chinese carriers and ships off the coast of Hawaii launching attacks, would the Americans be saying they can't fire back because of "rules".’

I don’t think wars are won and lost in the fine print of international law. Once the missiles start flying, it means that the rules have broken down. It is not legitimacy but outcome that matters. In a symmetrical war, firing on your enemy’s navy makes perfect sense. But this is a very asymmetrical war. The Iranian regime’s main chance is tiring out the U.S and raising the price of oil to such a point that the U.S has more interest in peace than victory. Attacking the navy won’t achieve that goal.

Quote " The hot war was kind of paused but, of course, enemy ships are a legitimate target. However, it was always going to generate a huge response (to be honest, I am surprised how measured the response was)."

It is paused according to Vance. But the US were striking rocket launch facilities ? Is that how it works ? It's a hot war when one side says it is, and the other side is not allowed to fire ?

Now the US does not say where it's ships were. But the Iranians seem to know. The Iranians will also know the range of the aircraft on board, and if the US is moving it's carriers closer to allow deeper penetration into Iran, do you not think the Iranians can work it all out and do a risk assessment ? Maybe say to the US by firing a missile... hey back off a bit. I doubt the US will want to do any in air refueling over Iran.

What would Trump do if Iran hit a carrier ? Nuke them ?

OP posts:
Twiglets1 · 06/09/2026 08:13

It's pure speculation what Trump would do if Iran angered him off sufficiently.

We didn't know what Netanyahu would do when Hamas had an unexpected "success" in their attacks but most of us instinctively knew it was nothing to celebrate on the Palestinian side.

BelleHathor · 06/09/2026 08:26

rainingsnoring · 06/09/2026 04:43

The war is clearly ongoing. The Iranians want to continue the pressure on Trump, knowing he has the mid terms coming up fairly soon. They may well escalate even more nearer this time. For Iran, this war is existential. It is apparently 'not logical' in the eyes of some Westerners on here but that is because they do not understand things from the Iranian perspective at all. What was it that Sun Tzu said?

The US committed a war crime in taking out civilian oil tankers. I guess no one has noted that because it's just another in a very long list. Iran has apparently retaliated by doing the same. It's a terrible situation.

So many quotes applicable, I favour "Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.",

It's about turning up the pain slowly to damage Trump in the midterms in 60 days and it's working, pollster Rich Baris said this during an interview about how close the Texas race is:

"You've got a senator like Ted Cruz. He's got poor Ken Paxton fighting the battle of his life to not lose the most important Senate seat on that map.

And every day Ted Cruz is on Twitter attacking Tucker Carlson and talking about Israel.

What do you think that does to the average Texan voter?, if they're a swing voter or not, even somebody who may have been part of Trump's coalition?
What do you think that does to them when they're weighing their options on who to vote for in November, whether it's Tallarico, who's talking about cost of living, or it's Ken Paxton?

.......Those neocons were hurtful to the peace process.

Every time they got close to an MOU, they would jump out with their coordinated attacks and campaigns and try to pressure pressure the administration to back off or try to kill the deal.

Try to make it just in the environment to negotiate and basically impossible to get something done.

And this is that ended up happening.
The president posted it out to say, look, this is popular. This MOU is popular.
And by the way, it was more popular with Trump voters than it was with Democrats.
And I told you that the last time we were on. Democrats were telling us during the poll that they opposed the peace deal, not because they didn't think it was good for the country, but because they wanted the war to continue so they could have a better chance of winning the midterms.
I mean, Harris voters were literally telling us they hope it continues because it would hurt Republicans.
And Trump posted it because he knows that obviously the American public is just really no appetite for this. Yet it didn't stop."
https://x.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/2096275550599823822?s=20

The firing on ships is quite simple to understand. US ships only have a finite number of missiles on board, once these are expended the ship needs to dock to reload. As the 5th fleet base in Bahrain is more or less "out of service" they have to reload in Diego Garcia which takes several days.

As we also know the morale on US ships is already extremely low, this is more psychological warfare. The sailors are so pissed. Look at the picture that was sent to Trita Parsi by a serving member

https://tritaparsi.substack.com/p/an-american-soldier-in-the-persian

"As one service member told me: “What people in the media don’t understand when they compare past conflicts to this one, is this operation has no morale behind it. That makes a world of difference to service members deployed to undesirable locations indefinitely.”

An American soldier in the Persian Gulf sent me a picture. It went viral.

