Ali Gholhaki, an Iranian journalist who often publishes first-hand news about impending developments with the IRGC, has reported that the US's demands were the removal of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, no nuclear enrichment whatsoever, and US management of the Strait of Hormuz. In exchange they were not offering any commitment regarding Lebanon. https://x.com/aghplt/status/2043092254416605522 Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily, I find it bizarre that they thought they would have any sort of leverage at the negotiating table regarding these demands. All the peace talks did was lower oil prices a bit for a few days.
My guess is it’s a chance to restock and reposition air defense as the slow attrition of interceptors was starting to open holes in the air defense. This administration has used negotiations as a diversion for further attacks on Iran and I suspect this is no different. I also suspect the Iranians know this and are likewise doing their best to prepare for them to fail.
This is not true. The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy, only continuation of the atrocities. This is not a ceasefire entered in bad faith, it is simply a strategic usage of one of the few tools that can end a war, and in my opinion morally abhorrent.
> The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy
Israel has pretty consistently claimed they never agreed to a ceasefire in lebanon (and nobody is claiming this ceasefire changed anything in Gaza). Iran seemed to only claim the ceasefire included lebanon later on and not initially (afaict, not 100% sure). Honestly it makes one wonder if the terms were even written down. Seems like an easy solution to this problem would be to just publicly release the ceasefire agreement document.
I am talking about the previous ones. For the current one, it is clear that Israel is trying to force the deal to go south by continuing to bomb civilians in Lebanon, because it does not want the war to end.
Gaza and Lebanon were not part of the cease fire agreement. Besides, After the first round of hostilities the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon included the disarmament of Hezbullah, and sending the Lebanese army to take the south under control. None of which was done, so Israel had to do it by itself
Like you I do not have a direct line with the diplomats of the involved countries, but every major news outlet was including Lebanon in the agreement.
What Israel is doing by itself is occupying more land and vilifying the concept of humanity, not "taking the south under control". Let me remind you that Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.
The whole source of pain, misery and instability in the region is the colony of Israel, that was place there by the brits.
Well, after years and years of rocket fire from Lebanon which rendered the life in the north part of Israel impossible, Israel had no choice but to eliminate that threat like any sane country would do.
If the sole purpose of Hezbullah is to drive Israel out of Lebanon, why didn't they disarm after Israel pulled out? Maybe it has a different goal in mind.
Quit listening to major news outlets, you'll hear only the echo chamber which is genocide-israel-apartheid.
In practice, if neighboring countries would have simply let Israel exist there would be peace next wednesday.
The palestinians refuse to accept the existance of the state of Israel - from 47 to our time - that's the source of misery and instability.
Why would anyone in their right mind next to Israel disarm ? So they can have their land occupied by ultra orthodox jew nazis ?
And on the contrary, the major news outlets are infested by israeli propaganda.
Letting israel exist ? Does israel leave Gaza exist ? Or the west bank ? Or Syria, or Lebanon ? Or any of those people that have been living there for thousands of years, not just 80 ?
I think it's less about restocking and repositioning air defenses. The expensive weapons systems the US and its allies are running short on can't be replenished in weeks or even months. I think this was more about buying time to prepare for a ground war and probably to try to come up with some semblance of a strategy.
It also served as a useful way for Trump to throw Vance under the bus. If the negotiations were serious and in good faith, I think you would have seen Rubio there. Instead, you had Rubio sitting ringside at a UFC fight while the talks collapsed.
As I understand it Iran requested that Vance conduct the negotiations.[0] The speculation is that they did so in order to tarnish his image in the American people by attaching his name and face to the conflict which is something he appears to have been desperate to avoid.
If this is the case it seems like an extremely effective way to kneecap the eventual successor to a very unhealthy 79 year old man who may die in office.
One would hope that even tangential involvement in this war would be the kiss of death for any political career in the US but it's hard to say. The American electorate is a fickle creature. It always finds new ways to surprise and disappoint.
Silver linings if Iran does in Trump, erases Vance's chance, and gets oil to $200 so people will finally start to feel pain for continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Iran's state media reported that the F-15 rescue mission was a cover to steal enriched uranium, something which fits the facts a lot more than them constructing an airstrip in enemy territory and blowing up at least two MC-130s just to rescue a pilot:
Also suspicious that Iran came to the negotiating table just a couple days after the F-15 mission after insisting for the other 5 weeks that there would be no negotiating and they were not even in contact with Washington.
I have my doubts. There was a previous BBC piece[0] which went into some of the challenges with such a mission. The first being: it is not publicly known where Iran is storing its uranium. There are many putative options, most of which are going to be hardened and underground. Isfahan is near the middle of the country - safely getting troops there would already be challenging, let alone digging up any from the collapsed tunnels.
