"Is it over?" Topic

+1 Incavart77

i have no idea what Murphy wrote but I endorse Invacart's estimation of the disastrous Iranian situation.

Let's hope some sort of peace treaty can be cobbled together as soon as possible.

Seems a number of posts have "gone away" and there is a DH as a result…

Hmmm…

A reminder that this is the Ultramodern Warfare board, not a politics board.

While there is certainly some crossover, posts which are primarily political do not belong on this board.

Legion – gotta say that the oil industry enjoyed substantial profits during those years.

Yes so have a number of other industries in the US economy. E.g. Beef, being a big one. However, in that case there is a lot of moving parts involved. Not just the rancher whose productivity is somewhat dependent on weather, Plus the meat processes and packing industry. Along with transportation costs heavily influenced by the price of oil. From the ranch costs for running the place, etc. To all transportation cost along the way. Until it makes it on store shelves.

Even the fuel costs going to the market to buy the meat, then driving back home to cook it … 🍖🥩🥓

My local home heating oil dealer isn't sharing in the wealth. He's the one who has to purchase the oil from the suppliers, and sell it to me in competition with other local dealers. Th e prices are in line for comparison.

Gasoline yesterday: $4.75 USD at the foot of my hill. He's usually the lowest price in the Valley, being off the main highways.

SAM's Club in my hometown = $4.29 USD …

It's not over yet. On March 6, the President stated that there would be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender. That is the objective as stated by the President.

Iran now defines Strait of Hormuz as far larger zone

"Iran has expanded its definition of the Strait of ​Hormuz into a "vast operational area" far wider than before the Iran war, ‌according to a senior officer in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy.
The strait is no longer viewed as a narrow stretch around a handful of islands but instead has been greatly ​enlarged in scope and military significance, said Mohammad Akbarzadeh, deputy political director ​of the IRGC Navy, the state-affiliated Fars news agency reported on ⁠Tuesday.

"In the past, the Strait of Hormuz was defined as a limited area ​around islands such as Hormuz and Hengam, but today this view has changed," Akbarzadeh ​said.
Iranian authorities did not reply to a Reuters request for immediate comment.
About a fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas supply normally passes through the strait, which is the ​gateway to the Gulf and main export route for countries such as Saudi ​Arabia, Iraq and Qatar.
Akbarzadeh said the strait is now defined as a strategic zone stretching from ‌the ⁠city of Jask in the east to Siri Island in the west, describing it as "a vast operational area"…"

link

Boots-on-the-ground is Trump's best option It's what the logic of war dictates

"Bank runs are famously irrational things. Yet as the former Bank of England Governor Mervyn King once quipped, once they start, it's rational to participate. The same goes for Donald Trump's war against Iran. It was an irrational conflict to start. The President did not think anything through. He had no clearly-defined war goal, no exit strategy. But now that the war has started, with no success so far, it may well be rational to step up and finish the job.

This is not a prediction of what will happen: that decision depends on the whim of a single person, and I haven't got the foggiest what's going on in Trump's head at any one moment. Yet set against his strategic options, the war could well expand.

What are those options? He could chicken out, declare victory, and hope that no one notices; keep the blockade going and see who blinks first; or resume military action. The latter is often dismissed on the grounds that Trump does not like war. And, certainly, his revealed preference is to secure a face-saving deal. He keeps dangling one in front of our faces, albeit possibly just to keep the markets happy. The problem is that such a deal is not available right now, and indeed may never be. The Americans cannot really walk away with Iran imposing tolls in the Strait of Hormuz, nor can they compromise on the fraught question of nuclear weapons…"

link

Armand

Boots-on-the-ground is Trump's best option It's what the logic of war dictates

Only in a limited way, small raids primarily. Heavily supported by air and naval assets. Iran is much too large to actually do any extended land campaign. Many have said that. For the same reasons you don't try to fight a ground war on the Chinese Mainland.

Besides raiding and destroying some significant remaining targets. Mostly objectives along or near the coast. Possibly some of the islands in the Persian Gulf. But otherwise pretty much the destruction required to break the remaining regime's will and further attrite their forces can be done by air and naval assets. As well as some US Army long range missile systems. Firing from nearby friendly nations.