One of the important characteristics of Israel and Donald Trump’s war on Iran was that it never had the support of the American people.

https://tritaparsi.substack.com/p/an-american-soldier-in-the-persian

Newbutoldfather · 06/09/2026 08:32

@RedTagAlan ,

‘It is paused according to Vance. But the US were striking rocket launch facilities ? Is that how it works ? It's a hot war when one side says it is, and the other side is not allowed to fire ?’

The Iranians are also still hitting ships transiting the strait. I think both sides appreciated being able to lick their wounds.

‘What would Trump do if Iran hit a carrier ? Nuke them ?’

If the hit caused limited reparable damage, the response would be proportionate. If, on the other hand, Iran managed to sink an aircraft carrier, the U.S would demand total victory. At the least, as Trump threatened, all the bridges and power stations destroyed. At most, invasion and occupation. Which is perfectly achievable, albeit at great cost.

Aircraft carriers are hugely symbolic. It would in some ways be a massive win for Trump, as the population would get behind the war.

No nukes.

rainingsnoring · 06/09/2026 11:51

BelleHathor · 06/09/2026 08:26

So many quotes applicable, I favour "Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.",

It's about turning up the pain slowly to damage Trump in the midterms in 60 days and it's working, pollster Rich Baris said this during an interview about how close the Texas race is:

"You've got a senator like Ted Cruz. He's got poor Ken Paxton fighting the battle of his life to not lose the most important Senate seat on that map.

And every day Ted Cruz is on Twitter attacking Tucker Carlson and talking about Israel.

What do you think that does to the average Texan voter?, if they're a swing voter or not, even somebody who may have been part of Trump's coalition?
What do you think that does to them when they're weighing their options on who to vote for in November, whether it's Tallarico, who's talking about cost of living, or it's Ken Paxton?

.......Those neocons were hurtful to the peace process.

Every time they got close to an MOU, they would jump out with their coordinated attacks and campaigns and try to pressure pressure the administration to back off or try to kill the deal.

Try to make it just in the environment to negotiate and basically impossible to get something done.

And this is that ended up happening.
The president posted it out to say, look, this is popular. This MOU is popular.
And by the way, it was more popular with Trump voters than it was with Democrats.
And I told you that the last time we were on. Democrats were telling us during the poll that they opposed the peace deal, not because they didn't think it was good for the country, but because they wanted the war to continue so they could have a better chance of winning the midterms.
I mean, Harris voters were literally telling us they hope it continues because it would hurt Republicans.
And Trump posted it because he knows that obviously the American public is just really no appetite for this. Yet it didn't stop."
https://x.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/2096275550599823822?s=20

The firing on ships is quite simple to understand. US ships only have a finite number of missiles on board, once these are expended the ship needs to dock to reload. As the 5th fleet base in Bahrain is more or less "out of service" they have to reload in Diego Garcia which takes several days.

As we also know the morale on US ships is already extremely low, this is more psychological warfare. The sailors are so pissed. Look at the picture that was sent to Trita Parsi by a serving member

https://tritaparsi.substack.com/p/an-american-soldier-in-the-persian

"As one service member told me: “What people in the media don’t understand when they compare past conflicts to this one, is this operation has no morale behind it. That makes a world of difference to service members deployed to undesirable locations indefinitely.”

Thanks @BelleHathor
I saw that photos online a little while back. The troops don't really seem to believe that what they are doing is morally right. Poor things.

rainingsnoring · 06/09/2026 12:04

Newbutoldfather · 06/09/2026 08:32

@RedTagAlan ,

‘It is paused according to Vance. But the US were striking rocket launch facilities ? Is that how it works ? It's a hot war when one side says it is, and the other side is not allowed to fire ?’

The Iranians are also still hitting ships transiting the strait. I think both sides appreciated being able to lick their wounds.

‘What would Trump do if Iran hit a carrier ? Nuke them ?’

If the hit caused limited reparable damage, the response would be proportionate. If, on the other hand, Iran managed to sink an aircraft carrier, the U.S would demand total victory. At the least, as Trump threatened, all the bridges and power stations destroyed. At most, invasion and occupation. Which is perfectly achievable, albeit at great cost.

Aircraft carriers are hugely symbolic. It would in some ways be a massive win for Trump, as the population would get behind the war.

No nukes.