Minor blurb from the article:
Satellite imagery shows that the entrances to Isfahan and Natanz were badly damaged by US airstrikes. US forces would likely need heavy machinery to dig through rubble in order to locate the enriched uranium, which is believed to be stored in tunnels buried deep underground - all while facing potential counterattacks from Iran.
"You've first got to excavate the site and detect [the enriched uranium] while likely being under near constant threat," Campbell said.
While it is hard to believe that someone in the US military believed that such a mission for uranium extraction can be successful, it is at least equally hard to believe that the US military has spent around a half of billion dollars just for saving 2 men, while also risking the lives of a very large number of other US combatants.
Saving your men is important, but it should have been easy to do that at a much lower cost and at much lower risks of additional personnel losses, if that had been the true mission goal.
I can certainly believe that the assurance the US gives to its pilots that they will never be left behind and the public demonstration of that assurance as something the US values in the billions of dollars.
It is also clear that if the mission was not a purely rescue mission then it would have taken a lot more equipment than what appears to have been used. Even for an escalade style high-risk low-probability mission it would be inadequate.
I think the most likely version of the claim would be that the Pentagon would have used the planning and execution of the mission as a valuable opportunity to learn for a dedicated mission to extract uranium in a contestable theatre. But even that is pushing it.
We know only approximately how much equipment has been lost. It is likely that much more equipment was used than what has been lost, i.e. many more transport airplanes than the 2 lost and many more helicopters.
Nevertheless, I agree that a possible explanation is what you propose, i.e. that the mission could have been more a test of the Iranian defense than an incursion that was actually expected to succeed.
In any case, if it was a test it was also a failure, as the defense was stronger than they expected, leading to excessive equipment losses.
>Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile
I did not think this was possible. The three sites that were bombed in 2025 are all pretty centrally located within the country. Even if you can get troops there, the facilities are hardened and at least partially underground. Depending on how effective you believe the 2025 strikes to be, some of the facilities may be collapsed under tons of rock. There is no way to smash-and-grab the already enriched uranium.
It seems that there was a failed US incursion towards Isfahan, where much of the enriched uranium is buried, a week ago.
They could not reach their target and they had to scuttle and abandon two MC-130J airplanes and a helicopter, apparently because they were too damaged by the air defense to fly back.
The official version is that the purpose of the failed incursion was to save the crew of the previously shot down F-15E.
However, the use of a greatly disproportionate amount of people and aircraft for a supposed search and rescue mission has lead to the speculation that the true goal of the failed incursion was the extraction of the uranium and that the downed F-15E had participated to the preparation of this mission.
It is estimated that the cost of this operation has been around a half of billion dollars.
While the 2 men from the F-15E were saved successfully, it seems that this should have been easy to achieve at a cost much less than a couple hundred million dollars per head, which makes believable the hypothesis that most of the operation was unrelated to saving people, but it intended to reach the uranium deposits.
Public information on Isfahan says the entrances to the underground areas is still caved in from the prior bombings. Unless the Iranians have already dug out the tunnels, the soldiers would have to land in enemy territory with their own heavy equipment. Then attempt to excavate the area while open to counterattack.
If it were so easy that commandos could drop in and dig out the site in a day - seems improbable that the Iranians would not have already done the same. If the Iranians had already excavated the tunnels, it would seem prudent to immediately move the uranium to another location.
A defensible fortress is nice, but even better if the enemy does not know where you hide the goods. Supposedly there is <1000 pounds of the good stuff, you could move that anywhere. Without any immediate plans to use the uranium, securing it for the future strikes me as the sound choice.
> Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily
The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything. The Iranians have some missiles and drones left, but they are increasingly isolated and on their last legs economically. These "talks" have to be understood as a negotiated surrender that would leave what is left of the regime in place in exchange for complete disarmament.
It is heavily speculated that the rescue op on the downed pilot was a cover for a failed op regarding HEU extraction in that area. The info available on it online makes no sense for it to have just been a rescue op.
What legitimate reports detail their military losses? Practically every single thing the US is pushing out is pure untrustworthy propaganda on the subject. Even if those specific elements are destroyed, it doesn't mean much. Planes and boats are for forward aggression. They have primarily been wrecking havoc with missiles and drones, which they supposedly have plenty more of.
Iran is China and Russia's pivot point into the West. China isn't going to let such a massive intelligence and military asset go to waste. I'd just about guarantee they were involved in strong arming Pakistan into pushing for peace talks last week to avoid the threatened total destruction. Short of a nuke being dropped or the entire country being bombed to shreds, Iran isn't going anywhere any time soon.
> Iran is China and Russia's pivot point into the West
Yeah, Iran is just front face, this is Russia and China’s war. Latter entity gets to test all their technology, ammunition without actually being in the war. They did the same thing by using Pakistan while they were fighting India.
> When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything
If they can keep Hormuz closed, they are absolutely in a position to demand things from a president whose party will be toast if gas prices rise too much.