To go into any city like Tehran would be a very bad idea. Besides even the fact that MOUT is very costly. But like we saw in Gaza. Parts of the city would be a moonscape.

As far as the nuclear material. That would be an asset and labor-intensive action. And will take time. It would best be done when the war is over. Add the fact this nuclear material has to be stored in very heavy containers to block the rads. Some of the radiation could be leaking making this undertaking even more hazardous.

Kinetic action is required. But limited/if any boots on the ground should be SOP.

Iran confirms deployment of Ghadir-class midget submarines in Strait of Hormuz to counter US Navy

link

Armand

This is excellent ! Makes clear about the US/NATO situation and Iran. Nothing is accidental about this … The POTUS, Pentagon, Intel agencies, etc. … got it right.

And yes even some of the TMPer's "Armchair Gens/Monday Morning QBs" missed it by miles …

As I keep saying the US leadership has a plan … many plans. But still some here, in DC, the media, etc. are so wedded to their narrative and agendas. They literally can't/don't/won't see the forest because the trees are in the way. Much like militant, radical, anachronistic, etc. islamists in Iran and in many places on the planet.

link

Iran was days away from deploying a nuke. Where are we with this? I think the time for more "we'll be telling you more in a couple of weeks" and other distraction actions is passing. Something presidential on the status of the main reason for the war is due.

From multiple news sources:

"Current Status of Iran's Enriched Uranium

* Inaccessible Stockpile: Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi stated in May 2026 that Tehran does not have "physical control" over its 60% enriched uranium.

* Storage Issues: Experts suggest that following military action in March 2026, the uranium remains in damaged or,,inaccessible storage sites, with experts believing Iran cannot currently access it.

* Production Halt: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated in late 2025 that enrichment had ceased, as their facilities were attacked.

* Transfer Denial: Contrary to claims by U.S. President Trump, Iranian officials have insisted that they will not transfer their enriched uranium outside the country."

OVI +1 [Welcome back to the show !]

Iran was days away from deploying a nuke. Where are we with this?

As OVI points out. They are dead in the water when it comes to their quest for nukes to start the End Times. No matter what some in Congress, the media, etc. keep saying …

As long as the won't give up the quest.

Continue to interfere with ships in the Strait.

Brutally killed 1000s of their own people to keep their fundamentalists islamist regime in power.

Possible support for militant radical islamists, jihadis, terrorists, etc.

This campaign will continue. And if the US won't do it with Israel. The IDF will do it anyway …

Thanks

Yes, eternal vigilance with radical fundamentalist Islamic regimes, is always necessary. They only await the next opportunity.

Right, but not gonna believe the Iranian government sources on this. You can't tell me the Obama agreement was no good but I should accept these pronouncements as true.

Trump statements and the fact that the fighting more or less continues leaves me in doubt as well.

You can't tell me the Obama agreement was no good but I should accept these pronouncements as true.

Believe as you wish. However, too many military and intel assets have said it was a weak deal. Was just kicking the can down the road for the next POTUS. Relying on Iran to follow the rules of that agreement.

Again … you can't trust anything they say or do. They are on a quest to get nukes and initiate their version of the End Times. They islamists are radicals, wedded to a corrupted version of a religion.

To do anything but insure they will not get nukes is foolish. Of course both Obama and Biden gave them billions of $. USD We know where that went to …

Trump statements and the fact that the fighting more or less continues leaves me in doubt as well.

Again, believe as you wish. I have repeatedly tried to explain why I believe we are still fighting. So I won't waste my time …

Don't misunderstand me Legion, I don't think any of us fully believe the Iranian government sources on the status of the uranium.

And the Obama was a weak deal. But any current deal being proposed, whether giving them 20 billion, or having no real access to confirm the status of the uranium, is no good either.
And "we are having good talks" is clearly not true in any case or this thing would be over.

Yes, so after all those COAs …what is left ? The Ret. GENs, ADMs, Intel assets including the IDF point to the obvious. Massive kinetic actions start up again …

Plus the blockade is having its effect as well. Iran is running out of storage space. No ships can get thru … They are dumping some oil into the Persian Gulf.

