Are we to accept that a country with many many nuclear weapons , USA , can tell another country that has no nuclear weapons , IRAN , that it cannot have any nuclear weapons ?
I say NO
Are we to accept that a country, USA , can enforce its right to have the first 12 miles of shore around its territory and then tell another country , IRAN , that it does not have the right to the 12 milea around its shore ?
I say NO
Are we to accept that a country , USA , can attack a country IRAQ saying it has weapons of mass destruction , presumably the USA meant nuclear weapons like what it has and destroy IRAQ,s cities kill millions of its people , then steal its oil forever ( 23 years so far ) sell IRAQ,s oul and pay the proceeds into a bank in New York USA then blackmail IRAQ repeatedly by saying to them we will pay you some of your oil money but only if you choose politicians we approve of for your government and only if you trade with countries we sayyou can trade with ?
I say NO
Are we to accept that USA can kill or capture presidents prime ministers leaders of other countries then steal their oil ( venezuela ) so that USA then has the sweet thin oil from its own oilfields together with the worlds largest supply of thick industrial crude oil ( venezuelas ) so that it can then attack IRAN causing shortages of oil across the world , knowing that the USA,s own oil together with its stolen Venezuela oil will protect USA from the worst of these global shortages ?
I say NO
Its time to say NO
Stand up and be counted
Challenge the bully of the world which is USA
Its time to tell the USA, NO you are not the policeman of the world , its time to tell the USA no you cannot site military bases all over the world to enable your logistical supplies that give you the power to attack and threaten every country on this planet.
Its time to tell the USA you can sanction us , but we will not obey your orders to then sanction other countries , we have awoken from our slumber you sanction countries then get them to sanction other countries YOU dont like , NO WE ARE NOT DOING IT ANYMORE
And another thing , keep your dollars , we aint using them anymore you lazy sods
It feels like the USA is a modern-day equivalent of the Vatican. In both cases, they are the purveyors of modern content, but in an inadequate packaging.
Vatican
* content: truth (as opposed to the content of polytheism - belonging to a group)
* packaging: control
USA
* content: software
* packaging: freedom
Therefore, the US, like the Pope (circa 15th century), doesn't negotiate, but dictates. If necessary, they stage an Inquisition or the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. And, you're right, the only solution can be something like a Reformation (for us, that's software control), not a compromise.
"The obsession of the US and Israel with the destruction of Iran, and the Iranian desire to preserve itself and to come to dominate the region, can simply never be reconciled, even by the most brilliant negotiators in history. This one, I’m afraid, will have to be fought out to a conclusion, whatever that might be."
This is the best description of the situation as of yet.
In that case, the conclusion must be that 'Israel' has to go. A one state solution with equal rights for all citizens, including a 'right to return' is the answer. That could happen when either the US draws the appropriate conclusions as to the usefulness and cost of propping up the zionists, or the US is forced to withdraw from interfering all over the world - the clock is ticking on that one.
It's hard to decide to negotiate when your opponent decides to kill your negotiators (Ali Larijani, Kamal Kharazi, Ali Shamkhani and Ismail Khatib for instance). And when it is clear that the people you are negotiating with have no intention of keeping their agreement. All you are doing is buying time until the festivities resume.
I noticed there is no appetite for settling the Korean War in favor of the 'free'. Those pesky North Korean nukes.
Think of the monetary savings and lives saved had there been the perception that Iran had nuked up. It makes a lot of sense just to stipulate that Iran is armed.
Not a thing to disagree with in all that. A perfectly logical and common-sensible summing up of an absurd situation, caused by two bunches of murderous thugs and their pathological hatred of Iran, which would be perfectly happy to remain a normal medium-powerful 'middle-eastern' country if left alone.
Matt Badiali is a geologist and former CEO of a TSX Venture listed copper exploration company. He has 20 years experience as a mining and energy analyst. He's written many publications and his research appeared in Bloomberg, Barrons, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes. He's a frequent contributor to podcasts in the mining industry.
On April 22, 2026, Badiali published an article, “Missiles, Mayhem, and Metals” in "The Daily Reckoning." Some excerpts:
“When the U.S. attacked Iran, the military used a huge amount of ordinance. In the first two days, the Pentagon fired about $5.6 billion’ worth of missiles and bombs. Over the first 39 days, the U.S. struck 13,000 targets, according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). Modern high-tech systems rely on a wide variety of exotic metals. And the consumption of these modern weapon systems will require supplies of metals that the U.S. doesn’t produce much of.