Insane reasoning after threatening genocide, the "no quarter" comment, previous bad faith negotiations, then further bombing the people trying to negotiate in previous attempts.
This isn't just about the current regime wanting to stay in power, do you think the average Iranian is going to trust the side that literally threatened to end their civilization overnight? That goes far beyond calling for regime change.
How does that justify threatening genocide and the end of their civilization?
Having previously lived in Iran for 4 years, I know that the Iranian regime is very oppressive and cruel, but all the US has done is fuel them. They thought that bombing Iran and killing Khamenei would lead to civil war and a collapse of the regime. It did none of that and invited retaliation. In return, the US just made all of the regime's claims true by making the very threats the regime had been saying were the US's intentions for the Iranian people.
Being precise and consistent in messaging that the goal was regime change would've been the absolute bare minimum bar for lending credibility to this war.
They still certainly are doing that. But the movement against the regime is organic going back years now. Iron fisted ultra conservative theocrats suck
LMAO ok, I mean that's bad but if we're referencing history to contextualize a situation let's start with the USA and UK deciding that "sovereign country" isn't a real thing if they vote to nationalize their oil industry. We're heading toward decade 8 of FAFO here with zero lessons learned.
Whoever told you this was lying to you. Trump released a statement on the first night of the war explicitly stating that regime change was the goal. Disarmament is the new goal he fabricated when the first one didn't work.
Iran has showed it's neighbors something powerful which is US military can not protect you. The damage Iran did to us military bases is under reported.
FWIW, the whole conflict is a study on how much wars have changed. Information was always a part of it, but I have never seen it at a point, where I am entirely unsure on what is actually happening. Granted, some of the confusion appears to be by design courtesy of our president, who considers flailing some sort of grand strategy ( which may well work in real estate, but is ill-suited for something like this ). I can only speak for myself, but I find myself hesitating hard. I have zero doubt everyone is lying, but I have never seen such a wide chasm between two versions of the world we all occupy.
With respect, I think it's extremely clear what's actually happening, and the idea that it's confusing is a defense mechanism. The US and Israel launched a series of decapitation strikes, with the explicit and repeatedly stated expectation that this would lead to the overthrow of the Iranian government.
Then it didn't work, so they started a strategic bombing campaign.
Then that campaign proved ineffective at keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, leading to a sustained oil crisis.
So now here we are, with the entire world in a worse position than the status quo, and yet neither the US nor Iran feeling so defeated that they're willing to accept a conclusion worse than the status quo.
> The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily.
That's true, but also irrelavent.
USA probably could do these things if they tried, given enough time and resources. It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so. Hence negotiations. Iran probably sees that the war is incredibly unpopular in USA and figures trump lacks the political capital to continue, so they are probably trying to drive a hard bargain. In turn, Trump might in turn decide continuing is cheaper than the onerous terms iran wants and continue the war.
I predict more war, since as much as this war is politically bad for trump, he also hates "losing".
> It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so.
Events so far suggest the opposite. This is the first president in decades that took decisive action against Iran. Iran is weaker than ever, and this is perhaps a once in a century opportunity to end the Islamic threat once and for all. If Iran folds, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will quickly follow and the region will be at peace.
Israel would have been now at permanent peace if they had not murdered Yitzhak Rabin, or if Ariel Sharon had not succeeded to sabotage the government of Ehud Barak and to restart the hostilities with the Palestinians.
No matter how much they succeed to destroy in Iran, that will never bring peace any closer. By going on this path, there is only one way to achieve "peace": kill every Iranian, man, woman and child, and kill every descendant of Palestinians, man, woman and child and also kill any other Arabs or Muslims who may feel solidarity with genocide victims. Until the "final solution" is achieved, any human who is killed makes peace less likely, not more likely. Therefore any supporter of the idea that the Iran war means "progress towards peace" is a supporter of the "final solution".
The reason why there is no peace is because a part of the elites of Israel do not want peace, because the permanent state of war in Israel has been extremely profitable for them. In no other country is it possible to exploit the employees so hard as in Israel, because those who would attempt to have a better balance between work and personal life would be labeled as non-patriotic traitors, who want their country to be defeated by its enemies. This permanent war economy is perfect for Israeli business owners and for the Israeli government.
This is silly, plenty of wars, even vicious ones, have ended in peace without killing everyone on one of the sides.
> This permanent war economy is perfect for Israeli business owners and for the Israeli government.
This is obviously not true when the IDF is primarily a conscript army. Conscription is bad for business. It is very difficult to run a business when your employees are being conscripted.
Not to mention how much of a disaster all of this has been for Israel's reputation in the world. Trade, not to mention tourism is based on reputation, and other then the defense industry, Israel is not doing well PR wise at the moment.
I have worked for many years in Israel, so what I say is from first hand knowledge, not from hearsay.
