"Is it over?" Topic

We of course know it pales in comparison to Biden.

"According to a congrassionally mandated U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) report and investigations by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the total worth of the military equipment and funds left behind in Afghanistan following the August 2021 withdrawal was approximately $7.18 USD billion."

"A November 2022 SIGAR evaluation report concluded that the Taliban likely gained access to approximately $57.6 USD million in cash. These funds were U.S.-provided operational bank accounts and physical currencies held at former Afghan ministries and local banks that were funded by the DOD, State Department, and USAID for ongoing project operations."

We will skip value of our air bases.

I posted the details of the first release of Iranian frozen assets which must be spent on U.S. goods. I thought that was pretty neat and has to gall the hell out of the hardliners.

I think we have agreed that Iran has needed to be slapped and slapped hard, for a very long time. Only one leader has ever really tried it before and that was Ronald and his was no where as hard as this one.

Have the goals been fully met? No.

The actual goals, not the ones I have already reviewed, (the make believe, wannabe and hyperbole goals).

As before, I gave 2. Maybe today I will print the other 4 (again). Some met, but most partially met.

I don't think this MOU will last.

Israel and Hezbollah will continue to break it.
Leadership in Iran is split between hardliners and those who want peace. That will be a problem and may break it.

I'm willing to wait this out via timelines stated and see what happens.

Lastly a very important difference between Obama's agreement and Trump's

"No, they were the exact opposite. President Obama's 2015 Iran Deal (JCPOA) was primarily a diplomatic and economic agreement. It relied on strict international inspections and U.N. sanctions to ensure compliance, and did not include a U.S. military backup or commitment to strike Iran if it broke the rules. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

In contrast, President Trump's recent U.S.-Iran agreement, which ended the recent war, is heavily backed by the U.S. military. Trump's Memorandum of Understanding serves as a formal ceasefire and commits both nations to stop all attacks against each other. Trump has explicitly stated that if Tehran fails to honor its commitments, the U.S. military will resume attacks. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key differences in enforcement include:

* Obama's 2015 JCPOA: Focused on diplomacy. It relied on daily oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor Iran's nuclear sites. If Iran had violated the terms, the consequence was "snapback" sanctions, meaning global economic penalties would return automatically. It did not authorize military action. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

* Trump's Agreement: Signed as a Memorandum of Understanding. Under this deal, the U.S. Navy lifted its blockade of Iranian ports and both sides permanently terminated military operations. The military threat is a core part of the framework: Trump explicitly warned he could resume airstrikes if Iran breaks its promises. [1, 2, 3, 4]"

@35thOVI

I suppose inevitably we would have to agree on something.

However:

Iran cannot be trusted.

Any agreement will probably fail.

Hezbollah will probably violate it.

More military action will likely be required.

We may have to repeat this process indefinitely.

Perhaps all of that is true. but It is a description of a problem being managed, not solved.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with management if that is the reality of the situation. Not every geopolitical problem has a permanent solution.

But how quickly "victory" has given way to "containment," "resolution" has given way to "maintenance" and "success" increasingly seems to mean reaching a position where we can postpone the next crisis.

As for the constant diversions into Obama, Biden, DACA, library construction projects, reflecting pools, CNN, soccer scores, and assorted domestic grievances, I confess I do not understand their relevance.

The question was whether this war achieved its objectives. It was never whether Barack Obama made mistakes. The existence of past failures does not automatically transform present policy into success.

And if the administration is now seeking a negotiated exit because the alternatives are worse, then I am willing to give 47 credit for recognizing reality.

That is not weakness.

The greater danger would be continuing an open-ended conflict merely because admitting limits had become politically inconvenient.

Ok the Objectives: (again)

I'll comment afterward.

"According to official transcripts and statements released directly by the White House and the Pentagonregarding Operation Epic Fury, the United States administration has outlined five specific, unchanging military and strategic goals. [1, 2]

Here are the exact objectives as stated verbatim by President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and official administration briefings: [1, 2]

* Obliterate Ballistic Missiles: Explicitly stated to "destroy Iran's missile capabilities… and their capacity to produce brand new ones," systematically razing their missile factories and weapons stockpiles to the ground. [1, 2]

* Annihilate the Iranian Navy: Formally ordered to target and sink the Iranian Navy, mine-laying vessels, and maritime security infrastructure to permanently strip the regime's ability to control or disrupt global shipping lanes. [1, 2, 3]

* Dismantle the Defense Industrial Base: To completely crush Iran's domestic military manufacturing, including drone manufacturing plants, assembly warehouses, and logistics networks. [1, 2]

* Permanently Deny Nuclear Weapons: To completely eliminate any covert or overt pathway to a nuclear weapon by targeting weapons research labs, enrichment materials, and command bunkers. [1, 2]

* Sever Terrorist Proxies: To cut off all financial, logistical, and military support lines extending from Tehran to regional proxy networks. [1, 2]"

——
Missiles and missile mfg:
Partially accomplished.

