"Iran – America's Vietnam?" Topic

I came across this opinion piece arguing that there are parallels between Vietnam and the current Iran conflict:

link

Similarities Between the US–Iran War and the US–Vietnam War

The author suggests that wars of attrition, political pressure at home, and the difficulty of imposing regime change make the comparison worth considering.

Do you think there are genuine strategic parallels or is the comparison superficial? If Vietnam isn't the best historical analogy, what conflict would you compare it with instead?

I didn't read the article but surely it's drawing a long bow. Not many similarities between the two wars that I can see. (Other than a US failure to achieve its objectives).

In that both have a "tar baby" effect, they are similar.
The Usual Suspects are already howling "Hit them again! Harder! Harder!"
It's not like "The Art of the Deal" dealing with rival real estate moguls or unions.
It doesn't help either when the "victory condition" change almost weekly.

From reading headlines on Drudge, public support for the war is way below 30%. Probably 25% suffer from TDS. I'll take that hit.
And it was never close to 50%.

"Kill them.. Kill them all!"

For me, the jury is still out but note: no one is claiming an exact similarity but more like some shared features.

Lessons learnt, and all that.

Vietnam War had better music

Maybe – but not the way you think.

I have a Vietnamese-American friend who escaped as a child after 1975. His father was an ARVN infantry officer on a communist death list. They lost family members, endured pirate attacks and horrors at sea as "boat people," and spent years in refugee camps before reaching the U.S. His story isn't unique — it represents millions who suffered because of how the war ended. Here's the key point: By the early 1970s, the U.S. had largely Vietnamized the war. South Vietnam, with American logistics, financial support, and airpower, was holding its own against the North. The ARVN fought credibly in the 1972 Easter Offensive (with U.S. air support). It wasn't perfect — corruption and leadership issues existed — but with consistent resupply, South Vietnam was defending itself.

WE WON THE VIETNAM WAR. With US help, South Vietnam was stablizing and able to handle itself.

And then the Democrats LOST THE VIETNAM WAR ON PURPOSE!

The "anti-War" Democrats swept into Congress and took over. Aid was slashed dramatically. The Case-Church Amendment and other measures blocked U.S. re-intervention, munitions and logistics support and even suppressed intel sharing. Meanwhile, the North was being massively re-armed by the USSR and China. In 1975, they launched a full mechanized invasion — tanks, APCs, artillery, supported by aircraft – attack jets flown not just by North Vietnamese pilots, but also Soviet pilots. Isolated ARVN units ran out of ammo, fuel, and spare parts. No U.S. air support. No intel. Nothing.

The Democrats cut South Vietnam off at the knees.

Saigon fell in weeks. What followed: re-education camps, executions, the boat people exodus, and the Killing Fields in Cambodia.

FOUR MILLION DEAD! SIX MILLION REFUGEES! A horror show. And all avoidable, all caused by the tragically awful ideological decisions of the Democrats of the day.

The lesson isn't "Vietnam was unwinnable." It's that an imperfect but holding position was turned into total defeat by domestic politics and severed support.

Fast-forward to today's talk about Iran. If we're confronting Iranian proxies, nuclear ambitions, or regional aggression, the same risk applies. If anti-war, isolationist voices (especially those prioritizing domestic politics over consistent foreign policy) dominate after November 2026, we could see the same pattern: initial pressure or support for partners, followed by abrupt cuts when the political winds shift. Many of the new "antiwar" Democrats are extremely anti-Israel (and I would argue, many are anti-Jewish) and want to cut Israel off at the knees while sending support to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.

Going one better than the 1970s anti-War Democrats -- they cut off aid to South Vietnam, but at least they didn't send aid to North Vietnam!

Adversaries like Iran (and its backers) are watching our staying power. Signaling weakness or abandonment doesn't lead to peace — it invites aggression and humanitarian disasters. We don't need forever wars. But we do need consistent strategy, realistic goals, and reliable support for allies so today's "imperfect victory" doesn't become tomorrow's horrific defeat.

+100 dogtail

LOL

One difference:

Virgin Goats, Camels and sheep in paradise, did not live in petrified fear at the death of each Vietnamese soldier.

YouTube link

YouTube link

YouTube link (classic!)

And my favourite:

YouTube link NSFW BTW

Agreed – the Iran War doesn't, inexplicably, have any good anti-war songs. Where's 2026's answer to Country Joe?

Not inexplicable given the state of today's pop music. But I've had "We Gotta Get Outta This Place" in my head for weeks.

Nixon and Kissinger and the bombing of Cambodia….not one of our better plans, from what I have read, as many as 100,000 civilian casualties and the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Nixon's "madman theory" …acting like a crazy leader who might go ballistic.

You can bomb the hell out of civilians and not get anywhere. What should we hit next in Iran?

YouTube link

Totally in one way --- unwilling to invade.