Regardless of what some say, even some of the "Top" armchair Gens here. This most likely one of the reasons we are waiting. Their economy is failing or certainly on the way.

Some in the media, etc. reported Iran is using the "ceasefire" to rearm, reconstitute, refit, etc. With what ? How much ? No matter how many assets they have left over, or even how many "parts" they may be getting from the Chicoms, etc. they are not in a position to do nothing but pin prick attacks. The take one ship, they sink another, they launch a few drones, missiles, etc. Sortie out some of their remaining little boats or even a few minisubs they have.

Save for some biased, skewed, etc. perception, of some in Congress, the media, etc., etc. Only in those places is Iran winning.

Again as far as we know, the IDF, CIA, Spec Ops, etc. has been training the anti-gov't Persians. This could be happening with the Kurds as well. Albeit one report says the Kurds stole the weapons they were given by the IDF, the US ? For what reason would the do this ?

But before the anti-gov't forces can be sent into to clean up their hated enemy, the islamists. Those islamists must be reduced to smaller numbers, assets, etc.

When the time is right this should happen … To be cliche', "Cry Havoc, and slip the dogs of war!" … Actually, no dogs really but TLAMs, drones, airstrikes, long range Army missile systems, etc., etc. The only way this will work is to behead the snakes. They can't be allowed to survive. And again, if the US won't do it … the IDF said they will …

No nukes for Iran … period … Some keep saying there is no plan, an end game, victory conditions, etc. … Well for those there is it is … And again there are plans to make all that possible. To get there it appears we will have to stack IRGC, Basji, Iran's islamists, etc. bodies like wood in a lumberyard. A very large lumber yard.

The problem with the "Iran has been crushed" line is that the visible facts now point the other way.

Yes, Iran has been badly hit militarily. CENTCOM says its strike capability and defense industry have been dramatically degraded. But that is not the same thing as achieving the war's political objects.

The administration's mappable but constantly evolving objectives were roughly: prevent an Iranian bomb, break Iran's missile/drone threat, restore free navigation through Hormuz, weaken proxies, and force Iran into a worse bargaining position. Almost every one of those end goals is now frustrated or unresolved.

Iran is not dictating events because it is strong in the conventional sense. It is dictating events because it still controls the pressure point that matters: escalation, shipping risk, and political time. The Strait of Hormuz is not meaningfully "open" if vessels pass only selectively, nervously, or with Teheran's tacit permission. Reuters reports that only a handful of recent tankers moved through with Iran's consent, which suggests not restored freedom of navigation, but partial acceptance of Iranian gatekeeping.

That is the key contradiction. We are told Iran is crushed and yet China gets special passage understandings but Japanese-linked tankers need diplomatic handling. Shipping remains far below normal and dark transits are increasing. Before the war, roughly 130 ships crossed daily; last week, traffic was below three ships per day, with only 18 vessels transiting May 11–13.

So who looks deterred?

Not Iran, which is now broadening its claimed operational zone around Hormuz. Not the shipping market, which still behaves as if the strait is unsafe. Not allies and neutrals, who are negotiating access around us. And not the public, which still has not received a clean answer on the original nuclear emergency claim.

This is why "they had a plan" is not enough. Plans are judged by outcomes. If the plan was to prevent a nuclear Iran, where is the verified disposition of the enriched uranium? If the plan was to restore navigation, why is Hormuz still the battlefield? If the plan was to restore deterrence, why does Iran still have enough leverage to make the world ask its permission to move oil?

A tactical beating is not a strategic victory. It was mentioned by another poster that Rome destroyed Carthage; that was decisive. This is not that. This looks more like we broke a lot of things, absorbed global economic pain, and ended up with Iran weaker but more central to the crisis than before.

For an enemy supposedly crushed, everyone seems to understand the new reality except us: Iran may be battered, but it has not been politically defeated. And if the administration cannot state the end condition plainly, then the war aim has not been achieved.

Did someone say this is over yet?

Ok, other than the left who has had the U.S. running with their tail between their legs since day 2. 🙄

This constant barrage of "how strong Iran is" and "how defeated the U.S. is" does get old.

Why would any patriotic US citizen hope for the U.S. to be humiliated? Other than the obvious: "it humiliates Trump!".

