US-Iran peace agreement discussion, part 4

[RedTagAlan]

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

That must be a comforting thought for anyone who doesn't want to see the regime come under too much economic pressure. Another opinion piece? At least copy and paste the relevant part so we can all see what the piece does actually say and by whom.

Yes ma’am. I will look for it now.

Maybe it's a progressive thing and the UAE finally had enough. In May, their foreign ministry issued a statement in which it “condemned in the strongest terms” Iran’s “launch of nearly 3,000 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones toward the UAE.”

The UAE’s approach since the ceasefire began has been to absorb continued provocations without escalating. No missile or drone had struck inside UAE land or territorial waters since the April ceasefire, until now.

In the Strait of Hormuz, however, 15 tankers belonging to ADNOC (UAE state owned oil company) have been struck since the war began (the latest 2 in the last week), injuring and in one case killing crew members.

It's possible that a direct strike on UAE territory was a step too far ... or maybe they are responding to pressure from the US, who knows.

Sorry Twigs, the article has dropped off my news app, and the Washington Post is behind a pay wall. So if you want to read it, you’re going to have to get your wallet out and pay for the Washington Post.

Not doing that will assume it’s just an opinion piece from one journalist.

If it pops up again during the day I will copy and paste for you.

Much appreciated by those of us with limited news.

@Twiglets1 ,

‘It's possible that a direct strike on UAE territory was a step too far ... or maybe they are responding to pressure from the US, who knows.’

I think the latter is far more likely. The U.S stations 5,000 troops in the UAE and I am sure the UAE take a lot of comfort from that. And there are a lot of other carrots and sticks that the U.S can offer.

If a proper economic embargo on Iran can bring it to its knees and force it to negotiate away its uranium (which I suspect it could), it does beg the question of what the point of the kinetic war was!

And the U.S has lost a lot of its reputation as a superpower over Iran and the fact it has run down its ‘magazine’ (ammo and missiles) by more than 50% and they will take years to replace.

@JadeHare while Iranian traders can eventually pivot towards commercial rivals Oman or Turkey as an alternative, the UAE's new policy could cause a permanent reset in the region, exposing regional risks to UAE's role/reputation as a neutral clearinghouse.
With the war context, does the change in relationship now free Iran to target critical UAE infrastructure and assets?
Is this the end of the UAE's usual strategy of using commercial and economic ties to de-escalate political conflicts in the region? How serious are the Emeratis or is it really lip service to the US? Lots of post-war bridge building ahead for the UAE imo.

I guess before the war started UAE wouldn't have behaved as they are saying they are going to now. The war has shaken things up diplomatically.

The main point of the war as I'm sure you know was to halt the risk that was deemed to be increasing of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The jury is still out as to what extent the US will be able to say they have achieved that goal. It also remains to be seen the long term effects of the war on all the players including the IRGC.

@Twiglets1 ,

‘The main point of the war as I'm sure you know was to halt the risk that was deemed to be increasing of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The jury is still out as to what extent the US will be able to say they have achieved that goal. It also remains to be seen the long term effects of the war on all the players including the IRGC.’

Was it? That was the ostensible point, but Trump had declared after the first war that the uranium was beyond reach for years to come.

From what I understand, Netanyahu persuaded Trump that this was an ideal opportunity for a decapitation strike and that the people would rise up. I think Trump thought in a few weeks Iran would have a friendly regime and oil would collapse ahead of the midterms.

There was no rush at all re the nukes. They were years away after the first strikes.

The pretence that this war was about helping the Iranian people is long gone.

I didn’t think it was ever about helping them. Trump’s interventions are transactional, not altruistic.

it was about U.S prestige and, most of all, an attempt to get the oil price lower. Which royally misfired. Of course, Israel had other names, some reasonable , others much less so.

*other aims

US prestige?

I believe it was. Maybe people who think Iran was years away from the first strikes should ask themselves how close is too close re Iran developing nuclear weapons? Do you have a certain amount of time in mind where you think it's reasonable for other countries to become alarmed, given that Iran want to wipe Israel off the map?

The US have said many times that Iran's nuclear facilities were obliterated.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-statements-made-by-trump-to-justify-u-s-strikes-on-iran

I agree it was never the primary aim, more a positive by product if the war gives way to the conditions where Iranians rise up themselves against the regime.

It hasn't happened yet - time will tell if it happens at all. Some analysts believe operation "economic fury" will be more effective that operation "epic fury" at achieving this goal but who knows.

But we don't believe Trump do we?

That's why he gets fact checked.

It would be dangerous to ignore what he says though, don't you think?

We all hear what he says and take it with a pinch of salt. There is normally a mixture of truth, exaggerations and lies in what he says. The Institute for Science & International Security posted a report in November 2025 with extensive information and satellite images (too long to post in full here but link is provided).

Comprehensive Updated Assessment of Iranian Nuclear Sites Five Months After the 12-Day War (November 2025)

The Institute previously published a comprehensive assessment of major sites attacked in late June, just after the war’s end and subsequently published additional studies on damage to individual sites. Overall, the damage caused by airstrikes to numerous nuclear sites was extensive and, in many cases, catastrophic.