I'm a bit shocked at the way you just dismiss international law above. The US can hardly claim any sort of moral high ground against the IRGC or any other adversary can they. The US and Israel have been guilty of multiple war crimes in this war alone. Trump and Hegseth have written multiple posts expressing genocidal intent too. Hopefully, the two of them and certain others end up in The Hague. The US may carry things further and wipe out civilian infrastructure, as previously threatened (their objective of helping poor Iranian women is long forgotten). They may invade Iran with ground troops. What you seem to assume is that the US can definitely triumph in Iran. That is by no means certain. In fact, the US have lost many wars in recent history. The Iranians just need to stay the course and watch the US destroy the global economy and itself in the process.

Twiglets1 · 06/09/2026 12:20

I see we’re in Wonderland territory again, where the US is about to be “destroyed”
and the global economy with it.

Let’s revisit that in a year’s time.

Newbutoldfather · 06/09/2026 12:23

@rainingsnoring ,

‘I'm a bit shocked at the way you just dismiss international law above. The US can hardly claim any sort of moral high ground against the IRGC or any other adversary can they.’

I don’t think Trump cares about that. To be honest I am very cynical about moral high ground in wars. At best, they make up a small part of war objectives. Look how few wars in poor resourceless countries we ever get involved in.

The U.S’s only moral high ground was stopping Iran getting nukes, and that was pretty much taken care of in the previous attack.

‘The US and Israel have been guilty of multiple war crimes in this war alone. Trump and Hegseth have written multiple posts expressing genocidal intent too. Hopefully, the two of them and certain others end up in The Hague’

People are way too quick to talk about war crimes, and seem far more interested in our allies in this regard than our enemies (such as Iran and Hamas). We have people today already ‘authoratively’ declaring the attacks on oil tankers is a war crime. Except it probably isn’t. It is legitimate to target the funding and/or supply lines of your enemy.

The U.S has been very successful at invading countries and ousting regimes. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. What they are very bad at is nation building. They have no staying power or understanding of the countries that they invade. They could relatively easily take Iran, the problem is what then. But that would still be an appalling result for the current leadership.

‘The Iranians just need to stay the course and watch the US destroy the global economy and itself in the process.’

There are several recent articles that say Iran is losing control of the Strait. They are getting no oil out and the U.S are helping the Gulf States export some oil (admittedly not huge quantities). They also don’t have infinite time and there is no saying who will blink first.

RedTagAlan · 06/09/2026 13:23

Newbutoldfather · 06/09/2026 12:23

@rainingsnoring ,

‘I'm a bit shocked at the way you just dismiss international law above. The US can hardly claim any sort of moral high ground against the IRGC or any other adversary can they.’

I don’t think Trump cares about that. To be honest I am very cynical about moral high ground in wars. At best, they make up a small part of war objectives. Look how few wars in poor resourceless countries we ever get involved in.

The U.S’s only moral high ground was stopping Iran getting nukes, and that was pretty much taken care of in the previous attack.

‘The US and Israel have been guilty of multiple war crimes in this war alone. Trump and Hegseth have written multiple posts expressing genocidal intent too. Hopefully, the two of them and certain others end up in The Hague’

People are way too quick to talk about war crimes, and seem far more interested in our allies in this regard than our enemies (such as Iran and Hamas). We have people today already ‘authoratively’ declaring the attacks on oil tankers is a war crime. Except it probably isn’t. It is legitimate to target the funding and/or supply lines of your enemy.

The U.S has been very successful at invading countries and ousting regimes. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. What they are very bad at is nation building. They have no staying power or understanding of the countries that they invade. They could relatively easily take Iran, the problem is what then. But that would still be an appalling result for the current leadership.

‘The Iranians just need to stay the course and watch the US destroy the global economy and itself in the process.’

There are several recent articles that say Iran is losing control of the Strait. They are getting no oil out and the U.S are helping the Gulf States export some oil (admittedly not huge quantities). They also don’t have infinite time and there is no saying who will blink first.

Quote " The U.S’s only moral high ground was stopping Iran getting nukes, and that was pretty much taken care of in the previous attack."

No. That would be the JCPOA that was done between the UN P5 + 1. That is the deal between China, Russia, France, The UK, the US plus the UN... and Iran. An agreement that was evidenced to be working until Trump done the totally illogical thing of tearing it up, then doing multiple attacked against Iran. And that was illogical because the evidence is that the JCPOA was working.