Iran is and has been our enemy since 1978! They have killed and maimed our citizens for all those years! I won't go into Israel, because so many here really don't care.

It really seems that for many, anytime they get the opportunity for a potential "Trump humiliation", they get a chill up their legs.

If you are from the U.S., a humiliation for Trump militarily, is a humiliation for the U.S. and all of us. Just as the Afghanistan rout was. It may have been Biden and his leaderships fault, but it reflects on all of us.

As I and others have said: Ain't no fat lady sung yet. 🙄

Look, your critique kinda misses what the Trump admin has been saying the whole time.

They've been pretty vocal about the main goals:
1) stop Iran from geting nukes

2) cripple their ability to project power and threaten us and our alies with missiles, drones, proxies, all that stuff.

On those fronts, they made real headway. Strikes have destroyed big swathes of Iran's missile/drone factories, sank a lot of their navy, smashed their airforce, hit air defenses and leadership hard. Their big attack capability is very degraded now. Nuclear sites got hammered too so the breakout timeline is pushed back, even if full verification isn't done yet.

Yeah the Strait of Hormuz shipping is still messed up and way below normal — thats a legit shorcoming and its costing everyone. No denying that pain. Unspoken bonus was attriting a key Chinese ally and oil source, which also tracks into Trump's overall strategy of global push-back on China.

Regime change was hoped for by some (not Spain – they opened a Consulate in Tehran while denying US airbase access), but never an official goal stated by the Trump Admin. So its not total Carthage-level destruction or anything, and political endgame still unfolding. But dismissing the military hits as irrelevant ignores how much weaker Iran is in conventional terms now.

Theyre battered and their adventurism got way more expensive. Plans get judged by outcomes, and on the goals they actualy announced, its substantial progress even if more work (and diplomacy) is needed to lock it in.

Saying 'Iran is crushed but still dictating' downplays just how severely its military power and ability to support proxies has been wrecked.

Yes, gentle and peace loving. We need to take off the gloves.

You who question all of this.

They have been killing us since 79. But for them, that is ok. That's just doing the business of their religion, as they interpret it. But the infidel retaliates, they become the "oppressed people of the world!".

They don't care if you were for or against this conflict, you and yours are just US infidel meat to them. Of no more concern if you die, then the ants they might step on. Of course, that is how they have always seen you.

Iran International

"2 hours ago
Khamenei representative says Israel must be punished with 'annihilation'

A representative of Iran's Supreme Leader in Alborz province said during Friday prayers in Karaj that Israel's punishment should be its "annihilation," while also calling for the United States to be punished.

"Punishment for the vile usurping Zionist regime is its annihilation from the face of time," Mohammad-Mahdi Hosseini Hamedani said, adding that "punishing America means ensuring it no longer dares to attack any of the oppressed people of the world."

The cleric said Iran must continue fighting "sedition" and prevent its enemies from rebuilding their strength, according to remarks carried by state media."

OVI +1

SBm +1

Yes, Iran has been badly hit militarily. CENTCOM says its strike capability and defense industry have been dramatically degraded. But that is not the same thing as achieving the war's political objects.

Yes again we know all that. But again regardless, the campaign is not over yet. Just because the war is not over as quickly as some/many would like does not really matter of the battlefield …

Almost every one of those end goals is now frustrated or unresolved.

Yes but again … the war is still ongoing. It's like a LEO investigation. It is ongoing. It is not over yet …

So who looks deterred?

Iran can only make small attacks. They are short on assets; many were destroyed or used up. The ship owners know they will not have insurance if one of their boats is blown up by Iran.

Iran keeps putting the "Beware of the Dog" sign. Trying to convince many they still can put up an actual defense. It appears they are only launching few missiles, drones, a small fleet of little boats and even minisubs. They know some e.g. the 5th Column in US Congress, media etc.

They have to put up some sort of struggle to show they are still in the fight. Which will help their molding the perceptions of those against the POTUS, USA, etc.

They are trying to hold out. Buying time maybe long enough to get to the midterms. They know if one side of the aisle takes either the House or the Senate or both. Iran's islamists will think they are closer to surviving and continuing their quest for nukes and initiating their "End Times".