Russ Dunaway
USMC Vietnam veteran -- 1967-1971

I think they are similar in that both wars show a limit to power. Clearly the US is the more powerful nation and has the strongest military just as in Vietnam. But Iran is not fighting a straight up battle with the US and neither did the NVA and VC.

Do you want songs? I have them!

An AI video for a Russian folk song (author unknown) from the Vietnam War period – "Phantom." Translation included:

link

I'm running across the scorched earth,
Closing the helmet on the move.
My Phantom, like a swift arrow,
In the sky, blue and clear,
Gains altitude with a roar.

I see the azure distance
It's a shame to disturb it
It's a shame you can't see it,
Our path is difficult and long
My Phantom is racing east

I make a left turn
I'm an executioner now, not a pilot
Bending over the sight,
And the missiles rush toward the target
I make another approach

I see a white line in the sky
My Phantom is losing altitude
A catapult is salvation,
And on slings into the trees
Into this jungle I'll simply fall

As soon as I landed, at that very moment
From the bushes came the sound a wild scream
Half-naked Vietnamese
Squealing all around like rabbits
I fell to the ground and hid

I'm walking on this cursed land
No helmet on my head
The barrel of a machine gun from behind
Soldiers are poking me in the back
My life hangs by a thread

I asked him one question
"Who was the pilot who shot me down?"
And the slanted one answered
Who commanded the interrogation:
"Our pilot, Li Si Tsin, shot you down" (a play on words; if you remove the spaces in the name, you get the common Russian surname Lisitsyn)

It's you, Vietnamese, who are lying in vain
On the air, I clearly heard (in Russian):
"Lyokha, press, and I'll cover you!"
"Vanya, shoot, and I'll cover your tail!"
Russian ace Ivan shot me down.

In the States, I'm sitting in a flight bar.
Drinking whiskey and looking at the guys.
My Phantom, like a pile of junk,
In the jungles of South Vietnam,
Will never see the sky again…

Grattan54, an equal fight is fought against an equal opponent)))

Not seeing it

And so?

YouTube link

Nope … more biased tainted uniformed wishful thinking. Trying to discredit the USA, etc. The parallels between Vietnam and Iran conflicts end after ID'ing them as wars the US is involved in.

The IRGC/Basji are nothing like the VC/NVA … Save they both wanted to kill Americans.

The US has a onetime about IIRC 500,000 + or – troops on the ground in SE Asia.

The US has no troops one the ground in Iran. Save for possibly some CIA/Spec Ops. And that is just conjecture at least at this time.

Tech has progressed many magnitudes head since Vietnam era, '62-'72+. Today's tech can do so much more with just air assets. E.g. Strike Aircraft, TLAMs, Drones, long range missiles, etc. Then was even imagined during Vietnam … Look at a calendar … read some history …

This is another attempt at trying to make the Iran conflict into another Vietnam. Because many still have a grudge with the US POTUS, his Admin, US foreign policies, etc.

Some need to stop grasping at straws trying to degrade the POTUS, US, etc. Vietnam demonstrated many things that can occur initially in an insurgency, the VC. Later joined by a more standard basically Light Infantry Army. With small numbers of other assets, e.g. including FA, air, armor, ADA, navy, etc. All which was more geared to the terrain, etc.

And the obvious fact is the USA has been at war with Iran for about 3-4 months. Destroying about 90+% of all of Iran military/paramilitary assets. Along with removing probably about the same percentage of Iran's islamists leaders, etc.
The US killed an estimated 1 million + or – VC/NVA, etc. in SE Asia. Which took over 10+ years.

As well as US losses in personnel and equipment with the Iran conflict. Although very sad, and upsetting, etc. losses are tiny vs. what was occurring and occurred in SE Asia …

No tar baby here … wasn't that in a Disney movie ?

When reading articles online, etc. some need to put away their bias, limited knowledge, etc. And look at the reality of what situation actually is. Of course, some have drank so much of the Kool Aid from some in Congress, the media, etc. They couldn't see what is actually going on verses what they wish/hope was going on to feed their narrative.

What next ? Compare the Girls Scouts to a German Panzer Div. ? For some I'm sure they could come up with something. And at least a stupid …

Some need to stop grasping at straws trying to degrade the POTUS, US, etc. Vietnam demonstrated…

…demonstrated that regardless of true conditions on the ground, regardless of the consequences and massive potential loss of life and destruction, Leftist Democrat ideologues who are driven above all other things to punish a president and prove he is wrong to prove their emotional feeling that a war is "immoral" and "colonialist" are willing to collapse a victory into a costly defeat…

Lest we forget what happens if Iran gets a nuclear weapon… I will post this even knowing that it will be instantly dismissed by those seeking failure in order to feel better about themselves and their choices. And this graphic is the BEST case of one weapon used against Israel. The "Samson" Option.

Their end option has been called "Mivtza Shimshon" -- which is if the Israelis think the incoming nuclear strike is not survivable. They would expend all of their 80-90 nuclear weapons against every major city and holy site in the Arab world.