You are right that conscription is bad for business.
Nevertheless, in most businesses the employees lost to conscription are a small fraction of the workforce. Much more is gained from the pressure that can be applied on all the other employees, due to the permanent war economy. I pitied my Israeli colleagues, most of whom were very nice people, but who were powerless against the system that exploited them.
You are right about the reputation, but it appears that the power is held by those who do not care about reputation.
I have lived in Israel both before and after Ariel Sharon and his accomplices seized the power. The differences in tourism were huge, because before that you could walk safely anywhere through Israel, while after that you had to avoid carefully any place inhabited by Arabs, unless you had appropriate weapons with you, for any emergency.
>this is perhaps a once in a century opportunity to end the Islamic threat once and for all. If Iran folds, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will quickly follow and the region will be at peace.
I agree with most of what you wrote other than the first sentence. Iran is weak right now, relative to the past. That is probably why the war is happening now as opposed to in the past.
Nonetheless, Trump has been utterly incompetent on the political side of things. There is low support for the war in USA, which directly translates to being risk averse when it comes to casualities (or even short term oil prices!). Trump is happy to bomb iran from planes. He does not seem willing to put american soldiers at risk in a significant way or be in it for the long haul. I'm pretty sure Iran has noticed this and it informs their strategy.
But why hasn't the US come close to trying given their overwhelming advantages in firepower? To me, and I suspect to Iran, it seems clear that it's because the Trump regime fears the domestic costs of doing so. He's already feuding with formerly loyal cronies in the media over a dozen military deaths and $4 gas; can he really afford to risk what the response might be to hundreds or thousands of dead American soldiers with little to show for it but an extended oil crisis?
What leverage does US actually have here? Even Israel for that matter?
The only options left for US are large scale bombing, like in Vietnam or Cambodia OR putting soldiers on the ground. Going on for years. Or drop a nuke.
Bombing will be of limited use and extremely costly, because is Iran is too large. Its a geographical fortress, mostly large mountain ranges, or deserts.
Soldiers on the ground means a large scale logistics setup, bases, buildup, etc. Its costly and deadly. US soldiers will start dying from day 1.
And then, Iran has total control over the strait. It can decimate the livable conditions in the GCC countries. Mind you, Iran gets about 5% of its water from desalination plants. Almost all GCC countries get more than 50%, sometimes upto 85% of their water from desalination plants. Couple that with hits on their power infra, and the population will be left thirsty in the middle of the desert. None of them can survive without their Air conditioners and water supply. With those countries dying out, Iran emerges as the super power in the region.
To figure out the leverage just imagine 50 fighter jets over your head each with 6 heavy bombs where their goal is to blow you up. Now argue that those controlling those jets have no leverage.
Bombing has limits but can also do a lot of damage. It's true not every single IRGC member or leader can be bombed out of existence. But many can. It's also true that some infrastucture is buried. But a lot isn't. Specifically all the energy infrastructure that accounts for half of the country's revenue and about 25% of GDP is easily bombed.
There is leverage. That said your leverage over someone who is willing to die and not give anything up is always somewhat limited.
Iran also has leverage due to its control of the Strait of Hormuz and its remaining ability to fire missiles and drones across the region.
The GCC and their allies has no problem flying drinking water in if that's really needed. But it's true that Iran can hurt them some more. They are sitting on some extraordinarily large cash reserves and other investments so they may be willing to take some pain. Supposedly some of them were asking the US to keep attacking Iran. Also keep in mind none of these countries have actively joined the war yet and that may change if Iran keeps attacking. They have small but very well equipped armies.
The amount of suffering the regime in Iran and the US administration are willing to accept and can bear is probably wildly disproportionate and much higher on the side of Iran.
That also substantially weakens any leverage the US has.
A mere slight increase in gas prices and slight threat to the economy can already substantially weaken US will to fight …
> What leverage does US actually have here? Even Israel for that matter?
Arguably, in a continous war setting Iran eventually runs out of money to pay its soldiers or build new misiles. Especially if their oil facilities are bombed.
I dont think iran can physically keep this up long term. The counter balance to that is usa cannot keep this up politically even in the short term.
The money thing is true. But China and Russia will extend support.
Iran is collecting about 2 million USD from each vessel through the strait. And they are about 50 passing through them each day. That's 100 million USD per day. Or about 30 odd Bullion USD per year.
Plenty of money to spend on war and some more. Not to mention the money it earns from selling it's oil and blocking GCC oil.
Russia is in no position to support anyone. See their support of their friend Assad where they actually had military presence. They'll provide intelligence and targeting info like they've been doing.
China doesn't seem that interested to help the regime. They'll get their oil from any regime. They'll sell them stuff but I don't see them paying the salaries of the IRGC.