This is why "they had a plan" is not enough.

They had more than one plan. Again they planned for a number of contingencies. Executed based on the current situation on the battlefield. It appears the US is initiating more powerful and devastating strikes.

The POTUS/Pentagon, etc. are trying limit destruction of infrastructure, etc. So new more secular "Westernized" leaders are in charge. Can get Iran's economy up and running and supplying many of those that need their oil, etc.

The current leadership are religious fanatics; they can't be reasoned with. As they are so wedded to their archaic version of a religion. Knowing they will go to paradise if they at killed in battle with the infidels. They will not do anything logical or reasonable. So again the short and really only answer is to finish them off. Which if reports are correct and I believe they are the US and possibly IDF are prepping for a massive air offensive to finish it.

A tactical beating is not a strategic victory.

Yes again we all know this … However, generally to achieve a strategic victory there has to be a number of tactical then operational victories. Which add up to create a strategic win. Again, the operation is not over.

Iran may be battered, but it has not been politically defeated. And if the administration cannot state the end condition plainly, then the war aim has not been achieved.

No not yet, to achieve a strategic victory it appears the enemy still is defiant, full of religious zeal, etc. So again the operation is not over. And in reality, 75+ days of this conflict really is not too long to do all that has to be done.

@35thOVI

This is exactly the false choice that frustrates.

Questioning strategy, end states, or whether objectives are being achieved is not "hoping America is humiliated" or rooting for Iran. It is precisely what citizens in a representative government are supposed to do; especially in wartime.

I do not want the United States embarrassed. I do not want Iran strengthened. I do not want a hostile regime getting nuclear capability. But patriotism is not the same thing as suspending judgment and calling every question disloyal.

The issue is not whether Iran has taken damage but rather whether the stated political objectives of the war are actually being achieved and whether those objectives are even stable from week to week.

If someone says there is a plan and victory conditions, fine. Then define them.

What is the end state?

What measurable conditions tell us the mission succeeded?

How do we know when enough is enough?

Those are not anti-American questions. They are the questions citizens are supposed to ask before countries drift into open-ended conflicts driven by inertia, sunk costs, and constantly evolving rationales. You can support the country and still demand clarity from the people running the war. In fact, in a representative government, that "is" part of supporting the country.

Incavart

You are not the only one posting out here. There are many expressing the attitudes I addressed.

If I was addressing you specifically, I would have said so.

There are so many who act as if this has ended. It has not.

There are many who have been calling it a defeat, since day 2. Especially one from another country, who has been at it since day 2, here and in every other Iran post.

This conflict has been going on for 2.5 months. I've never seen people so vehemently opposed to a conflict in this country in my years, within 2 days. Yes! 2 days! Not Vietnam, Not Iraq 1 or 2, Not Afghanistan, Not Granada… Not.. Wait!! 🤔 all yes! Venezuela and their President and knocking off Narco Boats! Now What did they have in common? 🤔😏

I and others here, believe it is obviously politics with at least 80 or more percent.

Your old mate has made the first really coherent evaluation of what your president is (possibly/probably?) doing, Legion. Bombardment with media releases hasn't done the job, because who on TMP really trusts politicians' media releases? (And the really political TMP members will automatically disregard the "other side" and their releases. You know me- I disbelieve them all on principle.)

It's a pity Incavart77's posts haven't been answered in a similar manner. He makes some very cogent points. He's not an underground Iranian operative, trying to undermine the US government. (At least I don't think he is.)

My main criticism still remains, though. If POTUS wants allies to help then he should at least try to show some respect for those allies. Not necessarily tell them his plans before the first sorties go in (I understand OPSEC), but respect enough to explain what he wants of each and ask them to comply. (Allies have the right to say no, as the US has done in the past.) Instead he threw a tanty because they don't come scurrying like pet dogs, panting to do whatever their master wishes every time he chucks out another sound bite.

That's a good way to end up without allies. Or is that what some people here hope will happen? I think it is.

Dal +1

Your old mate has made the first really coherent evaluation of what your president is (possibly/probably?) doing, Legion.