"Allied operations have destroyed or severely degraded roughly 66% to 90% of Iran's missile, drone, and naval production facilities. However, the exact percentage of the actual missile inventory destroyed remains debated, as significant numbers of missiles and about half of Iran's mobile launchers survived the conflict."

The actual missile destruction is very much debated and based on the bias of reporting.

——
Iranian Navy:
Again partially completed.

"Recent Tally: Later Pentagon and operational assessments state that upwards of 60 to over 120 vessels—which includes large combat ships, logistics, and hundreds of small, unarmored craft run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—have been destroyed or heavily damaged."

Pretty much just small narco type ships and tiny subs left from what I can determine

——

Destruction of the defense industry.
Again partial and depends on bias of those reporting. As with all reporting, bias is extreme!

"Top U.S. and Israeli officials estimate that between 85% to 90% of Iran's defense-industrial base was damaged or destroyed during combat operations. U.S. Central Command reported that over 450 ballistic missile storage sites, 800 one-way attack drone storage facilities, and 90% of weapons factories were struck."

Probably high, but well over 50%

——-

Deny Nukes
I've covered in this thread before.

——-
Sever terrorists proxies.

Again a partial

Hezbollah continues, but involvement of others have been extremely limited or non existent.
When Iran is using their limited missiles and money on their own defense. Obviously can't supply or help their proxies.

So to conclude.

Objective success are mostly partial successes. No matter what all sides say.

Those were the objectives.

But until these attacks, no one impeded Iran at all. All money could and was used to build more of everything weapon wise. Supply proxies. Develop whatever else they chose to.

In a note, they were unimpeded in their pursuit of the death of the big and little Satans.

Incavart

Over and over I've said in the Iranian threads and other threads: the fight against radical fundamentalist Islam, never ends and must always be ongoing wherever and wherever it arises. They have but one goal.

So unless the Iranian people realize their original mistake and willing remove these animals from control, (who they willingly put in control in 79), we (and others), must continually swat them.

I personally believe Trump is too trusting and needs to understand his enemy better. But I'm willing to see how this concludes, or blows up again.

"C14 News | EN

@c14english

🚨🚨🇮🇱🇱🇧 Breaking: Israeli forces have seized a strategic, Iranian-built Hezbollah underground command center on the Ali Taher Ridge in southern Lebanon. Hundreds of terrorists are believed to be trapped inside as the IDF dismantles the infrastructure."

OVI +1

However:

Iran cannot be trusted.

A given … about 99% accurate

Any agreement will probably fail.

Yes almost assuredly …

Hezbollah will probably violate it.

Little doubt they won't …

More military action will likely be required.

Definitely !

We may have to repeat this process indefinitely.

No not indefinitely. But more kinetic action is be needed … sooner than later. The assets are still there awaiting the GO order.

Perhaps all of that is true. but It is a description of a problem being managed, not solved.

Does not a situation have to be managed at times on the way to solving it? E.g. Grant at Vicksburg …

And if the administration is now seeking a negotiated exit because the alternatives are worse, then I am willing to give 47 credit for recognizing reality.

Yes and no … The reality is IMO … he knows what is going to have to be done.

That is not weakness.

Trump has demonstrated no weakness AFAIK. But I was not looking for it …

The greater danger would be continuing an open-ended conflict merely because admitting limits had become politically inconvenient.

I don't believe that will happen. The US and IDF has done significant attrition to all of Iran's assets including C3. Their economy is failing. They are not in a "good" place …

"Is it over?"

Clearly not – even if a lot of people fervently want it to be. Me included.

President Trump, "I don't want to deal with them anymore, they're scum." I think that's probably not indicative of any sort of peace treaty soon?
link

I thought the acknowledgement of defeat as outlined in the MoU was shameful but if you have nothing to replace it?

Incavart77, you are psychic: "The greater danger would be continuing an open-ended conflict merely because admitting limits had become politically inconvenient."

"Is it over?" My guess is this thread & the war, will still be going strong at Christmas. I'm sure some will put some sort of implausible spin on this- and it is hard to face unpalatable truth, so they have my sympathy but not my attention.

What an absolute mess.

Head of NATO, Rutte this morning

Reuters in Al Jazeera no sure

"Defending the U.S. Strikes on Iran

* Justified the Retaliation: Rutte stated, "When you have a ceasefire and Iran is basically violating the ceasefire, I think it is totally crucial that the U.S. forcefully react." [1]
* Degrading Iran's Capabilities: He emphasized that what the U.S. is doing to degrade Iran's military capabilities is "very important for European security, for the Middle East, [and] vital for Israel itself." [1]
* Demanding the Strait of Hormuz Reopen: He noted that Iran's blockade of the vital shipping lane threatens 20% of the world's oil supply, stating, "Everybody agrees this strait cannot stay closed. It has to open up again as soon as possible." [1, 2, 3, 4]"

FYI, you will know the door is closed, if the U.S. invites Israel to join the festivities again.

The Strait is closed because POTUS ordered the attack. I don't think this message shows a change of heart from NATO, 35th. If we had ended the threat as we hoped, they would have been thrilled. But they are not going to work under a unilateral leader who started this operation unless they are part of them plan, IMO. Perhaps not very pragmatic of them. But the US lack of global diplomatic experience has hurt us with our long time allies and this is the price.