…and of course, if this horror show sould come to pass the Left would absolve themselves and blame Trump and Israel for the consequences of THEIR actions…

Here is exactly where the war in Vietnam changed and who was really to blame for it.

Same people so very much responsible for all the rest, unto this very day.

"Historians widely agree that the Tet Offensive in early 1968 was a devastating military defeat for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA). However, much of the US mainstream media depicted the event as an American defeat or a bloody stalemate, shaping a narrative that resonated deeply with the American public.The disconnect between the military reality and the media's framing stems from a few core factors:

Sensationalized Reporting: Correspondents relied heavily on dramatic, speculative television commentary focused on the "impact" of the offensive. For example, when CBS anchor Walter Cronkite visited Vietnam, he famously broadcasted that the war was "mired in a stalemate," despite American forces actually breaking the sieges and clearing out enemy resistance.

The "Political Victory" for Hanoi: While the Viet Cong suffered catastrophic casualties (with many units nearly wiped out), the graphic, daily reporting of the fighting into American living rooms convinced much of the US public that the war was un-winnable. This drastically weakened domestic political support, forcing President Lyndon B. Johnson to halt bombing campaigns and abandon his reelection bid.

Because the US media emphasized the destruction and chaos over the resulting enemy casualties, the narrative of an American setback or "stalemate" was cemented in the public consciousness."

The "honored" and "respected" Walter Cronkite led that charge, followed quickly by the rest of the MSM of the time.

People believed Old Walter. "He always reports it as it is". 😞

"Walter Cronkite personally identified as a political liberal, but he was celebrated as the "most trusted man in America" "

I know! I was watching the broadcast. I listened to family, neighbors and friends. I heard the comments. I watched the attitudes change. With even vets of other wars buying it!

Thus began my schooling on the MSM.

The MSM has been the enemy ever since. Propagating lies, half truths and agenda, ever since. They realized their power (along with "Watergate"). Yet people still drink their Kool-Aid willingly.

Cronkite, the name should live in infamy along with the Rosenberg‘s.

SB Legion +1

@SB:
it took a lot of effort to convince the Iran not to continue to try to get nukes. That was done in a years long period of negotiations. Trump ripped JCPOA apart.
What you are doing is just fear mongering propaganda. How about some pictures of mutilated children?

Why would you want photos of mutilated children? 🤔

These have since been censored, but i might have the uncensored in my October archive.

Subject: Netanyahu's office releases horrifying images of infants murdered by Hamas | The Times of Israel


link

Are you looking for further back? WW2, WW1, Armenian, North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, Koreans, Nigerian Christians (I can find lots of those)? Specifically targeted children or collateral damage children? Actually can find them in any war.

The music was better.
Geo-politics is different, weapons are different, terrain is different, manpower resources are different. I do not see a relationship.

There are some similarities to all the US efforts from Vietnam but quite a few differences as well.

One common item is the US has been generally unable to deal with an enemy who can be thrashed militarily at every turn but refuses to quit. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan all featured enemies incapable of winning militarily but simply choosing to survive and inflict injury. One very significant difference so far is that without putting troops on the ground, the injuries inflicted by Iran are primarily economic and political.

I don't think comparisons to Vietnam can be considered as really apt as the duration of the conflict is still somewhat brief. What does seem more likely is the US will end up with essentially the JCPOA in a different acronym. The stated reason for abandoning the JCPOA initially was it did not address Iran's missiles or its support for terror. The President has already stated that Iran can have missiles and no restriction on funding Hezbollah or the Houthis is likely enforceable although the pounding they've received likely makes less funds available. Iran will likely give up the 900lbs of 60% enriched and agree to inspections but, the ability to enrich to 3.67% with inspections might end up part of the deal. Agreement on Hormuz would seem to be necessary as for the US, anything that gives Iran a legal right that did not exist prior to the war would be a flat out loss. Repatriation of frozen funds and whatever that $300 USD billion reconstruction fund constitutes along with lifted sanctions in some form is probably the US sweetener that will be used to clinch a deal but risks substantial US domestic push back. Regime change is fully off the table.

McKinstry,

I would agree. I would add though that the $300 USD Billion will partly be used to fund more terrorism. The giving Iran money under Obama's treaty was one reason there was so much opposition to it. Conservatives were right when they said this money had been used to sponsor terrorism, hope they will also speak out against the money this time. Just think what support for terrorism Iran could give with $300 USD billion. But we have been told that they will just use this money to rebuild Iran. Right.

As you know it took two Democrat presidents to get the US in Vietnam war and one Republican president to get US out!

The difference between Vietnam and Iran?

Trump had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

Noggin! 😂😂

"As you know it took two Democrat presidents to get the US in Vietnam war and one Republican president to get US out!"

So two Democrat presidents to get you out of Iran?

@SB:
it took a lot of effort to convince the Iran not to continue to try to get nukes. That was done in a years long period of negotiations. Trump ripped JCPOA apart.