I didn't explain well enough, he found this online and forward it. We always try to keep up with what is going on. He is a warrior …

It's a pity Incavart77's posts haven't been answered in a similar manner. He makes some very cogent points.

I have tried … But I don't have the right stuff …

My main criticism still remains, though. If POTUS wants allies to help then he should at least try to show some respect for those allies.

I don't always agree with some of the things he does or says. But generally, he is doing a good job. Fixing things that the last Admin purposely ed up. As well as some things that should have never gone as far as they did.

Or is that what some people here hope will happen?

I prefer to have allies. But I think the POTUS didn't like some of our allies who appeared to be taking advantage of the USA, etc.

The next POTUS will work to rebuild any global relationships that have been damaged. I think it can all be fixed down the road. America First is just politics..we are all over the place these days. But this kind of strategy is better with allies.

G'day, Legion.

I didn't explain well enough, he found this online and forward it.

Thank him for me, please. It helped me be a bit more objective in how I was thinking about the war. Which isn't too bad an effort when you remember how bloody cynical I am.

I didn't explain well enough, he found this online and forward it.

At least you try to understand and reply, Ralph. I agree with your view of the change in president. After the last POTUS there's a bit to be said in the current one's favour. But he wants to tone down the rhetoric about his allies and annexing "useful bits" of other countries. It may be an ungentle way of getting him to do what he wants, but it's also a lot like trying to put a bent and spread safety pin back into a frag grenade.

But I think the POTUS didn't like some of our allies who appeared to be taking advantage of the USA, etc.

I can't fault anyone for that. Oz has been guilty of it at times as well. But it hasn't always been a one-way street. US companies made fortunes from WWI and WWII and many have world-wide distribution due to favourable agreements the US has made. Then there's the blood spilled, from Korea to Afghanistan.

But all countries have their own points of view. Some more biassed than others (looking at us in Oz).

Tort, I don't think the damage is, or will be, as bad as some say it is. It will be "interesting" to see how things develop.

@sbminisguy

I agree with part of what you're saying.

Iran has clearly taken a severe military beating. But I think this is where we may be talking past one another: tactical military success and strategic success are not the same thing.

You listed the goals as:

1. prevent Iran from obtaining nukes
2. cripple its ability to threaten the region through missiles, drones, proxies, etc.

On #2, I agree there has been substantial progress. Iran is clearly weaker conventionally than before.

On #1, however, the picture is much murkier. "Breakout timeline delayed" is not the same thing as resolution. If uranium status remains uncertain, inspections unresolved, and the regime still sees nuclear capability as essential to survival, then the core political problem may remain unachieved.

Likewise, Hormuz matters because strategy is ultimately about leverage and outcomes, not body counts or destroyed hardware. If shipping remains impaired and calibrating around Iranian escalation risk, then Iran retains meaningful coercive power.

My concern is whether we are mistaking a strong tactical campaign for a satisfactory resolution which the world can live with.

Because while the administration has, off and on, articulated objectives, a war aim is not an end state. "Stop nukes" is an objective. Strategy explains what success concretely looks like, what ends the conflict, what acceptable costs are, and what happens if assumptions prove wrong.

Which brings me back to the questions I have asked repeatedly:

What exactly is the off-ramp?

At what point do we say the objective has been achieved?

Is there any limit to the expenditure of time, money, materiel, and political capital before we reassess or abate the conflict?

How do we distinguish actual success from gradually redefining success as circumstances evolve?

These are not defeatist or "gotcha" questions. In fact, answering them protects administrations from worse outcomes by guarding against mission creep and open-ended commitments.

Those questions matter precisely because I want the U.S. to succeed rather than get sucked into another conflict where tactical victories accumulate while the political objective keeps moving.

Dal +1

Yes I agree with what you posted.

My old Army buddy was in ROTC with me, was with the 82d ABN, a Combat Engineer Officer and a Retired an LTC. So I find him a very reliable source. I'm online with him daily.

And if it came down to it in our youth. I would have been very glad to have served with in combat, etc.

How to Finish the Job in Iran

link

Armand

It has to be finished … with the remnants of this radical islamic regime.

They can't be allowed to remain in control.

They can't be able to control the Strait.

They can't have the ability to get deployable nukes. The closest they should get is a microwave oven.