In the Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, there are billions of dollars allocated to building new missiles. The budget request for precision strike missiles (PrSM) alone is over 1,100. That’s nearly ten times the inventory before the war. The CSIS estimates that the military budget requests ~750 new tomahawk missiles, ~1,100 PrSMs, ~3,100 Patriot missiles, ~850 THAADs, ~900 air to surface missiles, and roughly 650 additional missiles. In addition, all these weapons require rare earth metals. Neodymium and praseodymium go in magnets used in guidance and actuation motors. Neodymium is a key component in missile guidance and propulsion systems. Dysprosium and Terbium go into high temperature applications. Samarium-cobalt magnets are used in missiles because of their strength and thermal stability. Germanium is important for thermal imaging and seekers in guided munitions. Praseodymium stabilizes structural components to provide stability during high-speed and high-temperature flight. Promethium, terbium, dysprosium, and tantalum are all used in these systems as well.
The U.S. produces some of these metals in limited quantities. MP Materials (NYSE: MP) produces metals like neodymium, samarium, praseodymium, lanthanum and cerium. USA Rare Earth (Nasdaq: USAR) produces heavy rare earth metals like dysprosium, terbium, and yttrium.
China dominates the production and refining of these metals. And in the U.S., as we can see in the table, there are only three or four sources of production in total. And none of the deposits contain all of the metals.”
“Technology needs these new metals. And the dislocation of the global supply chain means that buyers (like the U.S. government) need to find domestic sources. If not, they must understand that the countries that produce them (like China), can use that supply to as powerful leverage.”
This is one of the causes of the current American military impotence. And not the only important one! And this cannot be solved with a "Presidential Order" signed by the wizard Trump. It requires years of intensive investment —between 10 and 20 years—in mining and refining.
And even revamping the US educational system so that it again produces competent engineers, plus paying them well enough that they don't become stockbrokers and . . . and then it all seems far too impracticable to work.
You never made a convincing argument supporting your thesis that:
“a new attack cannot improve their situation. In reality, their military capability is now substantially less than it was a couple of months ago and a new attack would achieve no more than previous ones did, as well as risking further damage to US interests in the region. Moreover, the US is running out of weapons and thus every attack makes it weaker in the short to medium term, but by the same token, US domestic politics make an abandonment of the military campaign effectively impossible.”
Many military experts believe the attack plan already proposed to the president and ready to go would force an economic end game.
"Convincing arguments." The convincing argument is that everyone knew the Strait of Hormuz was the strategic center of gravity. But the US, unable to seize it on February 28, opted for the indirect strategy typical of the weak: Decapitate the regime, incite and arm a rebellion, and bomb from afar. The strategy of the weak, like Israel, based on state terrorism.
"Experts." Who are these experts? What attack plan? The only serious attack plan would be to seize the Strait of Hormuz. But the US shits its pants just thinking about it. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't.
Free passage through Hormuz is very important to ... Iran. Iran non longer has that. Hormuz is also important to China, Japan, South Korea, even Europe. It is not important to the US.
Lots of critics of the current action assume that Hormuz is critically important to the US -- even though objectively it is not. Thus those critics fail to understand what is going on.
That's what Trump and his administration are saying, after failing to gain control of the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is strategic for the US, not for the oil itself, but for control of the region, the petrodollar economy, and the US financial system underpinned by the petrodollar.
I think this was quite clear. One could have exemplified the actual value of agreements, citing the many "agreements" Israeli enetered in with the Palestinians and how none were in fact onored. Or even the UN sanctioned JCPOA, which Obama himself shunted from the get go, letting people know on the side that in fact it is not OK to start engaging in business with Iran...
As for the present situation, what Iran has gain is the control on Hormuz, the toll, if imposed, and the restriction of "enemy" vessels. Their blockade line is way shorter than the US blockade line, so the Iranian will is easier to enforce . US one less so.
So I guess it remains to see who screams first, before we might see some more negotiations and maybe some written or not written agreements.
US "humiliated"... But US was humiliated before, by other, less important countries than Iran. I guess in this case, what it would be humiliating is the strategic loss of control of Hormuz - did the US ever had in fact the control of Hormuz? Does the US have any force projection on the NE Passage in the high Arctic?
" Moreover not only is the US running out of weapons, the number of key targets remaining for the Iranians to hit in the Gulf States and Israel is also relatively limited ". The Western media have been very reticent in detailing what damage has been done to targets in the Gulf states and Israel, at least partly because of censorship of videos, etc, from those places. I take it you are implying that it has been very considerable. It has been said that interception rates of Iranian missiles in both the Gulf states and Israel were much lower than commonly reported and fell steadily as stocks of anti-missile missiles ran down. It would be interesting to know what the real situation is regarding this.