JCPOA was an unenforceable joke that kicked the can down the road. The Iranian regime, since seeing Saddam get hung and Khadafi impaled on a pipe AFTER he had complied with ALL WMD disarmament and anti-terrorism demands by the US, determined that nukes were essential to regime survival…complicated by the Twelver faction of the Imams who think by creating the conditions of chaos and destruction that predicts the coming of the the Twelfth Iman, the new Mahdi, that they will bring about the End Times leading to new Shiite global Golden Age.

What you are doing is just fear mongering propaganda.

No -- it's reality. The so-called "Samson Option" by Israel has been known for DECADES. This is not new. Even Iran knows it, but their crazy a$$ Nazi-islamists may not care or may think a proxy nuke strike on the Little Satan will spare retaliation. It will not.

Want the details behind the infographic? Here you go.

The Catastrophic Toll of a Nuclear Exchange Between Iran and Israel

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A hypothetical but plausible nuclear strike by Iran on Israel, followed by Israeli retaliation, would unleash immediate physical devastation on an unprecedented scale for the modern Middle East, with ripple effects that could reshape economies, societies, politics, and the environment for decades. While neither nation has publicly confirmed the full extent of its arsenal, analyses of plausible scenarios—drawing on open-source estimates of yields and targeting—paint a grim picture aligned with historical nuclear effects modeling.

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Immediate Physical Destruction: Blast, Fire, and RadiationAn Iranian nuclear strike, assumed in cautionary scenarios to involve one or more 15-20 kiloton (kt) airbursts over central Tel Aviv, would mirror the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb but in a far denser urban environment. Tel Aviv's metro area, home to over 4 million people, sits in a compact coastal plain. An airburst optimizes blast and thermal effects, producing a shockwave that levels buildings within roughly 0.6-1 km (severe damage) and causes moderate structural failure out to several kilometers.

en.wikipedia.org

Immediate casualties could reach 80,000–180,000 killed and 150,000–350,000 injured from blast trauma, third-degree burns (extending several kilometers), and prompt radiation. Over the first 30–90 days, totals might climb to 130,000–400,000 dead and 250,000–600,000 injured as medical systems collapse, fires rage, and infrastructure fails.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Israeli retaliation—potentially involving 8–15 warheads of 20–100 kt each targeting Iranian military sites, nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure, and cities like Tehran—would inflict far greater absolute damage due to Iran's larger population and geography. Direct immediate deaths could range from 500,000 to 2 million, with injured or displaced reaching 1–4 million initially and millions more over the first year. Multiple detonations would create overlapping firestorms, complicating evacuation and rescue.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Radiation plumes from any ground bursts or fallout would contaminate downwind areas, with acute radiation sickness affecting survivors in the first days and weeks. Long-term, increased cancer rates, genetic damage, and environmental radioactivity would persist.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Economic Devastation: Trillions in Losses and Global ShockIsrael's economy, a high-tech powerhouse with significant financial and commercial activity in the Tel Aviv area, would suffer immediate losses estimated at $250 USD–700 billion—roughly half or more of its annual GDP. Commercial real estate, tech/finance sectors, ports, and housing would be obliterated or severely disrupted.

visionofhumanity.org

Iran would face even steeper costs: $500 USD billion to $2 USD+ trillion in immediate damage to oil and gas infrastructure, industrial sites, power systems, transportation, and governance. Its economy, already sanctioned, could be set back decades, with oil exports halted.

en.wikipedia.org

Globally, combined economic costs could exceed $3 USD–12 trillion. The Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of global oil flows, would likely face disruption—via attacks, mining, or insurance unavailability—sending oil prices surging to $150 USD–300+ per barrel initially. Supply chain collapses, market panic, and a global recession could shave trillions from world GDP.

congress.gov +1

Social and Humanitarian CrisisMass casualties would overwhelm hospitals, with burn and trauma victims far exceeding capacity. Millions displaced across the region would trigger a refugee crisis straining neighbors like Jordan, Lebanon, and Gulf states. Food, water, and medical shortages—exacerbated by infrastructure destruction and potential contamination—would lead to secondary deaths from disease and starvation.

nuclearweaponsedproj.mit.edu

In Israel, societal cohesion might fracture under the weight of unprecedented loss in a small nation. In Iran, governance collapse in affected areas could spark internal unrest or power vacuums. Long-term health effects, including cancers from radiation, would burden survivors for generations.

americanscientist.org

Political Ramifications: Regional and Global RealignmentPolitically, such an exchange would shatter Middle East stability. Israel's existence as a functioning state could be imperiled by the loss of its economic core and population centers, while Iran's regime might face existential threats from internal fallout and retaliation. Proxy networks (Hezbollah, Houthis) could escalate or disintegrate.