Plus the slaughter of their own people can't continue to happen.

Those are the measures for victory …

Trump administration claiming a ‘win' against Iran – here's a report card

link

Armand

Just in time!

U.S. Marines Board Iranian Tanker in Gulf of Oman

link

Armand

After the Iran Strikes, the West Must Confront the Third Option

"The U.S. military has dealt irreparable damage to Iran's theocratic dictatorship since the end of February. Yet amid a tenuous ceasefire and continuing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, one reality is becoming increasingly undeniable: the ultimate solution to the Iran conflict must involve the removal of the mullahs' regime.

While further bombing and destruction of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) are fully warranted, the deployment of American troops on Iranian soil is not necessary if the right strategy is pursued. There is already an organized opposition movement inside the country—one increasingly capable of challenging the regime from within.

At the center of that movement is the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the principal Iranian resistance movement and the largest constituent organization within the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a coalition advocating for a democratic republic in Iran. The PMOI opposed both the Shah's dictatorship and the current theocratic regime and has paid an enormous price over four decades, including the massacre of tens of thousands of its members and supporters…"

link

Iran Update Special Report, May 22, 2026

"The US-Iran negotiations have reportedly made "slight progress," but Iran's highly enriched uranium (HEU) and the Strait of Hormuz remain the two key sticking points in negotiations. It is unclear from public reporting where specifically "progress" was made. An unspecified senior Iranian source told Reuters that both sides have narrowed gaps between their demands, but that Iran's uranium enrichment and the Strait of Hormuz remain sticking points.[1] An unspecified Pakistani diplomatic source told Saudi news media outlet Al Hadath that the main obstacle in the talks remains how to handle Iran's HEU, and that closing gaps will not be easy because both sides maintain "high demands."[2] US Secretary of State Marco Rubio similarly stated that talks show "slight progress" but stressed again that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon or remain in control of the Strait of Hormuz.[3] Iran has not signaled willingness to meet US demands to secure its HEU stockpile out of Iran, and there is a broad consensus in Tehran that Iran must retain control over the strait.[4] US officials have called an outcome wherein Iran continues to control the strait "unfeasible."[5] Rubio warned that the president has "other options" if negotiations fail.[6]

Iran has launched an information operation to frame its protection racket in the Strait of Hormuz as a legitimate maritime security service. Iran's conduct toward commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz is a protection racket, which is a coercive extortion scheme in which an actor creates or threatens danger and then demands payment or compliance in exchange for protection from that danger. The New York Times reported on May 21 that Iran and Oman have discussed a system to charge vessels fees for maritime "services" rather than tolls for passage.[7] Iran likely seeks Omani support to legitimize its efforts to extend control over the entire strait. Iran‘s current "control" scheme makes territorial claims that infringe upon Emirati and Omani sovereignty.[8] The inclusion of Oman and not the UAE is notable in this context because Omani participation would legitimize Iranian efforts while still extending Iranian claims of sovereignty over Emirati territorial waters. The New York Times reported on May 21 that Oman initially rejected a partnership with Iran but added that Omani officials are now signaling willingness to use Oman's influence with Gulf neighbors and the United States to support the proposed fee system.[9] A fee and control system under which Iran and Oman control the strait together would still infringe upon Emirati sovereignty. Iran has claimed that its fee is in part for "security" or "insurance" for vessels that transit the strait. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy claimed on May 22 that 35 vessels transited the strait in the past 24 hours after obtaining Iranian "permission" and "security." This "security" is effectively protection from attacks by Iranian forces, which is the only force that has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz since February 2026. The US Navy, by comparison, is imposing a blockade upon Iranian ports—not the Strait of Hormuz. Commercial vessels only require such security guarantees to transit the strait because Iran has created insecurity through attacks, threats, and restrictions on international shipping. Iran now seeks to require vessels to secure Iranian permission and pay fees in exchange for protection from Iranian attacks or the denial of passage. Bloomberg reported that vessels dealing with Iran's new Persian Gulf Strait Authority have sometimes received payment requests of up to $2 USD million for safe passage, though Reuters reported on May 20 that most ships pay around $150,000 USD…"

link

Armand