My own take is that if the Americans/Israelis launch further major strikes against Iran - as is more than likely on some pretext, in my opinion - Iran may well try to destroy all oil terminals, refineries and maybe even water desalination plants in such Gulf states as they believe are still allied to America. It might be that the Americans, being self-sufficient in oil, would be less than totally devastated by that outcome as a shortage of oil and LNG for export would gravely weaken China. The fact that it would devastate European economies too, might be of little concern either as Trump seems to detest Europe these days.
If there's one country dependent on the global economy, it's the US. And Iran is playing on that. The US economy, based on exporting dollars through massive imports, is far more fragile than you think.
On the other hand, the US needs to import 8 million barrels of oil every day.
"a shortage of oil and LNG for export would gravely weaken China."
Not so. Although Iran exports most of its oil to China, that only makes up a pretty small percentage of Chinas total imports - China can quite easily replace Irans oil with other sources.
All valid observations here except for the dismissiveness toward the fourth party to these “talks” the Pakistanis, who unlike the Israelis are actually at the table (it’s their table). Pakistan shares 900km of contiguous border with Iran, has historic and cultural ties with Persia, and is in desperate need of the natural resources of the Persian Gulf which must pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
I am convinced by the circumstantial evidence, although I’m admittedly not privy to direct evidence, that much of the current Israeli panic about Iranian nuclear capabilities is really panic about Pakistani nuclear capabilities being used on behalf of Iran. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reports that Pakistan has developed standoff-deliverable thermonuclear weapons. Could Pakistan have moved some of these weapons to an Iranian “safe haven” during the 2026 Kashmir crisis, and this been reported to Mossad by Indian Research and Analysis Wing assets in Iran, triggering the “12-day air war” attacks?
While various sources have reported that Pakistan will retaliate in kind if Iran is under nuclear attack, Pakistan has also offered to participate in the pacification of Gaza on behalf of Israel. The Pakistanis and their de-facto head of state Field Marshal Asim Munir have cordial relations with both the U.S. and Iran and a strong motive to end hostilities between them. The U.S. and Iran have a 47-year history of demonizing one another but neither can afford to continue this war — the Pakistanis are quite motivated find a way for both to save face politically. I would not under-estimate Pakistani diplomacy.
Pakistani might have very good reasons to restore peace between their neighbours and energy suppliers but for all I know, they are much closer to Saudi Arabia than to Iran...
Three rather significant issues not mentioned here
1 whether its conflict renewed or current status quo , the damage to the world economy and that of some countries in particular ( or continents in the case of Europe) are profound
2 Israel may ( or may not) have usable nukes. If it felt that it was going to be left 'undefended' by the US in a Iran dominated West Asia it might use them, indeed it might use them anyway given the apparent insanity present.
3 China and Russia have a great interest in Iran not disintegrating. In China's case because of oil and trade routes, Russia because of trade routes and potential exposure of its 'soft underbelly'.
A possible 'way out', not negotiation of irreconcilable aims, is publicly Iran offering a limit on nuclear enrichment for removal of most of the sanctions. Trump can declare victory as he has secured his primary PR objective, and Iran has 'rejoined' the international arena. Quietly behind the scenes there can be verbal agreements about removal of most US presence in the Gulf and generally non-aggression in return for Hezbollah agreeing not to send missiles/drones into Israel ( thus giving something to Netanyahu, although he definitely deserves nothing).
"The result is a strategically deadlocked situation, where the delay harms US interests, and probably Israel's as well, while strengthening Iran."
The Gulf States, until now more or less aligned under the promise of Protection in exchange for Obedience, have discovered the limits of that Protection and its high costs. I don't know the cost of the American "toll," with its petrodollars, its financial system, and military expenditures, but it's almost certain that the rumor launched by Iran about a 2% toll must be very tempting for these countries. It is very likely that, quietly and discreetly, they will gradually shift towards the Easterly Winds, where their main customers are located and where economies are growing.
In Europe, the “necesitá” will push the remnants of the Atlanticist alignment to set sail towards the East Wind, as will the rest of the world that had doubts.
Israel, that insignificant country, will discover with horror that it existed only as a branch office of NATO.
As Aurelien writes: “As things stand, it seems unlikely that any formal agreements will be reached. … “Many things will be generally understood, but nothing will be put in writing.”
That is the only feasible way out for Trump (assuming that he realises that he needs a way out) - 1st step - don't call off the blockade but let the Iranians know that no ships will be stopped. And so on . . .