manaramagazine.org

Internationally, the U.S. and allies would confront immense pressure for intervention, humanitarian aid, and containment. Nuclear proliferation risks would spike, with other states potentially accelerating programs. Global institutions would strain under the weight of reconstruction, sanctions fallout, and refugee flows. The conflict could redraw alliances, boost authoritarian narratives, or trigger broader great-power involvement.

armscontrolcenter.org

Environmental and Climatic Impacts: Beyond the Immediate BlastLocal environmental damage would include radioactive contamination of soil, water, and air, rendering areas uninhabitable for years and disrupting agriculture. Firestorms could loft soot into the atmosphere.

ctbto.org

Even a "limited" exchange risks broader climatic effects. Soot from urban fires could cause temporary global cooling, reduced rainfall, and agricultural shortfalls, threatening food security for hundreds of millions elsewhere. Ozone depletion and ecosystem disruption would compound long-term challenges.

icanw.org +1

A Cautionary RealityThese scenarios, while modeled on plausible yields and targeting, underscore why prevention remains paramount. No side "wins" a nuclear exchange; the human, economic, and environmental costs dwarf any strategic gain. As historical analyses of nuclear effects demonstrate, the unimaginable consequences extend far beyond the battlefield, demanding rigorous diplomacy and deterrence to avert catastrophe.

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Footnotes (selected sources; full sourcing draws from scientific modeling, economic analyses, and effects studies cited inline):Casualty and physical effects primarily informed by peer-reviewed studies and nuclear weapons effects literature (e.g., PMC analyses of Israel-Iran scenarios).

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Economic projections adapted from think-tank and market impact assessments of regional conflicts and oil disruptions.

visionofhumanity.org +1

Environmental and long-term data from established reports on nuclear testing and war modeling.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This analysis highlights the imperative for de-escalation in one of the world's most volatile flashpoints.

GROK

This all just the physics of nuclear weapons. Here's some light reading for you:

Nuclear Arms Race: Technology and Society
by P. P. Craig | Jan 1, 1985

Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War: Some Perspectives
by United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency | May 12, 2012

Nuclear Weapons (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series)
Part of: MIT Press Essential Knowledge (115 books) | by Mark Wolverton | Feb 8, 2022

The rest is the hard reality math of mass casualty events, supply chain disruption and economics.

Darn it SB! You are trying to bring facts to an emotions fight!

Like bringing a gun to a knife fight. You will more than likely win, but it's just not "marquess of queensberry" old bean. Not on the up and up. 😉

"This analysis highlights the imperative for de-escalation in one of the world's most volatile flashpoints."

Welcome to the war-avoiding side of humanity, dear SB.

I do not believe any debate exists over Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon being a very bad thing and one to clearly be prohibited.

I do believe there is significant doubt that after the 2025 B-2 strikes Iran retains any capability of quickly developing a nuclear weapon and whether any residual capability to quickly develop a weapon remains at all after the current conflicts added damage is quite unlikely.

Given that current inability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon in any near-term timeline, isn't the issue simply one of the exact terms of the agreement currently under negotiation?

@35thOVI:
see, there is my problem, you think those data are facts, but they are not

Dogtail,

Talks cheap.
Prove him wrong with "documented" facts proving him incorrect.
His is backed up with links to multiple sources.
Otherwise, again, simply an emotional response. 😉

ok, I "quote" the illustration
"Assumed 15-20kt"

it is an assumption

"80 000-180 000 death"

are they already dead?

I quote SB:
"JCPOA was an unenforceable joke that kicked the can down the road."
Is that a fact or an assumption?

That would be questions for him. Not documented proof he was wrong.

Welcome to the war-avoiding side of humanity, dear SB.

Who says I want war? I don't -- but is war sometimes necessary? Yes. It sucks, but that's the reality of the world.

As for the rest, you are not engaging honestly but again engaged in another Ad hominem fallacy attack.

If you don't know how AI works, they can act like a super web surfer looking for solutions and analysis that it will then synthesize into a product based on the back and forth of your command prompts. ChatGPT and Grok scoop the web looking at news articles, sites like the Union of Concerned Scientists and Congressional Reports and then makes a qualified assumption.

Why did the search and review assume that an Iranian nuke would be 15-20kt? Because that's literally what ALL the experts assume. So I asked Grok:

Why did you assume 15–20 kt for an Iranian atomoc bomb?

Technical Realism for a Nascent Iranian Arsenal:A first-generation fission weapon (gun-type or basic implosion design, using highly enriched uranium) typically yields in the 10–20 kt range. The Hiroshima bomb ("Little Boy") was ~15 kt; Nagasaki ("Fat Man," a more efficient plutonium implosion design) was ~21 kt.

Iran's known uranium enrichment activities (if weaponized) would most likely produce a relatively crude device initially. Achieving reliable multi-stage thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs with yields in the hundreds of kt or megatons requires far more advanced design, testing, and miniaturization expertise that Iran is not publicly assessed to possess.