I did not say a change of heart, Tortorella. He said we were justified in retaliation. So did Merz today.

If you see Israel take part again, then the agreement to come up with an agreement is at an end. Which is all the MOU was.

Otherwise all cards are still unrevealed.

@Ochoin

What I've been seeing from a number of analysts is not so much that the war will continue indefinitely in its current form, but that the conflict has shifted into a different phase.

There is still plenty of fighting. Israel continues to conduct strikes, Hezbollah remains active, and the broader proxy conflict has hardly disappeared. The point analysts seem to be making is not that the shooting has stopped, but that there is no clear path from the current military activity to a durable political settlement.

The phrase I keep seeing is some variation of: the war has changed shape rather than ended.

That doesn't necessarily mean the military campaign failed. However, it does suggest that we're moving from a discussion about victory and war termination to one about long-term management.

Whether that lasts until Christmas or not, I think that's where the analysis is increasingly pointing.

Trump notifies Congress of new war against Iran

President Donald Trump's notification that the U.S. is again at war with Iran gives the administration another 60-day clock for military action.

link

Armand

"New War"? How about finishing the old one?

Inca 77 +1

"New War"? How about finishing the old one?

Ignorant of the facts and very biased comment. E.g. look at WWII, the war changed a number of times based on the situation on the ground and location, etc.

Reread this … IMO it is generally correct …

What I've been seeing from a number of analysts is not so much that the war will continue indefinitely in its current form, but that the conflict has shifted into a different phase.

There is still plenty of fighting. Israel continues to conduct strikes, Hezbollah remains active, and the broader proxy conflict has hardly disappeared. The point analysts seem to be making is not that the shooting has stopped, but that there is no clear path from the current military activity to a durable political settlement.

The phrase I keep seeing is some variation of: the war has changed shape rather than ended.

To think otherwise IMO is "foolish", uninformed, biased, etc., etc.

Schrödinger's Strait

link

Armand

Schrödinger's Strait

Also a very recent interview with a member of Congress IIRC Brian Naste(R). He reported that the US has escorted, etc. over 800 ships thru the Strait. Mostly on the other side of the Persian Gulf. Closer to friendly/allied Arab counties …

The Strait is opened and not at the same time … like that cat …

I will give you another reason why NATO members might be even more reluctant to get involved now. The US offensive missile and defensive missile stocks are very low at the moment. Depending on the type of missile, I have seen estimates of between 3-5 years to get back to pre-conflict levels. I also think that this war has shown that pre-conflict levels were too low.

Now if the NATO navies get involved and start firing off their missiles (many of which are US produced), where do you think that they will be in the production queue when it comes to getting replacements? I think that they would be somewhere near the end of that line. They could end up with ships without any defensive of offensive capabilities for an extended period of time. That would be at the best negligent and at the worst, dangerous.

Martyn we know some stockpiles are short. How much specifically, we don't truly know.

But

Many of us brought this depletion point up since the start of the Ukraine/Russia war and were shot down here on TMP. Some accused us of being "pro Putin" and "Putin apologists". 🙄 Many of those accusations came from the same members complaining about the Iranian conflict today. 🙄

Weapons sent to Ukraine via the US that are highly relevant to the U.S. conflict with Iran include advanced air defense systems (such as Patriot Missiles and THAAD systems), HIMARS, uncrewed surface strike drones, and 155mm artillery, all of which are actively being utilized or diverted to the Middle East to counter Iranian threats. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The primary U.S.-supplied weapons currently seeing use in the Iran conflict include:
* Air Defense Interceptors (Patriot & THAAD): Critical for intercepting ballistic and cruise missiles in the region. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
*
* HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems): Highly mobile and precise precision-strike capabilities utilized for taking out launch sites and infrastructure. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
*
* Uncrewed Surface/Strike Vessels: American forces are deploying explosive sea drones (akin to those used in the Black Sea) to target Iranian naval assets and coastal facilities. [1, 2]
*
* 155mm Howitzers: Standardized artillery providing mobile, heavy firepower on the ground. [1, 2]
*
* Stinger & NASAMS Air Defense: Used to counter loitering munitions (like Shahed drones) and close-range aircraft threats. [1, 2]
*

I remember the discussions on the 155 rounds.

The U.S. also supplies all its allies with many of these same weapons. So yes it is a strain. (Read we made an agreement to have the Ukraine to produce more Patriots). Israel and many ME allies suck them up.

NATO allies had no issues with us pumping them into the Ukraine. In fact demanded it. Also supplying some CE nato members.

I've left out Asia and China.

Question is which nation has had no issues actively killing US citizens publicly? Which nation has labeled the U.S. the great Satan and said it should be destroyed?

Should we allow them the ability to build a nuke of whatever type, to use themselves or via a terrorist proxy, who have had no issues perpetuating terrorism on the soil of the United States?

I know where my vote goes.

35th, wasn't really going down the path of whether or not they should have been expended. I was on a real narrow focus of one of the factors that may be going into NATO countries calculations at the moment – ie the ability to get replacement missiles.

