(Lack of) US Iran Peace Agreement Part 5

[OnePeppyFatball]

Part 5

Absolutely. It's blatant and unashamed, and certainly not just in relation to this one incident.

I'm not responding to you after this post because your comments are invariably rude and containing veiled or actual insults. You can't debate politely so I have no interest in debating with you. Any more loaded questions you tag me in I will consider to be harassment.

'Hints of a MN favourite, DARVO, as Israeli foreign policy.'

It's being used constantly on threads on this section and, no doubt, other sections. That and personal attacks and attempts at 'gotcha'. This particular thread, fortunately, has far better informed, intelligent and reasonable people on it, who don't use gaslighting as their main method of argument during any disagreement.

That's not actually true though is it and what you said is a personal attack, not that I am upset by it.
As I just said, I have disagreed politely with several people on these threads because they behave in an adult, respectful way. I just said as much in my other comment.

@trumpredcard did just mention DARVO...

It's being used constantly on threads on this section

Interesting. I didn't know this as this one is the only CITME thread I'm on.

Interesting isn't it.
I think the chances of the Fairfield base 'attack' being a psyops (plus the plane attack, which is v likely to be another a psyops, imo) is high. If it was a genuine terrorist attack, why would the 5 people arrested be released almost immediately. Then, when Trump clearly wasn't happy, AB suddenly mentions Iranian links. It makes no sense.
It looks as if the US perhaps feel vulnerable or perhaps the Brits even asked them to leave because they don't want to be an Iranian target as this awful war (potentially) escalates.

It's way worse on other threads. I think I need to stick to this one rather than getting drawn into others. There are a lot of people with particular agendas/people who are very tribal and don't want to learn or listen to possible new information at all. I accept that we all have our personal biases, to variable extents, but I think most of us on this thread genuinely want to learn and try to understand from those who know far more than we do.

This thread has gone a bit wild!

From Iran firing a missile at Diego Garcia to somehow ‘prove’ that they can’t hit Diego Garcia, to a link saying the U.S intends to drop a tactical nuke on Pickaxe Mountain. Oh, and Iran being top 5 in the would in terms of IQ?!

I think Iran are being hugely over respected here.

If they are playing ‘4d chess’, I assume the end game is somehow to checkmate the enemy? What would that look like then? Ultimately, the U.S and Israel can destroy Iran. The reverse isn’t true.

I know that maybe some would see the destruction of Iran as some sort of victory as long as it isn’t actually invaded and they retain the capability to take a few pot shots at oil tankers, but that’s a sad ambition for a sophisticated country with real potential.

So what is Iran’s war aim? Where is the end game here?

You missed out this being the only thread on CITME worth posting on @Newbutoldfather due to DAVRO or lack of intelligent posters or something.

A reasonable summary apart from that.

WSJ’s take on the bombers being moved.

www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/all-b-1-bombers-returning-to-u-s-from-u-k-base-bfa0f797?st=FEN2vV&reflink=article_copyURL_share

You think this is wild ?

Have you seen what Trump is now claiming ? That Iran has "drug factories" at nuclear sites.

Breaking down Trump’s claim about Iranian nuclear sites | CNN Politics

"Trump said, “And then at 1 o’clock in the morning with no moon, dark as can be, these unbelievable machines led by the most incredible pilots in the world, they unloaded; every single bomb went right down air chutes into this, uh, drug factories, really. That’s what they were doing – they were nuclear and drug. They were doing drugs, but they were doing the nuclear. But these drug factories-slash-nuclear factories were hit so hard.”"

What is Iran's end game? Well, according to Trump it involves drug factories.

This post brought a smile to my face. It's just the concentration of posts on a single aspect of the war that is creating the impression of 'huge respect'.

So what is Iran’s war aim?
My punt would be : Degrade neighbours' desire/ability to attack it. Outlast Trump. Create a situation its leaders can sell as a 'win' to the people.

Where is the end game here?
Looking at the MOU would be a good start ...

eta
But I like drugs. it makes perfect non sense.

@RedTagAlan ,

Sounds like Trump was having a ‘senior’ moment! Even according to the linked story, he was just confused. Yes, it is worrying that he never apologises or clarifies when he makes mistakes.

I have zero respect for Trump, but it has to be remembered that senior military figures, who are far from idiots, will be giving Trump military options. He gets to choose between A,B or C, all of which are reasonable given his stated war aims.