Re it being illogical for Iran to fire missiles at a US carrier, the largest and most expensive single military asset the US has in the theater, instead of me explaining why it is logical, why don't the hand wavers away who do the "it's not logical" shrug, explain why it is not logical, instead of just continually saying " nah, not logical".

I know nowt about how money market works, but I do know a bit about how warfare works. I am not an expert at it, but I do at least know something about it.

OP posts:
Newbutoldfather · 06/09/2026 13:35

@RedTagAlan ,

I think I did suggest why I thought it was illogical.

They fail (as they did) and they have lost 3 oil tankers.

They succeed (vanishingly unlikely) and they bring the wrath of hell down on themselves, as well as getting the U.S solidly behind Trump.

I seriously doubt the aircraft carrier will either divert from its intended course or have to restock missiles. I don’t know how the U.S brought the missiles down, but I doubt they wasted too many assets.

The whole point of an aircraft carrier is to project power and, if a few relatively unsophisticated missiles could thwart one, no one would spend billions of dollars building them.

(I am not knowledgeable about war, but I like to think of myself as reasonably logical and intelligent).

BelleHathor · 06/09/2026 13:54

rainingsnoring · 06/09/2026 12:04

I'm a bit shocked at the way you just dismiss international law above. The US can hardly claim any sort of moral high ground against the IRGC or any other adversary can they. The US and Israel have been guilty of multiple war crimes in this war alone. Trump and Hegseth have written multiple posts expressing genocidal intent too. Hopefully, the two of them and certain others end up in The Hague. The US may carry things further and wipe out civilian infrastructure, as previously threatened (their objective of helping poor Iranian women is long forgotten). They may invade Iran with ground troops. What you seem to assume is that the US can definitely triumph in Iran. That is by no means certain. In fact, the US have lost many wars in recent history. The Iranians just need to stay the course and watch the US destroy the global economy and itself in the process.

International Law is dead after Gaza and Lebanon or at least the illusion that it applied equally to all people. The hypocrisy is being livestreamed and like you say will destroy American soft power.

The new order/reality where power supercedes morality is going to lead to some serious blowback with very little sympathy from the Global majority.

An ex US navy veteran said this:
"A people who are unmoved when missiles purchased with their labor, and launched in their name, for reasons that are barely articulated, kill 150 little girls, are already so spiritually degraded that they have very little left that is still worth defending. When their responses range between “yeah, but” and “whatever,” nihilism has already set in bone deep."

And I tend to agree, Trump whether unwittingly or through wanting to appear powerful has destroyed the moral fabric and reputation of America.

BelleHathor · 06/09/2026 14:01

And on missiles, effectiveness of Air defence etc MIT Professor and Pentagon advisor Ted Postol has done excellent analysis.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGRvYOWXUCE

RedTagAlan · 06/09/2026 14:09

Newbutoldfather · 06/09/2026 13:35

@RedTagAlan ,

I think I did suggest why I thought it was illogical.

They fail (as they did) and they have lost 3 oil tankers.

They succeed (vanishingly unlikely) and they bring the wrath of hell down on themselves, as well as getting the U.S solidly behind Trump.

I seriously doubt the aircraft carrier will either divert from its intended course or have to restock missiles. I don’t know how the U.S brought the missiles down, but I doubt they wasted too many assets.

The whole point of an aircraft carrier is to project power and, if a few relatively unsophisticated missiles could thwart one, no one would spend billions of dollars building them.

(I am not knowledgeable about war, but I like to think of myself as reasonably logical and intelligent).

To get a hit on a carrier would be a massive win for Iran. And the reason they do not get hit usually is because the US are usually fighting someone without the capability of hitting them.

It has been covered at length in these threads about how the west as a whole has made some pretty big mistakes on arms tech. They have concentrated on super precise and expensive arms to take down threats. Other nations, such as Iran and the PRC, have worked on the idea of just having loads of missiles. Working on the idea that if one fires enough, some will get through.

Take the UK for example. The Type 45 destroyer. An amazing bit of kit. From memory, it can track into the hundreds of targets. It can fire it's sea viper missiles and control 16 of them at the same time. It really is astounding. If one is still working in the Falklands era where the Exocet threat was the thing.

The problem is, while the UK came up with a fantastic system that on paper massively reduces the Exocet threat ( or similar), it only carries 48 sea viper missiles. So how to defeat such a system ? How about firing 17, or 49 missiles at it ? Or more. Throw in a few drones too.