Iran has since undertaken damage assessments and efforts to conduct clean up and fortification work to varying extent at several sites.

The main nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan were largely destroyed and have seen little significant activity since the war. The extent of damage to the tunnel portion of the Esfahan mountain complex remains unknown but could be severe. The activities at Fordow to the extent visible appear to have been mainly related to damage assessments and minimal clean up. At Natanz, activities also point towards protecting the site’s remaining utilities against future attacks.

A major exception is at the Esfahan mountain complex, where Iran has taken actions to allow access and better protect at least one of the three tunnel entrances leading into the mountain. This tunnel entrance may have been recently accessed. In a recent image, dated November 20, one portal entrance appears open. In addition, the image shows that Iran may have installed what can effectively be called "Cruise Missile Chicane Barriers." Two thick protective barriers work together to block a missile flying straight at the entrance.

Overall, satellite imagery indicates that Iran's uranium enrichment program remains significantly set back. At present, Iran does not appear able to enrich uranium in any significant manner or make gas centrifuges in significant numbers. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities, its facility to produce uranium hexafluoride (UF6) and its centrifuge manufacturing and research and development facilities remain severely damaged or destroyed.

Unlike the enrichment-related sites attacked, select nuclear weaponization sites show extensive clean-up efforts. Based on satellite imagery, at least three weaponization-related sites that were attacked have undergone cleanup activities that appear to include salvaging of remaining equipment and thus may be the prelude to rebuilding or related to sanitization activities.

In addition, a nuclear weaponization site called Taleghan 2, not attacked in June but destroyed in the fall of 2024, has undergone significant construction activity over the last year. It now appears near completion, and holds a large, cylindrical chamber, which could be a high-explosive containment vessel suitable for nuclear weapons development activities.

There are ongoing construction efforts at a mountainous area just south of the Natanz enrichment site known by its tallest peak as “Pickaxe Mountain.” This site was not visibly attacked in June and comprises two underground tunnel complexes, one still under construction, labeled the Pickaxe Mountain Tunnel complex, and another built in 2007 and called the 2007 tunnel complex. Iran announced in 2020 that the purpose of the Pickaxe tunnel complex is to hold an advanced centrifuge assembly facility that can produce several thousand centrifuges a year. In addition, based on the estimated size of the underground halls, the Institute several years ago assessed that site could also hold a centrifuge enrichment facility.

isis-online.org/isis-reports/comprehensive-updated-assessment-of-iranian-nuclear-sites-five-months-after-the-12-day-war

The below, based on a book by a respected New York Times columnist explains how and why Netanyahu persuaded Trump to attack Iran this year. I find it to be well sourced and pretty convincing.

The primary reason for the timing was that all the main leaders of Iran would be together and vulnerable to a decapitation strike. Nukes hardly figure at all.

www.haaretz.com/us-news/2026-04-08/ty-article/report-this-is-how-netanyahu-convinced-trump-to-launch-a-war-against-iran/0000019d-6c98-d41f-a5dd-6cdb2ccd0000

My mistake. It was the WSJ, not the WP that had the article. Not sure the WSJ does opinion pieces. Anyway, here is the relevant part:

“But severing those links will be difficult. Much of the activity is deliberately obscured. U.S. sanctions orders in recent years show that oil revenues, foreign-currency trades and payments for Iranian entities have long moved through shell companies and exchange houses in Dubai, often without an Iranian name appearing on the transaction.
Cutting off Iran would also require Emirati authorities to crack down much more aggressively on opaque financial and trading activity, which could hurt Dubai’s role as a freewheeling global hub for commerce, capital and re-exports.
“When you look at Iranian sanctions evasion and Iran’s ability to earn money from illicit oil sales, Dubai is a major hub for illicit financial flows,” said former U.S. sanctions official Max Meizlish, who is now a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The U.A.E. taking action against direct trade and financial activity is important but the reality is that a great deal of indirect activity flows through banks in Dubai supporting Iran’s shadow-banking and illicit-financing operations.””

“Emirati officials see the latest measures as part of a gradual escalation rather than a wholesale break with Tehran, the people familiar with the matter said. The U.A.E. is expected to move step by step, beginning with new restrictions on cargo and potentially expanding to a broader crackdown on Iranian-linked entities if the Revolutionary Guard continues its strikes. The approach reflects the U.A.E.’s preference for testing what works while preserving room to adjust”

“U.A.E. policymakers worry Washington’s strategy of inflicting deeper economic pain on Iran could hurt the segment of Gulf states’ economies that relies on tourism and trade rather than oil, and eventually provoke further Iranian military retaliation, the people said. Emirati officials also want to keep some channels to Tehran open so they retain a diplomatic option if the Trump administration’s pressure campaign fails, they said.”

In their opinion/your opinion nukes hardly figure at all. I find that pretty far fetched personally but fair enough… opinions differ.

Thanks Jade, who is the journalist?