Russia and Iran are two different kinds of threats. There is zero chance of the conventional Iranian military attacking anyone at the level Russia went to war with Ukraine. Iran fights via fanatic individual and Oct.8 style terror raids and by lobbing missiles at neighbors, not NATO nations. Russia is a threat to the stability and safety of several NATO neighbors and can still field considerable assets, plus its nuclear arsenal, all controlled by a brutal dictator.

As bad as Iran has been, Russia is a much bigger and tougher opponent and threat to eastern Europe especially. For now, we are still bound by Article 5.

Without minimizing the kind of crazy threat Iran presents to everyone, my vote is for Ukraine. Our long-time number 1 opponent has been severely weakened militarily by Ukrainian sacrifice and global supply of resources. No small thing.

We know that Trump attacked Iran soon after Netenyahu's visit to DC. I am guessing that Trump was talked into a shot at glory by taking out Iran. There was no treaty obligation on our part, and the immediate consequences are still not clear. I still think there were better ways to deal with Iran.

Tort and I see Iran as the bigger threat to us specifically. Obviously more so to our allies in the ME and natural resources. Also the one most likely to use a nuke of some kind on us or Israel, or both.

So I go after the bigger threat to us. U.S. first, our top priority always. Not Europes priority. There are a lot of them to combat Russia.

I've tried to show that Iran has always been Trump's number one concern, even back into the 80's. If know the media wants to portray him being led by the nose by every world leader when convenient and then as a total loose cannon when that's convenient.

The only influence Israel may have had was on information on the nukes and all those leaders together as a target at one time.

He had pulled the leash on Israel multiple times in this conflict. So he is not being controlled by any means.

He is currently holding them back from attacking again. But that can't last much longer.

I always enjoy their involvement. They aren't afraid to hit the high reward targets. 🎯 💀 why should they be, they are always a target?

"When you get the respect of the other countries, then the other countries tend to do a little bit as you do … and then you create the right attitudes," Trump said in the resurfaced clip during an interview with reporter Rona Barrett about the Iranian hostage crisis.

When asked during the interview whether the U.S. should send troops into Iran during the hostage crisis, the real estate mogul didn't hesitate. Trump shared the clip on Truth Social on Tuesday.

"I absolutely feel that, yes," Trump responded. "I don't think there's any question."

Subject: Viral 1980 Trump clip on Iran hostage crisis resurfaces amid strikes | Fox News


link

I don't think Trump always does Israel's bidding but I think a number of world leaders know how to play him via his obsession with his legacy. No negotiations are going to make any difference until the regime is done. How to you get rid of this ruling class of religious zealots? There are too many to bomb them away. It has to be helped along from within with covert assets, a lot. Iran is a huge country, very forbidding terrain for military ground forces. 90 million people. Hearts and minds are the another way to do this. But Trump must use our intel and covert service people, and get somebody who has done this before to run it. IMO.

It is just as valid to think of Iran as the bigger threat. There are arguments for both points of view.

Trump's 'Guardian of Hormuz'

link

Armand

I read that in the new bill for Defense spending it calls to a much closer merging of the US and Israeli military. If true, I am not happy with that.

Section 219 was blocked in the Senate from advancing and is stalled. It could reappear later this session.

I rather doubt Israel is being held back, it's probably more a combination of preferring to deploy assets in Lebanon, sustaining serious damage from the 40 day war which may make them cautious to make themselves a target again. Also realization that Iran is 4 times the size of California and Israel can't incrementally move the bombing needle unless they hit civilian or infrastructure targets which wouldn't be good for the region.

Iran seems to still have large numbers of drones and short range missiles. Jordan has been getting hammered and the Israelis may fear their defense systems will be overwhelmed.

OVI +1

Tort +1 … some very valid points…

I read that in the new bill for Defense spending it calls to a much closer merging of the US and Israeli military.

Any conflict like this in this region the IDF allies are more than critical. However, in no way is the US doing Israel's bidding. Both of those nations have very similar interest is removing Iran's threat. Besides the IDF is our best ally in the region. And the only democracy in the Mid East. Those are very important points.

Plus we see with many of the Arab nations in the area. They look like they still are not very aggressive or possibly even that capable when it comes to warfighting.

Also realization that Iran is 4 times the size of California

That is one of the most critical factors in this conflict.

And the IDF is very busy will Hezbollah on another front. Along with dealing with the remaining Hamas terrorists.

Iran seems to still have large numbers of drones and short range missiles.

Yes … that may true. But notice the longer the conflict goes on. Fewer and fewer of those types of assets are being employed. They are using up their stocks.

However, it looks like the Chicoms may be somehow getting Iran some more weapons like this. Possibly some may be more advance in one report/rumor?