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Expert Analyses Align: Studies modeling an Iran-Israel nuclear exchange (e.g., the 2013 PMC paper and others) routinely use ~15 kt devices for Iranian weapons precisely because that represents a conservative, plausible initial capability. Larger yields (50–100+ kt) are possible with boosted fission or more sophisticated designs, but they are not the baseline assumption for an untested or first-use arsenal.

link

Don't like it? Take my article, copy it – usually using your mouse to highlight text and then paste into any AI of choice -- Grok, Claude, Chat, Gemini, etc. Command it to "review and validate" and see what ya get. And then reply and ask for my view, and perhaps we can have this mythical social media interaction known as a "conversation."

OVI +1

SB +1

That was done in a years long period of negotiations. Trump ripped JCPOA apart.

As I and others have actually said. The JCPOA was not an effective initiative to actually stop Iran's islamists from getting nukes.

JCPOA … First error was Obama giving Iran 1.7 billion $. USD USD And foolishly thought he could trust Iran's islamists. The JCPOA had an expiration date. That $ went to Iran's nuke program and fund other moslem terrorists. He basically kicked the can down the road to be some else's problem. His Admin's action really did nothing to stop Iran from getting nukes.

No matter how many times Iran's islamists said they'd follow the JCPOA. They lie and can't be trusted. Then as now … Some of Obama's staff being liberal intellectual academics, etc. with little real-world experience should have stayed in a classroom. Or out of the way …

With the new POTUS … finally 47 years later after Iran's islamists overthrew the more secular gov't, i.e. the Shah. Finally … finally there is real leadership in the WH who is willing to stop Iran from getting deployable nukes. It seems to some this is not happening fast enough.

And as usual some are upset about what Trump did/didn't/was going to do/etc. Well just think how upset everyone would be if Iran had deployable nukes. And hit Israel … or one of the Arab nations in range. Plus, as it is Iran now has missiles that could reach, e.g. the Eastern portion of the UK … Now that is upsetting …

Also, Biden gave a billion or so $ to Iran. He had some of the same 2d and 3d teamers in his admin as Obama did … Both Obama's and Biden's Admins hold some responsibility and have blood on the hands with the very decisions they made.

And the US has Armed Forces in that region to ensure Iran can't ever get nukes … It appears to me … Many comments are more about disliking Trump. And not looking at the hard cold reality. Iran is a threat to that region and many places in the world. And Obama and Biden did little that was effective to stop Iran's nuclear threat … I.e. the JCPOA … one example a number of bad choices …

The JCPOA was not an effective initiative to actually stop Iran's islamists from getting nukes.

While nothing is set, the current negation/MOU doesn't seem terribly different from the old JCPOA and the unfreezing of assets (@100$B+/-) plus the $300 USD Billion reconstruction fund doesn't seem an improvement. The IAEA has been cited as the potential inspector which was in the JCPOA.

The President has stated that Iran can keep missiles and other than having Israel and Hezbollah stop shooting (somewhat), no mention of a mechanism or commitment for Iran ceasing funding Hezbollah, Hamas or the Houthis is included although that may be totally unverifiable. Aside from getting the 900ibs of 60% enriched, it doesn't seem the US is getting much besides maybe Hormuz which given it was already open even after May 2025, is simply a return to status quo. It is early but other than knocking back maybe 90% of existing Iranian military potential and assuming the enriched uranium is recovered, it doesn't seem to be all that great a deal.

the US has Armed Forces in that region to ensure Iran can't ever get nukes

We already had that as May 2025 proved.

McKinstry absolutely nothing has been agreed on by either side. The MOU is just a shaky ceasefire.

You have ships moving through the Strait and Iran selling oil, at 20% higher rates.

"data from maritime intelligence firms indicates that over the last 48 hours (late June 2026), approximately 104 vessels transited the heavily contested Strait of Hormuz."

" Iranian government officials claim they are selling their oil at a 20% premium compared to what they fetched prior to the recent conflict."

Of course this is Iran claiming this.

Also:

Iran International:

"15 minutes ago
US has not released $6 USDbn in frozen Iranian funds – New York Post

The US has not released any of the $6 USD billion in frozen Iranian funds for humanitarian goods under the MOU, and will not release them until Tehran "performs," the New York Post reported Tuesday, citing an administration official."

One of the biggest loopholes in Obama's agreement:

"1. Exclusion of Military Sites (Active Issue Before 2018)This was a massive point of contention from day one of the deal. Immediately after the JCPOA was signed in 2015, top Iranian military and political officials publicly stated that international inspectors would never be allowed onto conventional military bases, such as the Parchin military complex. While the Obama administration argued that the JCPOA's 24-day dispute mechanism could theoretically force access, critics pointed out that this structural delay was an inherent loophole built into the deal from its inception. Trump frequently cited this specific restriction as a primary reason for canceling the agreement."