Well said. It also seems to fit rather well with Geoffrey Blainey's book "The Causes of War", which contains a central proposition that war is the default position in international relations, the exception being when "peace breaks out", as it does from time to time. ;)
'I would just note here that this war has still left us with an insoluble political problem. Iran has the technical capability to develop nuclear weapons if it wants to, and, after this war, important parts of the political system may feel that it has no option but to do so. There is no practicable method of preventing this, and even an intrusive inspection regime would not necessarily discover an “option,” as opposed to a “capability.” That is a problem the world is going to just have to live with.'
The problem is that this defeat (for the USA) is a GLOBAL defeat that it simply can't afford. If it leaves the Gulf (as its latest strategy proposes) under duress it demonstrates it is a 'paper tiger' which may ignite other conflicts it has around the world.
Iran has a number of options - for a start making security agreements with its Gulf neighbours because those the Gulf has with the US have been shown to be ineffective. And to protect itself against Israel, it may believe it needs to develop a nuclear weapon. Israel may use nukes if it does this. The moron Trump has really screwed things up for the USA, hasn't he?
Unclear thinking. Why is it a problem for Iran to have such a (nuclear) capacity, but not a problem if Israel and the US have it? By any reasonable standard, these two have shown themselves to be much, much, more inclined to war and destruction than Iran? So what, exactly, is your point re Nuclear capability?
As for 'igniting other conflicts . . . around the world - the US is perfectly capable, and has shown it self to be so able, to ignite such conflicts without any help being needed from Iran. If the US is being exposed as a 'paper-tiger', that is its own fault. As for the idea that the US is a sort of 'world policeman', that is only true if the definition of 'policeman' is 'genocidal madman'. The US needs to learn to live as a normal country, subject to all the restraints that normal countries have, in the interests both of itself and everyone else.
"The US (present) and Israel (present by proxy) want to damage and if possible destroy Iran as a functioning state."
Yes, they could settle for that option. Since it would somehow undermine Iran regime’s ability to pose a threat to the region stability.
But in reality, there is no real dispute between Israel and Iran. Logically speaking, they should even be allies against the Arabs. As it has been the case in the past. And even if Israel has territorial ambitions beyond its current borders, that wouldn’t even concern Iran.
The dispute is actually much older. And it is fundamentally the age-old rivalry between the Shiite and Sunni factions, each of which has always sought to demonstrate the superiority and legitimacy of its doctrine, all the way back to the death of their common prophet. And for the Shiite Iranian regime that took power in 1979, one way to do this is to achieve what none of what they consider as corrupt and apostate Sunni regimes has ever been able to do: destroy Israel.
This is one of the reasons why negotiations are particularly difficult. Israel is as much an actor in the current game than a prize in a much broader, older, and largely irrational one.
And I don't think one can understand the current situation without taking into account, at least to some extend, this religious and historical dimension.
"But in reality, there is no real dispute between Israel and Iran. Logically speaking, they should even be allies against the Arabs." I
You ignore the situation of the Palestinians - mostly Sunni or even Christian, but Iran is not able to ignore their plight. As evidenced by the 'Great Satan & Little Satan' linkage. Plus although the Arab states have generally been hostile to Iran, Israel has been much much more hostile. Iran is the main block to their 'Greater Israel' project, while the Gulf States need only a bit of forcible persuasion coupled with a clear look at reality to become Iranian allies, as Yankeeland fades into the sunset.
As sad as it is, Palestinians have always been pawns in the hands of one Middle East regime after the other. Right back to 1948. And one after the other, they washed their hands about their fate.
So if you believe it is different this time and the Iranian regime has any genuine concern for the Palestinian cause, I think your deeply mistaken. Palestinians are not even Shia. They can be a tool and supporting them can be a way to shame Sunni Arabs regimes in the eye of their public opinion. But that's about it…
I believe that Iranians should stand their ground when it comes to the most important thing - getting Yankees the heck out of the region - and all other problems will eventually be resolved, too. Very sound and sensible demand, IMO.
Are we to accept that a country with many many nuclear weapons , USA , can tell another country that has no nuclear weapons , IRAN , that it cannot have any nuclear weapons ?
I say NO
Are we to accept that a country, USA , can enforce its right to have the first 12 miles of shore around its territory and then tell another country , IRAN , that it does not have the right to the 12 milea around its shore ?