Iran, on the other hand, has been tactically clever at times, but they are in no sense winning. They are impoverished and their military has been degraded. They seemed to me to have achieved sensible limited war aims when the first MOU was offered and they should have accepted it.

They are playing at brinkmanship with three U.S carrier groups with amphibious landing craft, relying on the fact that the U.S doesn’t have the stomach for an actual fight. It is a hugely dangerous gamble.

See, this is exactly what I'm referring to. No one else does this on this thread, hence our ability to have polite disagreements.

I didn't think anyone has suggested that Iran is winning. Except the Lego propaganda war, where I think they're winning.

I don't believe that after the purge of experienced personnel Trump is being given the best military advice. Evidence = Kegsbreath.

I agree with you on brinkmanship, and from the Iranian pov, taking a gamble is a logical step at this point.

eta
If Iran were a business corporation, I would suggest that they are utilizing agile adaptive processes.

Exactly. The MoU was the best offer they were going to get. Doubt they will get such a good offer again now they are in a weaker position, but we’ll see.

@trumpredcard ,

‘I agree with you on brinkmanship, and from the Iranian pov, taking a gamble is a logical step at this point.’

Why is it logical?

The downside is a massive bombing campaign and losing an island or two. What is the upside? Is Trump going to retreat and walk away with nothing to show? Is Netanyahu?

As you and others have said, Iran have fought an admirable (in the military sense) asymmetric war. However, the logical thing to do here is to declare a ceasefire, open the sea lanes unilaterally and give the U.S a time limit to get serious peace talks going. That would stop all justification for further U.S attacks, split the U.S and Israel and give them a chance to get income again.

And, if they get a reasonable peace, they will be heroes in the global south for having resisted the U.S. They can then strengthen their alliance with China and build up future defences (even if it takes a while).

I just don’t see, logically, how maximum aggression against the most powerful army in the world makes any sense at all.

Is someone misremembering what happened with the amorphous MOU?
How can it be interpreted as 'a good offer' when the language was woolly and open to interpretation?

Peace agreements are often viewed merely as political decisions, yet in reality, they are complex legal processes. An accord is not forged through diplomatic pleasantries, but through clear obligations, mutually agreed-upon terminology, and mechanisms for implementation, oversight, and sanctions for potential violations, all drafted with such precision as to leave no room for interpretation. The memorandum between Washington and Tehran has demonstrated that the problem lies not in the absence of an agreement, but in the absence of a clear one.

This link is to an article that's excellent for putting together the issues at play.

https://mecouncil.org/blog_posts/why-the-u-s-iranian-mou-didnt-last/

As said in the quote from the article, linked previously, Iran cannot sustain the current open ended situation. What it is doing is logical as a way of forcing US realisation that military might alone can't keep Hormuz open. They must return to negotiations that yield an acceptable end to hostilities to both parties.

Despite all the signs of escalation, the strategic reality remains unchanged. The U.S. cannot impose a new regional order through military force alone, nor can Iran sustain an indefinite, open-ended confrontation, given the economic and military pressures it is facing.
Ultimately, a return to negotiations is simply a matter of time. Yet that return will not be easy. The next round will not revolve solely around sanctions or Iran’s nuclear program. Rather, it will center on crafting an agreement that leaves no room for ambiguity, one that precisely defines each side’s obligations and establishes clear mechanisms for monitoring, implementation, and accountability.

eta
Can the US afford a 'massive bombing campaign'?

@trumpredcard ,

I was prepared to be sceptical, given the link, but that is a good summary.

However, I think it was enough for a ceasefire.

I guess we can disagree on why it was broken but Iran had no need to target ships because they were sailing the ‘wrong’ side of the channel.

To me, it is clear that had Iran let the ships pass and started meaningful talks on the nuclear material, they would have unleashed a lot of money fairly quickly and been able to massively increase oil exports.

There would have been no need for Trump to go back for a second bite after that. He clearly would have achieved his aims.

I know you can take a different perspective on that but I think it was Iran’s best chance to ‘win’.

@trumpredcard ,

‘Can the US afford a 'massive bombing campaign'?’

Easily! It has huge amounts of good old fashioned dumb high explosive bombs, and Iran has no air defences left. And I am sure it will be another joint Israel/U.S operation. Iran are playing straight into Netanyahu’s hands.

What they will struggle to deal with is Iran going full out with their retaliation. However, ultimately, even if Iran does serious damage, it won’t be to the U.S.