Then you had the 24 day restriction:

"It was part of the original agreement: The 24-day timeline was negotiated in 2015 as a compromise between the U.S. demand for "anytime, anywhere" inspections and Iran's refusal to open its military bases. It laid out a strict multi-step clock: if the IAEA suspected illicit activity at an undeclared site, Iran had 14 days to grant access or propose alternatives. If they couldn't agree, a joint commission had 7 days to vote, and Iran then had 3 days to comply (totaling 24 days)."

….

"While Iran did not trigger the official 24-day mechanism for declared facilities under the JCPOA, they aggressively obstructed and delayed the IAEA regarding past military-related nuclear work and un-declared locations right up until the deal went into full effect. [1, 2]
The most prominent examples of Iran delaying inspectors during the Obama presidency include:

1. The Parchin Military Complex Standoff (2015)
Before the JCPOA could fully take effect in early 2016, the IAEA demanded access to the Parchin military site to investigate evidence of past nuclear-weapons triggers. For months during the 2015 negotiation and implementation phase, Iran flatly refused to give international inspectors physical access. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Instead of a standard, unhindered inspection, the standoff resulted in a highly controversial compromise:
* Iran delayed physical entry for months.
* When a resolution was finally reached in September 2015, Iranian technicians—not IAEA staff—were permitted to take the environmental soil swipes while IAEA officials watched from afar or via video.
* Critics of the Obama administration called this "self-inspection" and a major concession born out of Iranian stonewalling.

2. Physical "Sanitization" of Sites During Delays
During periods when Iran was delaying access to suspicious areas like Parchin, international satellites captured footage of Iran actively paving over, demolishing buildings, and shifting soil at the locations the IAEA wanted to see. Security experts pointed out that even a delay of a few weeks or months gave Tehran ample time to geometrically alter or flush out chemical signatures of illicit research before allowing inspectors through the door.

3. Delays Over the "Possible Military Dimensions" (PMD) File
For years under the Obama administration, the IAEA tried to resolve the "Possible Military Dimensions" of Iran's nuclear history. Iran consistently dragged its feet, missing deadlines, withholding technical documents, and refusing to allow interviews with top Iranian nuclear scientists. To save the JCPOA, the Obama administration and international partners ultimately chose to "close" the PMD file in late 2015 despite the IAEA explicitly noting that Iran had not provided fully transparent or complete answers.

4. Administrative and Visa Delays
Even on routine matters prior to 2016, Iran frequently used bureaucratic friction as a delaying mechanism. This included holding up visas for specific inspectors, dragging out paperwork for equipment replacements, and questioning the specific technical mandates of the IAEA teams to stall for time."

All that you accuse Trumps "potential" agreement of not including, where never included in Obama's as well. Example: 1) absolutely no restrictions on missiles by Obama (obviously). 2) no restrictions on money and equipment to proxies (again obviously)

Obama's had a sunset date as well.

Me, I think Obama was the biggest problem with his treaty, because I believe his sympathies were always with the Muslim nations in his heart.

We don't know what trumps final agreement will be, if it happens. We know what Barrack's was.

Now it's just a matter of if one believes Iran was heading for that nuke.

Me, based on everything Iran has said and done since 1979 and the amount of people dead due to Iran or Iran's proxies activities… I believe they were and would either use it or help a proxy use a version of it.

35thOVI +1

OVI +1

SB +1

While nothing is set, the current negation/MOU doesn't seem terribly different from the old JCPOA and the unfreezing of assets (@100$B+/-) plus the $300 USD USD Billion reconstruction fund doesn't seem an improvement. The IAEA has been cited as the potential inspector which was in the JCPOA.

It has been made clear Iran will get no funds. They must follow the points on the MOU. Before/if any payments could be forthcoming. The POTUS mentioned any $ they get from those funds will go to pay for food, medical, etc. for Iran's people. Purchased from the US.

But yes nothing is really set in stone. It is still a WIP. And it looks like Iran is stalling waiting for the midterms. They have no intention to follow anything that is purposed by the US, etc.

The JCPOA had an expiration date …

The IAEA even if they are allowed to inspect, etc. The is no guarantee, Iran will not be trying to hide, obfuscate, etc.

They are so wedded to their religious beliefs … they think they are doing their god's work.

Again, the only way to be sure … is to eliminate Iran's islamists.

Authored by Newt Gingrich :

The current negotiations to achieve a long-term truce — if not peace — between America and Iran are amazingly complex and challenging to say the least.

It seems like every other day something goes wrong, either in kinetic action or in words. Then the news media enthusiastically overreacts and frames whatever happened as a potential crisis.

Yet, the larger pattern is understandable.

I don't have any secret knowledge, but I do have an understanding of history. This includes about the Iranian dictatorship and the way these negotiations are handled.

For example, consider the negotiations between Winston Churchill and the Irish Republicans, which ended the war in Ireland. Hundreds were killed in Ireland during the negotiations to reach an agreement which allowed the South to go free while the North remained with Great Britain.

The negotiations between the allies and the Italian government in 1943 is another example of the tension between the search for peace and back sliding into war.