I say NO
Are we to accept that a country , USA , can attack a country IRAQ saying it has weapons of mass destruction , presumably the USA meant nuclear weapons like what it has and destroy IRAQ,s cities kill millions of its people , then steal its oil forever ( 23 years so far ) sell IRAQ,s oul and pay the proceeds into a bank in New York USA then blackmail IRAQ repeatedly by saying to them we will pay you some of your oil money but only if you choose politicians we approve of for your government and only if you trade with countries we sayyou can trade with ?
I say NO
Are we to accept that USA can kill or capture presidents prime ministers leaders of other countries then steal their oil ( venezuela ) so that USA then has the sweet thin oil from its own oilfields together with the worlds largest supply of thick industrial crude oil ( venezuelas ) so that it can then attack IRAN causing shortages of oil across the world , knowing that the USA,s own oil together with its stolen Venezuela oil will protect USA from the worst of these global shortages ?
I say NO
Its time to say NO
Stand up and be counted
Challenge the bully of the world which is USA
Its time to tell the USA, NO you are not the policeman of the world , its time to tell the USA no you cannot site military bases all over the world to enable your logistical supplies that give you the power to attack and threaten every country on this planet.
Its time to tell the USA you can sanction us , but we will not obey your orders to then sanction other countries , we have awoken from our slumber you sanction countries then get them to sanction other countries YOU dont like , NO WE ARE NOT DOING IT ANYMORE
And another thing , keep your dollars , we aint using them anymore you lazy sods
It feels like the USA is a modern-day equivalent of the Vatican. In both cases, they are the purveyors of modern content, but in an inadequate packaging.
Vatican
* content: truth (as opposed to the content of polytheism - belonging to a group)
* packaging: control
USA
* content: software
* packaging: freedom
Therefore, the US, like the Pope (circa 15th century), doesn't negotiate, but dictates. If necessary, they stage an Inquisition or the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. And, you're right, the only solution can be something like a Reformation (for us, that's software control), not a compromise.
Fair and right never had anything to do with it. This is a question of power. Nothing more.
"The obsession of the US and Israel with the destruction of Iran, and the Iranian desire to preserve itself and to come to dominate the region, can simply never be reconciled, even by the most brilliant negotiators in history. This one, I’m afraid, will have to be fought out to a conclusion, whatever that might be."
This is the best description of the situation as of yet.
I've said that for at ten years or more - that there is no deal Iran can make that will satisfy Israel.
In that case, the conclusion must be that 'Israel' has to go. A one state solution with equal rights for all citizens, including a 'right to return' is the answer. That could happen when either the US draws the appropriate conclusions as to the usefulness and cost of propping up the zionists, or the US is forced to withdraw from interfering all over the world - the clock is ticking on that one.
OTOH the Korean solution seems reasonably stable, despite no peace treaty after 74 years.
It's hard to decide to negotiate when your opponent decides to kill your negotiators (Ali Larijani, Kamal Kharazi, Ali Shamkhani and Ismail Khatib for instance). And when it is clear that the people you are negotiating with have no intention of keeping their agreement. All you are doing is buying time until the festivities resume.
I noticed there is no appetite for settling the Korean War in favor of the 'free'. Those pesky North Korean nukes.
Think of the monetary savings and lives saved had there been the perception that Iran had nuked up. It makes a lot of sense just to stipulate that Iran is armed.
Not a thing to disagree with in all that. A perfectly logical and common-sensible summing up of an absurd situation, caused by two bunches of murderous thugs and their pathological hatred of Iran, which would be perfectly happy to remain a normal medium-powerful 'middle-eastern' country if left alone.
Matt Badiali is a geologist and former CEO of a TSX Venture listed copper exploration company. He has 20 years experience as a mining and energy analyst. He's written many publications and his research appeared in Bloomberg, Barrons, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes. He's a frequent contributor to podcasts in the mining industry.
On April 22, 2026, Badiali published an article, “Missiles, Mayhem, and Metals” in "The Daily Reckoning." Some excerpts:
“When the U.S. attacked Iran, the military used a huge amount of ordinance. In the first two days, the Pentagon fired about $5.6 billion’ worth of missiles and bombs. Over the first 39 days, the U.S. struck 13,000 targets, according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). Modern high-tech systems rely on a wide variety of exotic metals. And the consumption of these modern weapon systems will require supplies of metals that the U.S. doesn’t produce much of.