There are not 50 vessels passing per day and also the US is now threatening a blockade. If Iran's oil terminal is bombed as is the threat then it's unlikely Iran will allow other vessels through. Likely most of the few vessels that are passing today are carrying Iranian oil.
> Iran is collecting about 2 million USD from each vessel through the strait.
No they aren’t. They’re collecting ¥14M.
Maybe nitpicking, but I believe this is the most important change to come out of Israel’s and USA’s war against Iran. The petrodollar is dead, and this will have severe long term consequences for the USA.
Presently we are seeing a rally around the flag in vogue in Iran.
They are a civilization going back centuries. No matter their internal fights, they will come together against a common enemy, an enemy for 45 years that is.
I am guessing the IRGC will also be careful enough to not rile up the populace until this war is over.
From what I have heard from the ground, regular people are paralyzed with fear/uncertainty and people with power feel like they are dead no matter what.
The US holds more leverage than you may expect. First, the US can/will reopen Hormuz by force without a sustained ground occupation. Here's the former CENTCOM commander in April 2026:
> GEN. MCKENZIE: Well, let me, let me say, first of all, we do have the ability to open the strait. Should we choose to do it in what you're seeing now are the- what I would call the precursor of the initial steps in such a campaign you want to reduce Iran's ability to fire short range rockets and missiles into the strait against warships. You want to take out their fast attack craft. Think of them as cigarette boats, large, powerful outboard engined boats that can race out and get among ships and cause direct damage that way. What we're doing is we're going after all those vessels. And that's where a 10s attack aircraft, attack helicopters and other slow moving, low altitude platforms are so very effective. So we're in the process of removing those right now. At the same time, we're working to get rid of Iran's mine stockpile. The mines are very dangerous. They had thousands when the war began. I have no doubt we significantly (UNINTELLIGIBLE) them, now. Of course, it doesn't take many mines to cause a significant blockage to world shipping. So all of that is underway right now, and you want to reduce those to a low level before you put your warships up there to actually sort of test the waters in that strait. I have no idea what Admiral Cooper's decision making process is going to be for that, but I think we're well on the way to achieving those goals.
Here's Admiral Cooper in 2025:
> "Senator Peters: So what is your assessment? How quickly could the U.S. and allied naval forces secure freedom of navigation if commercial shipping is indeed attacked in the straits?
> Admiral Cooper: Senator, the specifics of this are highly classified. But historically, in mine warfare, nothing happens quickly. I think we would think of this in terms of weeks and months, not days."
To an outside observer, it looks like nothing is happening. But what we currently see is a large concentration of fires around the coast, A-10s and Apaches, lots of reaper drones for ISR, attriting the USVs, anti-ship missiles, mines and mine-laying vessels. According to the former CENTCOM commander, you don't need to occupy this land to reopen Hormuz, at most you need fires and short raids. Only after this shaping process can the US Navy run escorts through the shallow and narrow littoral safely. It's a gradual process, a plan that multiple former commanders have commented on publicly going back decades, and this is what the first steps look like. And unlike public perception that the strait needs to be 100% safe beyond any doubt before commercial shipping resumes, the precedent during Operation Praying Mantis proves otherwise. The situation in the Red Sea is somewhat different only because there's an alternative route.
Secondly, the assumption that GCC are deterred is not right. The GCC desire escalation, see for example:
> Gulf allies of the United States, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are urging President Donald Trump to continue prosecuting the war against Iran, arguing that Tehran hasn’t been weakened enough by the monthlong U.S.-led bombing campaign, according to U.S., Gulf and Israeli officials.
This is despite the threats to their critical infrastructure. To know why they want this, you need to understand the regional history in some detail. It can be summarized like so:
- UAE has a territorial dispute with Iran and stands to gain sovereignty over a number of islands in Hormuz.
- Saudi Arabia stands to gain control over Yemen and therefore over Bab al-Mandab if support for the Houthis is cut off.
- Saudi Arabia has a history going back over 10 years of asking the US to bomb Iran despite threats to their infrastructure, such as in 2015, and in 2019 when Soleimani organized attacks on Saudi oil and gas infrastructure.
- Iran is a competing imperial power and wants to obtain suzerainty over Arab states through satellites, to export the revolution. This is why Saddam invaded Iran in the 1980s. The fear among Iran's Arab neighbors is still there, and they won't accept the US just declaring victory and walking away. It's hard for people outside of the region to understand this because the facts that create this perception don't enter the news cycle in the West.
Even though the cost to the GCC is incredibly large, Iran does not have escalation dominance in this situation, because the political will among the GCC is commensurately larger.
The third aspect here is that Iran's defense industrial base is gone, which means their current stockpiles are all they have. Various estimates have been thrown around about their remaining missile stockpile from experts: "1/3 left", "30% left", "over 1000 left". But the common denominator is that they cannot sustain the current tempo (~1200 missiles/month) forever. This is not like the Ukraine war (or most other wars) where both sides have an active industrial base pumping out material to replace the lost material. This puts a hard ceiling on what Iran can achieve against the Gulf states, certainly below total destruction of all their critical facilities. If this wasn't true, the Gulf states wouldn't be pushing the US to escalate.
