(Lack of) US Iran Peace Agreement Part 5

[OnePeppyFatball]

Part 5

Please correct me if I'm wrong @trumpredcard but I think it's clear what you meant.
Just to give an example, what happened recently in Afghanistan when the US pulled out after 20 years.

I'm sorry that I haven't had the time to catch up this thread so it may have already been commented on. What do people think about the fact that the USS Roosevelt is on its way to the gulf with lots more troops, due to arrive just around the time of the US mid terms. I've said before that I think there is a good chance that Trump escalates his war after the elections. Do others think that this is a possible sign of Trump's intent or not?

Iran didn’t load any oil last month at its export terminals, marking the first time that’s happened since the 1979 Islamic revolution, according to Homayoun Falakshahi, head of crude oil analysis at Kpler.

On top of that, Iran can’t import goods by sea, including fuel, and land-based routes are clogged up. Inflation is now near 90%, GDP is expected to shrink 5.4% this year, unemployment has jumped, energy is being rationed, and even Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei has expressed concern about “social cohesion” amid the economic hardship.

On Tuesday, the currency fell to a new record low among traders in Tehran, hitting more than 2.5 million rials to the U.S. dollar. It came less than a month after the rial hit its previous record low of 2.2 million to the dollar on Sept. 2.

For now, Tehran is still able to generate a trickle of revenue from oil that was already in tankers at sea prior to the U.S. reimposing its blockade in mid-July. Kpler has estimated that those supplies totaled 90 millions barrels at the time and will run out by the middle of this month.

Payments for those final oil deliveries, which primarily end up in China, could stretch out to December. Once that spigot runs dry, however, the Iranian regime will be deprived of what was once its top source of hard currency.

Oil sales typically make up about a third of Iran’s state budget and are also key sources of funding for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

https://fortune.com/2026/10/03/iran-currency-rial-dollar-record-low-blockade-oil-revenue-payments/

@rainingsnoring ,

I think it is, literally, gunboat diplomacy.

Right now, I think the U.S is winning the ‘cold war’ (see Twiglets’ latest post for one). I think Iran will have to sue for peace on terms the U.S will accept fairly soon.

And, if Iran try to escalate their way out of trouble, the U.S will have resources in place to deal with it.

OTOH, all of the above is assuming Trump is patient, calculating and rational, assumptions that have been proved to be very dangerous in his second term.

I don't think that's very likely, especially the bit about Trump being patient and rational, when he has been the very opposite of this to date.
Clearly, the Iranian people are suffering a great deal but they are used to it, having been under sanctions for decades and attacked several times. I think the US is now far weaker than you think. They just don't have the same resources, $$$ and power that they did. I think Trump is partly a symptom of the fact that the US empire is shaking.

Iran has hit another vessel in the Strait, that is 9 in 5 days.

Can't see Trump being patient.

It looks like Iran wants further military confrontation. I am not sure that I really understand why. Of course Trump doesn’t have to take them up on it and can just keep economically throttling them.

I think he has been made aware how short he is of intelligent weapons of all sorts.

On the Iranian side, it is hard to tell how United or divided they are. That resolution (linked to below) seems impossible for the U.S to accept as it would allow Iran to prevaricate almost infinitely on the nuclear material.

www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-910532

I had actually started writing a response to @Twiglets1 then abandoned it after remembering a previous reply to an explanation along the lines that she wasn't one of my students. In any case @Newbutoldfather had already explained it satisfactorily.

I agree on the new tactic of gunboat diplomacy and alluded to it in my pp about estimated end of October arrival of more US naval power.
'Winning' by using such tactics is destined to create more extreme resistance/proxy groups that will use guerrilla tactics to further disrupt the region. The US will then get itself mired once again in a drawn out conflict that has no benefit to the American people, while the Iran regime will have deniability.

I know exactly what I would do if I were in Iran's position of having to accept punitive terms at the point of American guns. And time would be on my side.

It looks like Iran wants further military confrontation. I am not sure that I really understand why

I wrote my post above and then didn't post it for over ninety minutes. With the latest attacks on shipping, Iran is doing what I would have done. I would even go further and target oil infrastructure in neighbouring countries.

Why? Because if diplomacy is getting nowhere and Trump looks likely to attack again, then I have nothing more to lose, given the effects of the economic squeeze. Even cornered theoc rats fight back.

I will make it a Punic Victory for Trump.

You would target oil infrastructure in neighbouring countries because you have nothing more to lose?

Commit more war crimes because you have nothing more to lose ...

I can't say I understand this mind set but that doesn't make you wrong of course. It may be that you understand the Iranian mindset better than me. Because to me, it lacks sense and just means you have further alienated your neighbours for nothing.

@trumpredcard ,

I think you mean pyrrhic victory unless you are alluding to Trump ultimately winning and dominating!

I don’t really get that mentality, but maybe that means it is a good thing that others can explain it to me.

Trump is not the brightest but he prefers to do a deal than destroy a country. If Iran gave him the nukes and opened the sea lanes, he would give them a really good economic deal and leave them alone. That just seems far better to me than economic and then military destruction.