There is a railway running from China thru A'stan to Iran. That may be possibly one way to get this resupply mission done. Of course, railways are very vulnerable to air assets. Take out the lines as soon as they cross into Iran. Repeat as needed …

The other side:

Iran economists say war is turning malaise into crisis

Behrouz Turani
Iran International
2 hours ago

Iran's leading economists warned Monday that renewed conflict with the United States risks pushing the country's long-festering economic problems into a more dangerous phase, arguing that inflation is becoming increasingly difficult to contain.
The unusually candid warnings came at a two-day economic conference in Tehran that brought together senior economists, policymakers and business leaders after being postponed three times because of regional instability and wartime conditions.
Speakers said the latest escalation with Washington had transformed discussions from long-term reform into managing an economy under renewed military pressure.
Former presidential adviser Masoud Nili delivered one of the starkest assessments, warning that Iran's economy was moving from a chronic but manageable malaise into an active crisis.
Years of structural mismanagement, he said, were now visibly breaking open, while inflation had entered a "more slippery phase" in which subsidies and social safety nets were no longer sufficient to protect household welfare.
Media coverage reflected the divide between government officials seeking to reassure the public and independent economists warning that structural weaknesses were becoming harder to ignore.
Economic daily Donya-ye-Eghtesad listed chronic inflation, weak and unstable growth, persistent budget deficits, foreign-exchange volatility, dual exchange rates, pension-fund insolvency, foreign-policy pressures and rising geopolitical risks among the country's most urgent challenges.
Economist Mehrdad Sepahvand, one of the conference organizers, said the event had been delayed three times because of the regional crisis.
Investment gap
Former Central Bank Governor Hossein Abdoh Tabrizi argued that banking reform was essential, saying financial institutions must become "efficient allocators of capital rather than money-printing engines."
Although public confidence in the banking system had held up during recent regional conflict, he said, deeper reforms were needed to channel savings into productive investment.
Economist Mohammad-Mehdi Behkish said rebuilding damaged infrastructure, restoring economic growth and modernizing industry would require about $500 USD billion in investment.
Domestic resources alone were nowhere near sufficient, he argued, making greater foreign engagement and integration into the global economy indispensable.
Alireza Bakhtiari, director of the Donya-ye-Eghtesad Media Group, said policymakers remained trapped between what he described as a "survival paradigm" and a "growth paradigm," arguing that many of Iran's domestic economic constraints could not be resolved without major foreign-policy decisions.
Government response
Government-linked outlets focused instead on Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati, who acknowledged the severity of the economic situation while urging against panic.
Hemmati cited Iranian and international data showing a 47 percent decline in real per-capita income, saying the purchasing power of the average Iranian had fallen to levels last seen in the late 1990s.
Calling for "realism without doom-mongering," he argued that neither denial nor exaggeration would improve the economy.
"Price stability alone doesn't create goods," he said. "Only investment and productivity can sustainably restore Iranians' purchasing power."
Inflation pressures
Independent economists painted an even darker picture.
Hossein Tavakolian warned that inflation was entering a more dangerous phase.
Monthly inflation, once around 3 percent and equivalent to roughly 40 percent annually, was now periodically reaching 10 percent, he said, with nearly every major consumer category entering what he described as "red zones."
Academic economist Teymour Rahmani argued that inflation in Iran was fundamentally a political and fiscal problem rather than simply a monetary one.
Although direct government borrowing from the central bank had been curtailed, he said, fiscal pressures had merely shifted onto commercial banks, postponing rather than solving the country's inflation problem.

<\q>

An opinion on Israel, not from me.

Iran has avoided striking Israel during the most recent 10 days of combat as it fears the response of the Israeli Defense Forces. That is deterrence restored. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is afraid to strike the Jewish State. Now it must be made afraid to shoot at Americans or at its Arab neighbors or international shipping.

<\q>

A little more as to why isn't and why Iran is not hitting Israel

Israel has refrained from joining the renewed U.S.-led conflict against Iran to maintain Washington's control over the engagement's scope and timing. By remaining on the sidelines, Israel is allowing the U.S. military to handle the current campaign, which is largely focused on the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf states rather than Israel itself. [1, 2]
Key factors influencing this decision include:
* U.S. Strategy: The U.S. has not asked Israel to enter the current campaign and prefers to manage the escalations and negotiations independently. [1]
*
* Regional Dynamics: Following the collapse of the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, Iran has directed its attacks heavily at U.S. bases in the region, commercial shipping, and Gulf states. Israel has not been a direct target in this recent surge of fighting. [1, 2]

Fear of Full-Force Israeli Deterrence
During the opening rounds of the conflict (such as Operation Epic Fury), Israel demonstrated catastrophic capabilities against Iranian infrastructure and leadership. Israel has issued severe warnings that any new missile barrages will be met with "full force". Knowing that Israel's air defense networks are highly intact and backed by devastating offensive capabilities, Iran is reluctant to bring a highly capable adversary back into the kinetic theater.

<\q>

Against any ceasefires

AXIOs

4 hours ago -

World
Iran mediators push new ceasefire as Trump eyes all-out war

President Trump is nearing a decisive fork in the Iran war, with U.S. and Israeli officials envisioning only two viable endgames:
* Option 1: Pursue a new 10-day ceasefire aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
* Option 2: Launch a massive joint military campaign with Israel to force Tehran's capitulation.
Why it matters: Trump hasn't made a decision yet. Butofficials believe the next few days will determine which path prevails — with little room left for the grinding, open-ended conflict now paralyzing the Gulf.