The fourth aspect is that Iran still has much to lose, and the US can easily deliver those losses to Iran. Their oil exports are the most obvious next step, 10% of their economy can be temporarily removed with a naval blockade of Kharg or equivalent reversible means, which is revenue they use to pay IRGC wages and stave off civil unrest like what we saw last year.
Finally, as committed as the IRGC is (or as committed as they portray themselves to be through a concerted information warfare campaign via their centrally controlled media), there is historical precedent of hardline regimes "surrendering" when faced with a belligerent that has the combination of political will and capabilities. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Khomeini's "drinking from the poisoned chalice" in the 1980s, the one-sided ceasefire agreement that Hezbollah agreed to in 2024, the Japanese surrender in WW2. If the IRGC feels it needs to commit to zero enrichment to preserve the revolution, they probably will.
“The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America,” Vance said.
“So we go back to the United States having not come to an agreement. We’ve made very clear what our red lines are.”
It was clear the U.S. was not serious about these negotiations when they sent Vance. It's also clear the U.S. doesn't have the cards to end this conflict by force. They can use drones to clear the straight of Hormuz of mines, but that won't address all the other methods Iran has to threaten shipping. Any military measure short of the full occupation of Iran will likely fail to reopen the straight. The U.S. plainly lacks the resources to occupy a country four times the size of Iraq without allies, and the Iranians know it. The U.S. is going to have to bend on some of its red lines and actually negotiate in order to reach a deal.
Many countries are standing back and waiting for the Americans to fix their own mess, but for how long will they wait? At what point do these nations lose patience with the constant economic disruption and look for coercive measures to force the U.S. back to the table?
It was Iran's demand that they will not speak to Witkoff or Kushner, who were the original morons in this fiasco. They wanted only Vance on the table, most likely because he was against this war and has kept himself away from the whole thing.
> They can use drones to clear the straight of Hormuz of mines, but that won't address all the other methods Iran has to threaten shipping
Iran does not have to even mine or bomb the strait. Them just declaring that they will hit is enough to stop traffic.
> Any military measure short of the full occupation of Iran will likely fail to reopen the straight
I highly doubt even this. Iranian drones have a range of about 1000 km. They can continue to block the strait, even with a ground force. Not to mention that ground forces blitzing through the whole territory will take at-least a year, if not more. That is enough time to plunge the whole world into a recession.
> At what point do these nations lose patience with the constant economic disruption and look for coercive measures to force the U.S. back to the table?
Most nations cannot coerce the US, at least not Trump. What they will most likely do is have secret or open deals with Iran to let their oil through, with a toll tax of course.
Marco Rubio, who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate with a pretty explicit expectation that he would be the adult in the room for this kind of crisis. But he was too busy watching UFC with the President to attend or even monitor the negotiations.
The negotiatons can be considered a big success because Israeli leaders did not order the murder of the negotiators this time. This will open doors for more realistic negotiations in the future.
Not really surprising to me. Neither side had really backed down from their conflicting demands, at least publicly (albeit keeping track of what trumps public position is, is basically impossible). Maybe something different was being said privately, but it really seemed unlikely a deal would be reached.
Not to mention the constraints US is under from its partners. Even if US wants to wrap things up and is willing to give Iran whatever it wants to get that, i can't imagine that gulf countries would be thrilled by iran essentially taxing their oil exports, and Israel seems pretty intent on finishing off Hezbollah. USA might have significant influence among its partners, but they aren't its puppets and are unlikely to go along with plans significantly against their own interests just because america said so.
Why? You think Iran will assassinate him? Trump obviously didn't have high expectation about the agreement in the first place. The US has been sending more troops and ships to ME nonstop. They didn't go to Pakistan in good faith (neither did Iran, I guess.)
Because by not getting a deal he made Trump look bad - and Trump would thus fire him(in the US to throw someone under the bus means to assign blame and punish someone else)
But Vance is the vice president and Trump can't fire him? He is not Secretary of State.
And I really don't think Trump looks worse than before. If they reached an agreement that allows Iran to take tolls for all the tankers passing, that would look really bad.
The Vice President is an elected official just like the President. He doesn’t work for the President and he’s not subordinate, he just has almost no power.
The only way to remove a VP is death or impeachment. I suppose the President could induce death, but that’s not really firing per se.
That was expected. The previous article in the NYT about internal opposition against Trump's war policies, which specifically protected Vance, was a farce and probably a deliberate fake leak.
Vance has a big mouth about isolationism, but will follow the permanent bureaucracy like anyone else. The Iran war was on the agenda since 1979, they just needed someone crazy enough to do it when Russia is weakened.