The American-Chinese negotiations to get to the truce in the Korean War took 748 days. During these negotiations in Korea there were two ferocious battles around a site called Pork Chop Hill (which became a very powerful movie after the war). In those two battles the United States saw 347 soldiers killed, more than 1,000 wounded, and nine captured by the Chinese Communists. By contrast the Chinese suffered more than 1,000 killed and maybe as many as 4,000 wounded.

The Paris Peace Accords to get to a truce in the Vietnam War lasted 1,720 days, during which time intense fighting continued.

So, truce talks often involved violence as well as negotiations.

Compare these examples to today's largely bloodless back and forth. With limited air power (including drones) the cost in lives compared to past negotiations is minimal.

Specifically, I have been watching and studying the Iranian religious dictatorship since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini came back from Paris and founded it in 1979. For 47 years, the dictatorship has been pledged to defeat "the great Satan," which was Khomeini's term for America (Israel has since become the little Satan). During this time, the most dedicated members of the religious dictatorship have chanted "death to America" as a matter of policy.

My guess — and I emphasize that it is a guess with no concrete information to prove the case — is that a lot of the current turbulence can be attributed to a multi-faction split underway in Iran today.

The biggest long-term challenge to the dictatorship is the 80 percent to 90 percent of the Iranian people who are tired of the dictatorship and want to live in a freer safer and more prosperous country. Their challenge is they have no weapons or central organization. When the Iranian people protest, as they did earlier this year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps simply kills them (more than 42,000 people in the last protest). However, the Iranian people are a permanent threat to the existing regime. If it weakens enough, it will be replaced.

The second bloc is the combination of politicians and business leaders. They know the path of terrorism and nuclear weapons is not working and Iran must find a way to get along with America and its Arab allies. This opposition group is vastly more powerful than the mob in the street, but it may not be able to win a direct confrontation with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has 160,000 of the most dedicated and fanatic members of Iranian society.

There are two big questions that might change the outcome of the current seemingly shaky balance of power in which no one faction has a decisive ability to decide and act.

First, will the regular army and police get fed up with the current economic and military disaster, reinforce the non-IRGC leadership, and force the IRGC to accept a compromise with America?

Second, will the sheer scale of the devastation from the American-Israeli air campaign, combined with the potential infusion of resources, lead to a "make Iran prosperous" faction which simply forces the IRGC to accept a truce which begins to turn Iran into a more normal state.

Managing the shift back and forth between carrots and sticks — diplomatic talk and kinetic violence — is going to be a complicated process. It will require a lot more patience and tolerance than is normal for the American people, the Congress, or the news media.

Just remember the human cost and length of time some of the earlier negotiations took, and you will realize what an amazing job President Donald J. Trump is doing.

Rather than being drawn into a big fight, he is calmly and steadily working to get a deal that will be better for the United States and our allies — and ultimately better for the Iranian people.

Old Newt got it right …

So let me get this straight. For 45 years Iran was supposedly six months away from a bomb. Then JCPOA was worthless, inspections were worthless, sanctions were worthless, diplomacy was worthless, and every administration before Trump was either stupid or secretly sympathetic to Tehran.

Yet somehow Iran still didn't have a deployable nuclear weapon.

Now we're told that if America doesn't maintain maximum pressure forever, Iran will apparently build a bomb on Tuesday, test it on Wednesday, miniaturize it on Thursday, mount it on a missile Friday, and launch Armageddon by the weekend.

The reality is that nuclear weapons programs are difficult, expensive, technically challenging, and politically risky. Countries don't instantly transform from "first crude device" to "thermonuclear superpower." It took established nuclear powers years or decades to progress through those stages.

And if the argument is that Iran cannot be trusted under any agreement, cannot be inspected, cannot be deterred, cannot be negotiated with, and cannot be contained, then the only policy left is permanent war. Not sustainable. And if that was the plan all along, it was a severely compromised one.

As for Trump, no, not every criticism of his Iran policy is "Trump Derangement Syndrome." People criticized Obama, Bush, Biden, and Trump on Iran for different reasons. Not everyone who disagrees with your preferred president is secretly rooting for Tehran.

So let me get this straight. For 45 years Iran was supposedly six months away from a bomb.

Exactly. The Usual Suspects have been rants for …. years? 😄
Sooner or later, "they" will need to choose another tack.

Right now, this isn't looking too good for a deal. A completely broken enemy should be easier to deal with. Iran has some issues too because I don't think they're maximizing their strengths.

The whole affair looks like a waste of resources with a lot of carelessness to the economy (Headline inflation # at 4.2% is bad). The administration still can't explain themselves or demonstrate much control over the process and their supporters can't come up with anything more convincing than everyone else was worse? How could it be worse?

I'll tell you how; it could be unnecessary. If you are an ideologue, you may not be concerned with the markets but traditionally core inflation can wreak havoc with them and I don't want to see what happens to a 17 year old Bull market if the Fed has to raise rates…because of something unnecessary.