In the Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, there are billions of dollars allocated to building new missiles. The budget request for precision strike missiles (PrSM) alone is over 1,100. That’s nearly ten times the inventory before the war. The CSIS estimates that the military budget requests ~750 new tomahawk missiles, ~1,100 PrSMs, ~3,100 Patriot missiles, ~850 THAADs, ~900 air to surface missiles, and roughly 650 additional missiles. In addition, all these weapons require rare earth metals. Neodymium and praseodymium go in magnets used in guidance and actuation motors. Neodymium is a key component in missile guidance and propulsion systems. Dysprosium and Terbium go into high temperature applications. Samarium-cobalt magnets are used in missiles because of their strength and thermal stability. Germanium is important for thermal imaging and seekers in guided munitions. Praseodymium stabilizes structural components to provide stability during high-speed and high-temperature flight. Promethium, terbium, dysprosium, and tantalum are all used in these systems as well.
The U.S. produces some of these metals in limited quantities. MP Materials (NYSE: MP) produces metals like neodymium, samarium, praseodymium, lanthanum and cerium. USA Rare Earth (Nasdaq: USAR) produces heavy rare earth metals like dysprosium, terbium, and yttrium.
China dominates the production and refining of these metals. And in the U.S., as we can see in the table, there are only three or four sources of production in total. And none of the deposits contain all of the metals.”
“Technology needs these new metals. And the dislocation of the global supply chain means that buyers (like the U.S. government) need to find domestic sources. If not, they must understand that the countries that produce them (like China), can use that supply to as powerful leverage.”
This is one of the causes of the current American military impotence. And not the only important one! And this cannot be solved with a "Presidential Order" signed by the wizard Trump. It requires years of intensive investment —between 10 and 20 years—in mining and refining.
And even revamping the US educational system so that it again produces competent engineers, plus paying them well enough that they don't become stockbrokers and . . . and then it all seems far too impracticable to work.
You never made a convincing argument supporting your thesis that:
“a new attack cannot improve their situation. In reality, their military capability is now substantially less than it was a couple of months ago and a new attack would achieve no more than previous ones did, as well as risking further damage to US interests in the region. Moreover, the US is running out of weapons and thus every attack makes it weaker in the short to medium term, but by the same token, US domestic politics make an abandonment of the military campaign effectively impossible.”
Many military experts believe the attack plan already proposed to the president and ready to go would force an economic end game.
"Convincing arguments." The convincing argument is that everyone knew the Strait of Hormuz was the strategic center of gravity. But the US, unable to seize it on February 28, opted for the indirect strategy typical of the weak: Decapitate the regime, incite and arm a rebellion, and bomb from afar. The strategy of the weak, like Israel, based on state terrorism.
"Experts." Who are these experts? What attack plan? The only serious attack plan would be to seize the Strait of Hormuz. But the US shits its pants just thinking about it. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't.
Free passage through Hormuz is very important to ... Iran. Iran non longer has that. Hormuz is also important to China, Japan, South Korea, even Europe. It is not important to the US.
Lots of critics of the current action assume that Hormuz is critically important to the US -- even though objectively it is not. Thus those critics fail to understand what is going on.
That's what Trump and his administration are saying, after failing to gain control of the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is strategic for the US, not for the oil itself, but for control of the region, the petrodollar economy, and the US financial system underpinned by the petrodollar.
I think this was quite clear. One could have exemplified the actual value of agreements, citing the many "agreements" Israeli enetered in with the Palestinians and how none were in fact onored. Or even the UN sanctioned JCPOA, which Obama himself shunted from the get go, letting people know on the side that in fact it is not OK to start engaging in business with Iran...
As for the present situation, what Iran has gain is the control on Hormuz, the toll, if imposed, and the restriction of "enemy" vessels. Their blockade line is way shorter than the US blockade line, so the Iranian will is easier to enforce . US one less so.
So I guess it remains to see who screams first, before we might see some more negotiations and maybe some written or not written agreements.
US "humiliated"... But US was humiliated before, by other, less important countries than Iran. I guess in this case, what it would be humiliating is the strategic loss of control of Hormuz - did the US ever had in fact the control of Hormuz? Does the US have any force projection on the NE Passage in the high Arctic?
" Moreover not only is the US running out of weapons, the number of key targets remaining for the Iranians to hit in the Gulf States and Israel is also relatively limited ". The Western media have been very reticent in detailing what damage has been done to targets in the Gulf states and Israel, at least partly because of censorship of videos, etc, from those places. I take it you are implying that it has been very considerable. It has been said that interception rates of Iranian missiles in both the Gulf states and Israel were much lower than commonly reported and fell steadily as stocks of anti-missile missiles ran down. It would be interesting to know what the real situation is regarding this.