@Twiglets1 ,

Cross posted!!

I was also about to make the same comment re pyrrhic victory but had to google Punic victory first.

I think you mean pyrrhic victory unless you are alluding to Trump ultimately winning and dominating!

Yes! Thanks for the correction. Major fail as I'm watching a movie and posting.😆

eta
thinking punitive...

Because to me, it lacks sense and just means you have further alienated your neighbours for nothing.

You might think it's for nothing. Others might disagree.

@trumpredcard ,

We talk a lot about the stupidity of Trump going to war without clear aims or a strategy.

But what about Iran? Clearly, they were attacked, and their initial aim was to to survive. Well, they have done that pretty well, both as a country and as a regime. And now they have been offered a deal which would allow them to rebuild and, potentially, even prosper.

So what is their aim now? I don’t think the U.S will walk away, at least not while Trump is still in power.

Of course others might disagree but that doesn't make it a logical/good idea for Iran to punish their neighbours.

That's a tactic they are already using and it hasn't helped them.

The best thing they could do now is to quietly do a deal with the US. Trump is always open to that. Iran could gain a lot from it economically which they could present as a win.

They really should have done everything they could to get the MoU to work. That was a decent deal for Iran and they could have called it a win. Both sides could. They are in a worse bargaining position now than then.

Quote "Trump is not the brightest but he prefers to do a deal than destroy a country.".

That is untested. The latter point that I have bolded. The first point is proven.

I had a read of his Alabama rally speech today. He really is not right. He told Alabama that if Iran had nukes they would be nuking them. The real problem seems to be that he believes his own BS.

Also on deals, he is not exactly famous for sticking to them. See Canada for example.

Trump is not the brightest but he prefers to do a deal than destroy a country.
If this is true then Iran will win, just by holding out for the deal that suits them.

If Iran gave him the nukes.
There were no nukes. However, Iran could fake a nuke to hand over to save Trump's face.

and opened the sea lane
So much to agree on re opening conditions

he would give them a really good economic deal and leave them alone.
I disagree. Trump's default is to crush and punish the weaker party.
A. Who defines a good economic deal and I wouldn't trust Trump to keep to any deal. He'll also start adding conditions after the agreement.
B. With the memory of the past two attacks during negotiations, realistically, what is a guarantee that Iran will be left alone?

The best thing they could do now is to quietly do a deal with the US. Trump is always open to that

Didn't Trump just turn down the Iranian deal?

My comment "others might disagree" was about seeing the other point of view, ie the context of how Iran might be thinking about the situation they are in. Not how you are thinking.

Quietly do a deal that both sides can agree on I meant.

@trumpredcard ,

‘Trump is not the brightest but he prefers to do a deal than destroy a country.
If this is true then Iran will win, just by holding out for the deal that suits them.’

I said prefers. If you corner him enough, he will lash out and it will be unpleasant. He needs a figleaf with the atomic number of 92 (and free flowing hydrocarbons).

‘If Iran gave him the nukes.
There were no nukes. However, Iran could fake a nuke to hand over to save Trump's face.’

Now you are just being pedantic. I meant, obviously the enriched Uranium, held as UF6 and 60% being U235 (the rest mostly U238).

‘I disagree. Trump's default is to crush and punish the weaker party.
A. Who defines a good economic deal and I wouldn't trust Trump to keep to any deal. He'll also start adding conditions after the agreement.
B. With the memory of the past two attacks during negotiations, realistically, what is a guarantee that Iran will be left alone?’

Not sure we have really seen that. Trump is happy with win/win. Venezuela isn’t being crushed.

As to the last, Trump will have learned a lesson and, once he withdraws, assuming Iran doesn’t try to get nukes, he will stay withdrawn. Maga wouldn’t tolerate a renewed foray, aside from the fact it will take years to replace the spent weapons.

Shocking as it might first appear, my thoughts for possible Iranian moves is entirely logical. You have to look at changing aims when the situation changes and remember that they are not us. The results they will want at a point in time when/if they are attacked by the US again, may not be what they want today.

And it appears he made up a Greenland deal. As in, everyone got together without him knowing, fished out the 1951 deal, the 1978 deal, and whatever else (I plucked those dates out the sky), and they all said.... here is a new deal..sign it Don, sign it.

And he did. And he claimed a win. Then silence.

Is that because someone finally managed to get it through his thick skull that there are already deals in place? Is it because he wanted a better deal and was doing "the art of the deal". Or is it because someone had the great idea of saying " You are totally right Don. There are no previous deals, and we made this new one because of you".

My money is on the last one.

On Nukes. I think it is important to remember delivery systems too.

Trump told a Rally in Alabama that the Iranians will nuke Alabama. But they can't. No delivery system. Same as the DPRK have no delivery to hit DC. Not many countries have ICBMs.

From memory, I think the DPRK can hit Alaska, But it is not known what load that missile test had. They have managed to get the altitude to hit Alaska, but without knowing the payload..... well. It is rocket science.