Driving the news: Qatar, Egypt, Pakistan and other regional mediators have presented the U.S. and Iran with a proposal for a 10-day ceasefire, two regional sources with direct knowledge of the effort told Axios.
* The Trump administration is exploring the proposal and has urged Israel to avoid steps that could close the diplomatic window, U.S. officials said.
* But Washington is simultaneously preparing for the talks to fail. The U.S. military has sent dozens of fighter jets and refueling aircraft to the region in recent days, assembling the forces needed for a major escalation.
* Israeli sources said the IDF is on high alert and preparing for a possible expansion of the war into a full-scale, coordinated campaign within days.
The big picture: Ten straight nights of U.S. bombing have failed to break Iran's grip on the Strait of Hormuz, dragging Trump deeper into a war he has repeatedly declared won.
* At least three U.S. service members have been killed in the renewed fighting. Trump said Monday he had ordered the Pentagon to make Iran pay "many times over" for every American death.
* Oil briefly broke $90 USD a barrel this weekend as Iran widened its strikes on commercial ships and Gulf infrastructure. Gas prices are rising again, compounding the domestic backlash to an already unpopular war.
Zoom in: Regional mediators are once again racing to interrupt a cycle of retaliation that grows deadlier, costlier and harder to contain with each new strike.
* The new ceasefire proposal would halt the fighting, reopen both shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz, and give Washington and Tehran room to salvage their collapsing memorandum of understanding (MOU).
* "We told the U.S. and Iran that we propose a cooling-off period," one of the regional sources said.
State of play: Neither Trump nor Iran has accepted the proposal, and both sides appear determined to improve their leverage through further strikes before committing to a ceasefire.
* In the meantime, the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have declared a maritime blockade on Saudi ports, opening another front against the Gulf's energy infrastructure and shipping lanes.
* Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warnedthat Israel will answer any Iranian attack with massive strikes, raising the risk of a wider war stretching from the Gulf to the Red Sea and Israel.
Behind the scenes: Regional sources said mediators are trying to build on a proposal discussed by Oman, Iran and Qatar in Muscat, Oman, on July 11, when the U.S. demanded Tehran publicly commit to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open.
* Those talks ended without an agreement, and Iran attacked commercial ships in the strait shortly afterward — triggering the U.S. bombing campaign that has continued every night since.
* The proposal would fully reopen both Hormuz shipping lanes: the southern route through Omani waters, free of Iranian attacks, and the northern route through Iranian waters, free of the U.S. blockade.
During the 10-day ceasefire, the U.S. and Iran would negotiate a longer-term arrangement governing passage through the strait.
* One option would allow Iran to collect "reasonable service fees" for maritime security, environmental protection and other services, according to one regional source.
* The source pointed to the Strait of Malacca — where Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore charge vessels for specific services rather than a blanket transit fee — as a possible model.
* Another idea would direct the fees into a joint fund administered with the involvement of the International Maritime Organization.
Officials involved in the mediation include Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Qatari envoy Ali Al-Thawadi, Pakistani army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi.
The intrigue: One regional source said the ceasefire effort was gaining momentum Saturday, before an Iranian missile strike in Jordan killed at least two U.S. service members and prompted Washington to pull back.
* A senior U.S. official confirmed that talks are continuing but said Trump has yet to finish retaliating.
* "The president is focused on making Iran pay for its violations of the MOU and its continued acts of terrorism in the Strait of Hormuz," the official told Axios.
* "In addition, the president will make Iran pay for the recent deaths of U.S. soldiers. These devastating blows will continue until the president deems otherwise."
What they're saying: Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei confirmed Monday that mediators were working to prevent further escalation.
* "The proposals conveyed through the mediators have been received by us, but at this stage I prefer not to discuss their details," Baghaei said at an Iranian press briefing.
* He added that Iran's armed forces would continue to "respond with strength and crush the source of U.S. aggression."
What to watch: It's unclear whether Trump has been fully briefed on the ceasefire framework — or whether he would accept another temporary ceasefire without a clear path toward a lasting settlement.
* The president has voiced deep frustration with Tehran since the ceasefire collapsed, calling Iran's leaders "sick people" and dismissing further negotiations as a "waste of time."
* One regional source said the White House may continue bombing Iran for several more days to avenge the killing of the U.S. service members in Jordan before seriously considering the proposal.
The bottom line: "We are trying to work out a sustainable solution," one regional source said. "The Iranians can't dictate the terms, but they also can't be ignored."

<\q>

OVI +1

Some just refuse to get it … The US has to stop Iran's islamists reign of terror in the region and the world. The US does not have to do a Normandy or Iwo type invasion of Iran. For a number of reasons. Besides being too big. That is just what Iran wants. To start to up US losses, the 5th Columnist in the Congress, the Left, media, etc. will continue to & moan. Like in SE Asia, Iraq and A'stan. Then the US will have to withdraw. Iran claims victory. And starts their horror show all over again. And then as now would get continued support from the Chicoms and Putin's Russia.