My own take is that if the Americans/Israelis launch further major strikes against Iran - as is more than likely on some pretext, in my opinion - Iran may well try to destroy all oil terminals, refineries and maybe even water desalination plants in such Gulf states as they believe are still allied to America. It might be that the Americans, being self-sufficient in oil, would be less than totally devastated by that outcome as a shortage of oil and LNG for export would gravely weaken China. The fact that it would devastate European economies too, might be of little concern either as Trump seems to detest Europe these days.
If there's one country dependent on the global economy, it's the US. And Iran is playing on that. The US economy, based on exporting dollars through massive imports, is far more fragile than you think.
On the other hand, the US needs to import 8 million barrels of oil every day.
"a shortage of oil and LNG for export would gravely weaken China."
Not so. Although Iran exports most of its oil to China, that only makes up a pretty small percentage of Chinas total imports - China can quite easily replace Irans oil with other sources.
All valid observations here except for the dismissiveness toward the fourth party to these “talks” the Pakistanis, who unlike the Israelis are actually at the table (it’s their table). Pakistan shares 900km of contiguous border with Iran, has historic and cultural ties with Persia, and is in desperate need of the natural resources of the Persian Gulf which must pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
I am convinced by the circumstantial evidence, although I’m admittedly not privy to direct evidence, that much of the current Israeli panic about Iranian nuclear capabilities is really panic about Pakistani nuclear capabilities being used on behalf of Iran. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reports that Pakistan has developed standoff-deliverable thermonuclear weapons. Could Pakistan have moved some of these weapons to an Iranian “safe haven” during the 2026 Kashmir crisis, and this been reported to Mossad by Indian Research and Analysis Wing assets in Iran, triggering the “12-day air war” attacks?
While various sources have reported that Pakistan will retaliate in kind if Iran is under nuclear attack, Pakistan has also offered to participate in the pacification of Gaza on behalf of Israel. The Pakistanis and their de-facto head of state Field Marshal Asim Munir have cordial relations with both the U.S. and Iran and a strong motive to end hostilities between them. The U.S. and Iran have a 47-year history of demonizing one another but neither can afford to continue this war — the Pakistanis are quite motivated find a way for both to save face politically. I would not under-estimate Pakistani diplomacy.
As majority Sunni's, I don't think the Pakistanis believe in miracles. However, I could be wrong.
Pakistani might have very good reasons to restore peace between their neighbours and energy suppliers but for all I know, they are much closer to Saudi Arabia than to Iran...
1. As Jams alluded, Pakistan is ruled by Sunnis, with little love for the Shia.
2. The United States has many pressure points over Pakistan.
Forget the Sunni-Shia story. It's a story that's very popular in the West.
Are you trying to claim that the animosities are not real?
Three rather significant issues not mentioned here
1 whether its conflict renewed or current status quo , the damage to the world economy and that of some countries in particular ( or continents in the case of Europe) are profound
2 Israel may ( or may not) have usable nukes. If it felt that it was going to be left 'undefended' by the US in a Iran dominated West Asia it might use them, indeed it might use them anyway given the apparent insanity present.
3 China and Russia have a great interest in Iran not disintegrating. In China's case because of oil and trade routes, Russia because of trade routes and potential exposure of its 'soft underbelly'.
A possible 'way out', not negotiation of irreconcilable aims, is publicly Iran offering a limit on nuclear enrichment for removal of most of the sanctions. Trump can declare victory as he has secured his primary PR objective, and Iran has 'rejoined' the international arena. Quietly behind the scenes there can be verbal agreements about removal of most US presence in the Gulf and generally non-aggression in return for Hezbollah agreeing not to send missiles/drones into Israel ( thus giving something to Netanyahu, although he definitely deserves nothing).
Too logical?
Well, it would be worth trying. Almost anything would be worth trying if it would avoid more deaths.
It would work if all these people who don’t trust each other and who have no reason to do so suddenly started trusting one another...
Aurelien's analysis is excellent.
"The result is a strategically deadlocked situation, where the delay harms US interests, and probably Israel's as well, while strengthening Iran."
The Gulf States, until now more or less aligned under the promise of Protection in exchange for Obedience, have discovered the limits of that Protection and its high costs. I don't know the cost of the American "toll," with its petrodollars, its financial system, and military expenditures, but it's almost certain that the rumor launched by Iran about a 2% toll must be very tempting for these countries. It is very likely that, quietly and discreetly, they will gradually shift towards the Easterly Winds, where their main customers are located and where economies are growing.
In Europe, the “necesitá” will push the remnants of the Atlanticist alignment to set sail towards the East Wind, as will the rest of the world that had doubts.
Israel, that insignificant country, will discover with horror that it existed only as a branch office of NATO.