It’s all a bit sad and pointless and the biggest casualties will be the Iranian people and the civilians in the Gulf States. But the U.S can ‘win’, if a win is securing safe passage of oil out of the gulf and either destroying or rendering safe the enriched uranium.

And I king of agree, it will be a pyrrhic victory, as it will demonstrate how much of the U.S power is needed to obtain such small gains against a medium (at best) sized power. China and Russia will be emboldened by it.

But you forget that Iran constructed and signed the MOU, which was then broken by the US and that Iran recently suggested a 7 day ceasefire and rapid negotiation, which the US declined. I don't suppose that Iran expected it to be accepted but they did offer it just last week. I very much doubt that Iran would have trusted the US even if they did agree, given their history or lies and destruction, even just in this war, never mind others.
In Iran's shoes, given everything, including the upcoming US mid terms, it does seem logical to escalate and force Trump's hand, when he is politically vulnerable and the whole world oil market and many bond markets are extremely vulnerable.

I don't know why you assume that the US has an endless supply of missiles and that Iran has 'no air defences left'. That's clearly not true. The US army/navy is not in a good shape. They have asked for pauses to resupply, withdrawn support from elsewhere in the globe, we've seen the awful conditions on their ships. Then, there is the fact that they chose to give up their manufacturing base to China, who they are now begging to for their rare earth minerals, which are clearly necessary for their weapons, amongst other things. They are simply not the force that they were in the 1950s. Even in the 1970s, they lost in Vietnam, after murdering a million Vietnamese innocents.

They could, of course, just nuke Iran, and Trump has certainly talked of nukes more than once, but they need to consider all the other damage and ramifications, which would be utterly devastating for the world, including the US and their allies, Israel being one.

Of course the civilians are suffering terribly because of the US and Israeli action but the Iranians have suffered for decades and are clearly far more resilient than people in the West. Personally, what I think Iran wants is the US out of the region and not to be at constant threat of attacks from them.

I recommended Professor Robert Pape already. It is worth looking him up regarding his 'escalation trap' theory.

@rainingsnoring ,

‘But you forget that Iran constructed and signed the MOU, which was then broken by the US and that Iran recently suggested a 7 day ceasefire and rapid negotiation, which the US declined.’

Both sides blame the other for breaking the MOU. However firing on commercial ships seems a pretty clear breach to me.

Iran doesn’t really need to trust the U.S. They just need to align their interests. We pretty much know now what the U.S would be happy to accept; open sea lanes and giving up nuclear material and ambitions.

‘In Iran's shoes, given everything, including the upcoming US mid terms, it does seem logical to escalate and force Trump's hand, when he is politically vulnerable and the whole world oil market and many bond markets are extremely vulnerable.’

The thing is, any escalation has to be after the mid terms, because it will take the new carrier group three weeks to arrive. You are right about the oil and bond markets being vulnerable, but Trump has bought months of time with the release of EU reserves. The bond vulnerability is more a long term thing and Iran is a tiny part of it. It could be a catalyst, but it’s not guaranteed.

Ultimately, once the U.S start a new bombing campaign and a small land campaign (the amphibious landing craft are there for a reason), it won’t be good for Iran in any way. After they have lost their bridges and power stations and an island or two, what then? I just can’t see how this could end in a better outcome than Iran offering a meaningful ceasefire (unilateral and offering talks on nukes). Just like the U.S, they always can return to a hot war if required.

@rainingsnoring ,

‘I don't know why you assume that the US has an endless supply of missiles and that Iran has 'no air defences left'. That's clearly not true.’

I didn’t say an endless supply of missiles, I said bombs. They get dropped out of bombers, the old fashioned way.

And I probably misspoke when I said ‘no air defences’. Iran does have isolated and uncoordinated air defences. What it doesn’t have is any kind of integrated air defences. Which is why the U.S has been able to use its heavy bombers.

Most of their issues are with smart weapons which include cruise missiles and anti missile defence. I think a lot more missiles got through to the Gulf States than is generally acknowledged.

I don’t think the U.S can win in a broad sense, as they were aiming to do in Vietnam, say, and they can’t effect regime change (all they probably could, but they would need at least 500k troops and a ridiculous amount of money). However, I think they can effectively take the strait and control it and they can destroy/render unusable the uranium.

As I have said many times, this will be a pyrrhic victory and a long term disaster for the U.S, but it will be even worse for the Iranian people. That’s what I don’t understand.