E.g. Most of those US troops killed over the weekend were killed in their barracks. I'm pretty sure the Chicoms were giving intel, etc. to Iran. So, they know what and where to target.

This all works for the some in Congress, the Left, etc. As they can continue to bash the POTUS. Over doing what should have been done years ago.

The Pentagon understands the lessons learned from previous conflicts with moslems on their own terrain.

The US would if need be severely cost the IRGC in a toe-to-toe battle on the ground. As the IRGC, Basji, etc. have little experience in shooting at people who shoot back. Along with have overwhelming firepower. And gain fire superiority quickly. The IRGC, etc. losses will be major. However, the US will take losses also. Much lower than the islamists. But with even a few US losses it will be too many. As it again this a big AO, and it is their backyard.

Why would the US walk into a huge ambush ? We won't …

So to do anything more than a Raid on Kharg or another island(s). Would be counter-productive to the US. As occupy/suppressing Iran would just be too costly in blood and treasure. As many senior US Ret. Officers have continually said. Even I only a former O3, I can figure that out.

So again as Ret. GEN Clarke had said this will take time … This world changing conflict is worth the determined methods that US is doing. To save blood & treasure. Primarily ours …

So the questions are ?

With other moslem nations in the region being attacked by Iran. As well as US forces in those countries. Where are those Arabs' kinetic actions against Iran and its proxies.

Plus with all that is at stake. And Europe will or is in range of Iran's missiles with the Chicom assistance. Where are the Euros ? Did they downsize so much as to be not ready to support in this operation ? Which is much closer to them than the USA.

Are they that antisemitic/anti-Trump, etc. to not get involved? And once again will the US have to do all the heavy lifting ? Again … ?

Europe is formed of quite a lot of countries and I doubt there's much enthusiasm for involvement Legion.

What would you think a potential European ally might be signing up for?
Paying for US escorts?

Speaking of Europe, just this morning:

Iran warned Bulgaria against allowing the U.S. to station tanker aircraft in the country, explicitly stating that hosting the planes at the Bezmer air base makes Bulgaria an accomplice to "aggression and war crimes".Foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei urged the Balkan nation to avoid complicity in U.S. military operations, which have recently escalated around the Strait of Hormuz. The Bulgarian government is seeking parliamentary approval to station up to eight U.S. aircraft at the facility.

<\q>

Iran is like "Blazing Saddles" when killing infidels:

"Everyone is equal in my eye."

From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

The Iran War Is Back. The Deal That Ends It Must Not Rearm Tehran.

"…Sanctions alone are not sufficient to ensure Tehran's compliance and reimposing them while the Strait sits open mostly rewards China, which returns to buying discounted Iranian crude and pockets the spread. Pressure works only when sanctions and the blockade move together.

None of this requires making war on the Iranian people, and the past week shows why the distinction matters. American strikes have now hit bridges, tunnels, and a desalination plant, with reports of thousands of Iranians left without water, and the administration has signaled that more civilian infrastructure is on the target list. Lessons from Russia's failed effort to force Ukrainian capitulation through wanton attacks on the country's infrastructure show that this approach is a strategic error as much as a moral one. The regime's true center of gravity is its money and its military: the IRGC's commercial empire and smuggling networks, and the air-defense, missile, and fast-boat forces it uses to menace the Strait. Pressure there is potent and reversible, and it spares the power and water that ordinary Iranians, already the regime's chief victims, depend on to survive, the very systems any peace will be built upon. Destroy them, and Washington hands the regime the one thing it cannot manufacture for itself: a reason for its people to rally to it.

The war has proved twice now that American and Israeli forces can break Iran's military. The harder task is making it stay broken. That is not accomplished by a deal that finances the rebuild, nor by leveling the infrastructure a future Iran will need, nor by trading strike for strike until the region is exhausted. It is accomplished by sustained economic pressure, credible and reversible military deterrence, and an enforceable agreement with real consequences for breaking it. The first MOU failed that test. The next one cannot, or Americans will keep dying in the Gulf, and the Iran that emerges will be stronger, with Beijing at its back."

link

Armand

Europe is formed of quite a lot of countries and I doubt there's much enthusiasm for involvement Legion.

That certainly appears to be the case …

What would you think a potential European ally might be signing up for?

Again it seems the Euros don't have the forces or training along with the will to actually do much of anything. Possibly they don't understand what is at stake with a nuclear Iran.

And continued support by Iran to the many islamic terrorists' groups. E.g. Hezbollah, Hamas[what is left of it], the Houthis, Iraqi, etc. Shia militias, etc.

As well as the brutality of Iran's islamic regime to their own people …

The Iran War Is Back. The Deal That Ends It Must Not Rearm Tehran.

It is clear there can be no real dealing with Iran's islamists. All they understand is aggressive brute force. They have another way of seeing things. They are religious fanatics and a death cult. Bent on starting the end times. That makes them very, very dangerous. To many within range.