As Aurelien writes: “As things stand, it seems unlikely that any formal agreements will be reached. … “Many things will be generally understood, but nothing will be put in writing.”
"nothing will be put in writing".
That is the only feasible way out for Trump (assuming that he realises that he needs a way out) - 1st step - don't call off the blockade but let the Iranians know that no ships will be stopped. And so on . . .
Well said. It also seems to fit rather well with Geoffrey Blainey's book "The Causes of War", which contains a central proposition that war is the default position in international relations, the exception being when "peace breaks out", as it does from time to time. ;)
'I would just note here that this war has still left us with an insoluble political problem. Iran has the technical capability to develop nuclear weapons if it wants to, and, after this war, important parts of the political system may feel that it has no option but to do so. There is no practicable method of preventing this, and even an intrusive inspection regime would not necessarily discover an “option,” as opposed to a “capability.” That is a problem the world is going to just have to live with.'
The problem is that this defeat (for the USA) is a GLOBAL defeat that it simply can't afford. If it leaves the Gulf (as its latest strategy proposes) under duress it demonstrates it is a 'paper tiger' which may ignite other conflicts it has around the world.
Iran has a number of options - for a start making security agreements with its Gulf neighbours because those the Gulf has with the US have been shown to be ineffective. And to protect itself against Israel, it may believe it needs to develop a nuclear weapon. Israel may use nukes if it does this. The moron Trump has really screwed things up for the USA, hasn't he?
Unclear thinking. Why is it a problem for Iran to have such a (nuclear) capacity, but not a problem if Israel and the US have it? By any reasonable standard, these two have shown themselves to be much, much, more inclined to war and destruction than Iran? So what, exactly, is your point re Nuclear capability?
As for 'igniting other conflicts . . . around the world - the US is perfectly capable, and has shown it self to be so able, to ignite such conflicts without any help being needed from Iran. If the US is being exposed as a 'paper-tiger', that is its own fault. As for the idea that the US is a sort of 'world policeman', that is only true if the definition of 'policeman' is 'genocidal madman'. The US needs to learn to live as a normal country, subject to all the restraints that normal countries have, in the interests both of itself and everyone else.
Iran's gulfie neighbors are all (by design) Sunni tyrannies that rule over restive Shia populations.
Yes, Iran was foolish not to have gotten The Bomb.
"The US (present) and Israel (present by proxy) want to damage and if possible destroy Iran as a functioning state."
Yes, they could settle for that option. Since it would somehow undermine Iran regime’s ability to pose a threat to the region stability.
But in reality, there is no real dispute between Israel and Iran. Logically speaking, they should even be allies against the Arabs. As it has been the case in the past. And even if Israel has territorial ambitions beyond its current borders, that wouldn’t even concern Iran.
The dispute is actually much older. And it is fundamentally the age-old rivalry between the Shiite and Sunni factions, each of which has always sought to demonstrate the superiority and legitimacy of its doctrine, all the way back to the death of their common prophet. And for the Shiite Iranian regime that took power in 1979, one way to do this is to achieve what none of what they consider as corrupt and apostate Sunni regimes has ever been able to do: destroy Israel.
This is one of the reasons why negotiations are particularly difficult. Israel is as much an actor in the current game than a prize in a much broader, older, and largely irrational one.
And I don't think one can understand the current situation without taking into account, at least to some extend, this religious and historical dimension.
"But in reality, there is no real dispute between Israel and Iran. Logically speaking, they should even be allies against the Arabs." I
You ignore the situation of the Palestinians - mostly Sunni or even Christian, but Iran is not able to ignore their plight. As evidenced by the 'Great Satan & Little Satan' linkage. Plus although the Arab states have generally been hostile to Iran, Israel has been much much more hostile. Iran is the main block to their 'Greater Israel' project, while the Gulf States need only a bit of forcible persuasion coupled with a clear look at reality to become Iranian allies, as Yankeeland fades into the sunset.
As sad as it is, Palestinians have always been pawns in the hands of one Middle East regime after the other. Right back to 1948. And one after the other, they washed their hands about their fate.
So if you believe it is different this time and the Iranian regime has any genuine concern for the Palestinian cause, I think your deeply mistaken. Palestinians are not even Shia. They can be a tool and supporting them can be a way to shame Sunni Arabs regimes in the eye of their public opinion. But that's about it…
I believe that Iranians should stand their ground when it comes to the most important thing - getting Yankees the heck out of the region - and all other problems will eventually be resolved, too. Very sound and sensible demand, IMO.