And we seen this to an extent when the UK sent a type 45 to defend Cyprus at the start. It had to take a RFA resupply ship. Because in the event of a mass missile/drone attack, after those 48 missiles are gone, it is just a target. Or at best an advance warning radar.

OP posts:
OP posts:
trumpredcard · 06/09/2026 15:08

As the tit for tats continue, I'm waiting for the ecological disaster in the Strait or Gulf of Oman whenTrump gets fed up of Iranian resistance and decides that the answer to bringing an end to the not war is more 'pre-emptive defense strikes'. In the meantime, the beleaguered Iranian people are hoping that the US's precise advanced weaponry don't hit another wedding party or primary school.

Dang it! I forgot that the US is still avoiding responsibility for hitting the Minab school, but never mind, as the WH Regime is giving the world new definitions for words.

I'm in need of some of @BelleHathor's stirring Persian poetry.

Twiglets1 · 06/09/2026 15:32

RedTagAlan · 06/09/2026 14:11

Will Trump blame Iran for this ? Will be connect it to his reflecting pool, and declare it was Iran ?

Microalgae bloom knocks out most of Israel’s desalination plants | CNN

How could it connect to Trump's reflecting pool?

Obviously Iran have no connection to Trump's reflecting pool. So I guess you just wanted to mention Trump's green reflecting pool on this thread for your own reasons.

BelleHathor · 06/09/2026 16:09

trumpredcard · 06/09/2026 15:08

As the tit for tats continue, I'm waiting for the ecological disaster in the Strait or Gulf of Oman whenTrump gets fed up of Iranian resistance and decides that the answer to bringing an end to the not war is more 'pre-emptive defense strikes'. In the meantime, the beleaguered Iranian people are hoping that the US's precise advanced weaponry don't hit another wedding party or primary school.

Dang it! I forgot that the US is still avoiding responsibility for hitting the Minab school, but never mind, as the WH Regime is giving the world new definitions for words.

I'm in need of some of @BelleHathor's stirring Persian poetry.

Just for you, some more Persian poetry

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
Omar Khayyám

“To wisely live your life, you don't need to know much
Just remember two main rules for the beginning:
You better starve, than eat whatever
And better be alone, than with whoever.”
Omar Khayyám

“This world
that was our home
for a brief spell
never brought us anything
but pain and grief;
its a shame that not one of our problems
was ever solved.
We depart
with a thousand regrets
in our hearts.”
Omar Khayyám

“When you are so full of sorrow
that you can't walk, can't cry anymore,
think about the green foliage that sparkles after
the rain. When the daylight exhausts you, when
you hope a final night will cover the world,
think about the awakening of a young child.”
Omar Khayyám

Omar Khayyam was a Persian poet and polymath, known for his contributions to mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, and Persian literature. He was born in Nishapur, Iran and lived during the Seljuk era, around the time of the First Crusade.

https://www.pressenza.com/2026/03/in-time-of-war-where-is-love-a-part-of-it-is-at-the-heart-of-the-persian-poetry/
"3.The Fleeting Nature of Life
Persian poetry emphasizes the impermanence of the world, the fragility of existence, and the importance of savoring the present moment. In his quatrains, Omar Khayyam meditates on the passage of time, the vanity of human ambition, and the wisdom of seizing the day."

p.s. Imagine being a polymath with poetry as your side hustle

In time of war where is love? a part of it is at the heart of the Persian poetry

The West is at war with fear. Today, my heart aches for the West. Despite our war against fear in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Palestine, and now

https://www.pressenza.com/2026/03/in-time-of-war-where-is-love-a-part-of-it-is-at-the-heart-of-the-persian-poetry/

RedTagAlan · 06/09/2026 16:18

Trump is bonkers. His reflecting pool is totally relevant because it demonstrates how bonkers he is. Yes, I am speculating on the algae bloom off Isreal, but give it a day or 2. Lets see if he comes up with some batshit theory. Or will it be Natalie who suggests it.

Lets check a Truth from a few days ago.

"Friday, September 4, 202610:02 PM Truth Social

People, especially Patriots from the United States of America, love the name change of Lake Ontario to Lake America! The support has been overwhelming, including affirmation from Google Maps, Apple Maps, and Microsoft's Bing Maps. Since the name change, business on the United States side of the Lake has been absolutely BOOMING! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Source: Truth Social"

Does nobody who is pro war follow the totally Batshit things he says about other things ?

OP posts:
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