And war is not being raged on the 80% of Iran population that hates this fanatical moslem regime. Some may be come collateral damage. But those numbers would be small. Compared to how many of them are killed by the IRGC, Basji, etc.

or Americans will keep dying in the Gulf, and the Iran that emerges will be stronger, with Beijing at its back."

Those are all the more reasons to end Iran's theocratic regime. As far as Americans dying so very few have. One is really to many. But the US is keeping its losses very, very low. While Iran keeps taking huge losses, daily …

Those loses of Iran's will and are making a difference …

At this point Iran is a bigger threat than the PRC or Russians.

Iranian workers who have gone months without pay may have only two months of financial resilience left without government intervention, a labor representative warned on Thursday, as wage arrears mount following conflict between the United States and the Islamic Republic.

"The country will certainly face significant unrest among workers by the end of the summer if the current trend continues," Akbar Shokat, executive secretary of the Workers' House in Qom province, told the ILNA news agency.

OVI +1

Trump's air war in Iran may be reaching its limits

link

Iran strikes on CIA facilities prompt questions about possible Russian role

link

Armand

Don't think the air war is reaching its limit. There are many more targets to be removed … More IRGC, etc. to kill …

IMO there is little doubt that the Chicoms and Russia would not being supporting Iran.

Satellite Images Show Iran Is Rebuilding. Fast.

link

Armand

That is no surprise as we have orbital assets, etc., etc., telling the intel activities what is going on.

Since this appears to be accurate intel. This makes it even more important to continue to destroy Iran's islamists, their military assets, facilities, etc.

What fools in the Congress, the media, etc. would say we have to stop these attacks. And allow Iran's islamists get deployable nukes ? What is so hard to understand how destructive nuclear weapons are ?

I don't think that Congress ect. are saying let Iran have nukes. What is being said is how Trump is handling this war is not going to stop Iran having nukes. What Trump has tried has failed.

I don't think that Congress ect. are saying let Iran have nukes. What is being said is how Trump is handling this war is not going to stop Iran having nukes. What Trump has tried has failed.

Ahh ? Somewhat … The record show clearly that no matter the POTUS does. Some in Congress, the media, etc. will try to stop it, change it, etc., etc.

It is short sighted and even biased to say that what the POTUS and his Admin have not been handling the Iran problem right. And that attempts have failed to stop Iran's islamists from getting nukes.

This conflict is not over with yet.

And at least 2 out previous POTUS's gave Iran billions of $. USD And that did 0 but help finance their quest for nukes and their End Times … Plus some of those billions went to supporting other islamic terrorists, etc.

Remember 7 Oct. …

Again, IMO and many others of much high rank than I think and rightly so. The only way to stop Iran's dark plans. Is to continue to attrite their IRGC/Basji, any Iraqi Shia militias, etc. in Iran. Plus as equally important continue to kill off their leader at all levels. It is a waste of time to believe that these islamic fanatics will in reality to agree on anything. As the record shows they are liars, militant, backward religious fanatics, radicals, etc.

To do anything else but to destroy them would just be delaying the inevitable. They should die or eventually they will continue to try and succeed in getting nukes.

Seems pretty clear what has to be done …

Legion +1

All those who feel safe, should check out Berlin and NYC the last few days.

"Ain't no one safe"

Legion,

Two presidents did give billions. And…Trump was going to give back $300 USD billion, plus end sanctions, allow Iran to still have ballistic missiles and sell their oil on the open market. That was going to get Iran to stop their nuclear program and sponsored terrorism? Maybe one of the reasons he is so widely opposed is because this president has given little indication that he knows what he is doing in this conflict.

Two presidents did give billions.

Yes which was foolish and only helped Iran's cause.

Trump was going to give back $300 USD USD billion, plus end sanctions, allow Iran to still have ballistic missiles and sell their oil on the open market.

But it didn't happen … it could have been just more rhetoric to get Iran to talk instead of shoot. But I think we all knew … they will not give up their "holy" cause.

Maybe one of the reasons he is so widely opposed is because this president has given little indication that he knows what he is doing in this conflict.

I don't think that is the case. However, again, we may not know all the facts(?), etc., etc. No matter at this point. Regardless, Iran is on a quest to get nukes. So it seems no matter what, no matter how many islamists die.

They play the long game … they will wait … someone new will be in the WH. Sooner or later … Then Iran will probably attack Israel for a start …

This is the only chance to stop these islamic fanatics. Before it is too late and the inevitable will happen.

Just heard on FOX/Newsmax that CENTCOM CDR recommended that strikes stop. As intel reports the strikes on Iran has inflicted as much damage as possible at this point. No longer obtaining too much effect at this time.

US combat assets are still deploying to region …

As I have said, we don't get the intel that those in the WH, DOW, etc. do …

Will be interested in seeing next moves …

Reports are Saudia Arabia is striking targets in Iran and Yemen …

The IDF is prepping to attack targets in Iran when required. They don't want the islamists still in charge of Iran.

Like any conflict … it is like a Chess Game, so to speak … move – countermove – counter: countermove, repeat …

The Ukraine has hit an Iranian vessel bringing oil to Russia. So the war expands to that front …