The agenda 2025 wants to hurt Europe and China, so that goal is reached by a prolonged war. The EU leaders are children who are too stupid to negotiate on their own. The EU press is owned by pro-US corporations, like Springer in Germany that makes journalists sign an agreement that "Atlanticism" is one of the core values of "Die Welt" and "Bild". Previously Green party anti-war magazines like TAZ have gone neocon. Unfortunately, "Atlanticism" is a one way street.
We are now in the situation that the US threatens the EU to withdraw from NATO when it cannot even protect the Gulf States. The EU "leaders" nod fearfully and isolate themselves from all of Asia and the Middle East instead of negotiating on their own.
Negotiation was just a pretext for preparing ground troops. Netanjahu is calling the shots here. Not Trump who sent (his son in law) Kushner and Wittkoff to „negotiate“, Kushner, whose parents have hosted Netanyahu whenever he visited the US. And he doesn’t want the war to end. He wants to destroy Iran‘s industrial infrastructure. And while this war is not over, he and Israeli figures are hinting at their next target: Türkiye.
Why would you even agree to talks if your starting negotiation position is going to be so unreasonable, its pointless.
Attempting to deny a country security in the form of controlling their own water ways, controlling their own energy independence or holding a deterrent to prevent genocidal neighbours from attacking is simply wrong.
Ali Gholhaki, an Iranian journalist who often publishes first-hand news about impending developments with the IRGC, has reported that the US's demands were the removal of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, no nuclear enrichment whatsoever, and US management of the Strait of Hormuz. In exchange they were not offering any commitment regarding Lebanon. https://x.com/aghplt/status/2043092254416605522 Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily, I find it bizarre that they thought they would have any sort of leverage at the negotiating table regarding these demands. All the peace talks did was lower oil prices a bit for a few days.
My guess is it’s a chance to restock and reposition air defense as the slow attrition of interceptors was starting to open holes in the air defense. This administration has used negotiations as a diversion for further attacks on Iran and I suspect this is no different. I also suspect the Iranians know this and are likewise doing their best to prepare for them to fail.
That's true of pretty much every ceasefire ever, and both sides are almost certainly taking advantage of the ceasefire to do that.
Even ceasefires entered in good faith often collapse so countries always try and reposition stuff during the ceasefire for when/if that happens.
This is not true. The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy, only continuation of the atrocities. This is not a ceasefire entered in bad faith, it is simply a strategic usage of one of the few tools that can end a war, and in my opinion morally abhorrent.
> The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy
Israel has pretty consistently claimed they never agreed to a ceasefire in lebanon (and nobody is claiming this ceasefire changed anything in Gaza). Iran seemed to only claim the ceasefire included lebanon later on and not initially (afaict, not 100% sure). Honestly it makes one wonder if the terms were even written down. Seems like an easy solution to this problem would be to just publicly release the ceasefire agreement document.
I am talking about the previous ones. For the current one, it is clear that Israel is trying to force the deal to go south by continuing to bomb civilians in Lebanon, because it does not want the war to end.
Gaza and Lebanon were not part of the cease fire agreement. Besides, After the first round of hostilities the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon included the disarmament of Hezbullah, and sending the Lebanese army to take the south under control. None of which was done, so Israel had to do it by itself
Like you I do not have a direct line with the diplomats of the involved countries, but every major news outlet was including Lebanon in the agreement.
What Israel is doing by itself is occupying more land and vilifying the concept of humanity, not "taking the south under control". Let me remind you that Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.
The whole source of pain, misery and instability in the region is the colony of Israel, that was place there by the brits.
Well, after years and years of rocket fire from Lebanon which rendered the life in the north part of Israel impossible, Israel had no choice but to eliminate that threat like any sane country would do.
If the sole purpose of Hezbullah is to drive Israel out of Lebanon, why didn't they disarm after Israel pulled out? Maybe it has a different goal in mind.
Quit listening to major news outlets, you'll hear only the echo chamber which is genocide-israel-apartheid.
In practice, if neighboring countries would have simply let Israel exist there would be peace next wednesday. The palestinians refuse to accept the existance of the state of Israel - from 47 to our time - that's the source of misery and instability.
Why would anyone in their right mind next to Israel disarm ? So they can have their land occupied by ultra orthodox jew nazis ?
And on the contrary, the major news outlets are infested by israeli propaganda.
Letting israel exist ? Does israel leave Gaza exist ? Or the west bank ? Or Syria, or Lebanon ? Or any of those people that have been living there for thousands of years, not just 80 ?
I think it's less about restocking and repositioning air defenses. The expensive weapons systems the US and its allies are running short on can't be replenished in weeks or even months. I think this was more about buying time to prepare for a ground war and probably to try to come up with some semblance of a strategy.
It also served as a useful way for Trump to throw Vance under the bus. If the negotiations were serious and in good faith, I think you would have seen Rubio there. Instead, you had Rubio sitting ringside at a UFC fight while the talks collapsed.
As I understand it Iran requested that Vance conduct the negotiations.[0] The speculation is that they did so in order to tarnish his image in the American people by attaching his name and face to the conflict which is something he appears to have been desperate to avoid.
If this is the case it seems like an extremely effective way to kneecap the eventual successor to a very unhealthy 79 year old man who may die in office.
One would hope that even tangential involvement in this war would be the kiss of death for any political career in the US but it's hard to say. The American electorate is a fickle creature. It always finds new ways to surprise and disappoint.
[0] https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-wanted-negotiate-vance-got-17...
Silver linings if Iran does in Trump, erases Vance's chance, and gets oil to $200 so people will finally start to feel pain for continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Iran's state media reported that the F-15 rescue mission was a cover to steal enriched uranium, something which fits the facts a lot more than them constructing an airstrip in enemy territory and blowing up at least two MC-130s just to rescue a pilot:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/did-us...
Also suspicious that Iran came to the negotiating table just a couple days after the F-15 mission after insisting for the other 5 weeks that there would be no negotiating and they were not even in contact with Washington.
I have my doubts. There was a previous BBC piece[0] which went into some of the challenges with such a mission. The first being: it is not publicly known where Iran is storing its uranium. There are many putative options, most of which are going to be hardened and underground. Isfahan is near the middle of the country - safely getting troops there would already be challenging, let alone digging up any from the collapsed tunnels.
Minor blurb from the article:
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvglv5v4yvpoWhile it is hard to believe that someone in the US military believed that such a mission for uranium extraction can be successful, it is at least equally hard to believe that the US military has spent around a half of billion dollars just for saving 2 men, while also risking the lives of a very large number of other US combatants.
Saving your men is important, but it should have been easy to do that at a much lower cost and at much lower risks of additional personnel losses, if that had been the true mission goal.
I can certainly believe that the assurance the US gives to its pilots that they will never be left behind and the public demonstration of that assurance as something the US values in the billions of dollars.
It is also clear that if the mission was not a purely rescue mission then it would have taken a lot more equipment than what appears to have been used. Even for an escalade style high-risk low-probability mission it would be inadequate.
I think the most likely version of the claim would be that the Pentagon would have used the planning and execution of the mission as a valuable opportunity to learn for a dedicated mission to extract uranium in a contestable theatre. But even that is pushing it.
We do not know how much equipment was used.
We know only approximately how much equipment has been lost. It is likely that much more equipment was used than what has been lost, i.e. many more transport airplanes than the 2 lost and many more helicopters.
Nevertheless, I agree that a possible explanation is what you propose, i.e. that the mission could have been more a test of the Iranian defense than an incursion that was actually expected to succeed.
In any case, if it was a test it was also a failure, as the defense was stronger than they expected, leading to excessive equipment losses.
>Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile
I did not think this was possible. The three sites that were bombed in 2025 are all pretty centrally located within the country. Even if you can get troops there, the facilities are hardened and at least partially underground. Depending on how effective you believe the 2025 strikes to be, some of the facilities may be collapsed under tons of rock. There is no way to smash-and-grab the already enriched uranium.
It seems that there was a failed US incursion towards Isfahan, where much of the enriched uranium is buried, a week ago.
They could not reach their target and they had to scuttle and abandon two MC-130J airplanes and a helicopter, apparently because they were too damaged by the air defense to fly back.
The official version is that the purpose of the failed incursion was to save the crew of the previously shot down F-15E.
However, the use of a greatly disproportionate amount of people and aircraft for a supposed search and rescue mission has lead to the speculation that the true goal of the failed incursion was the extraction of the uranium and that the downed F-15E had participated to the preparation of this mission.
It is estimated that the cost of this operation has been around a half of billion dollars.
While the 2 men from the F-15E were saved successfully, it seems that this should have been easy to achieve at a cost much less than a couple hundred million dollars per head, which makes believable the hypothesis that most of the operation was unrelated to saving people, but it intended to reach the uranium deposits.
Public information on Isfahan says the entrances to the underground areas is still caved in from the prior bombings. Unless the Iranians have already dug out the tunnels, the soldiers would have to land in enemy territory with their own heavy equipment. Then attempt to excavate the area while open to counterattack.
If it were so easy that commandos could drop in and dig out the site in a day - seems improbable that the Iranians would not have already done the same. If the Iranians had already excavated the tunnels, it would seem prudent to immediately move the uranium to another location.
Why would that be prudent? Seems to me the underground fortress is working well.
A defensible fortress is nice, but even better if the enemy does not know where you hide the goods. Supposedly there is <1000 pounds of the good stuff, you could move that anywhere. Without any immediate plans to use the uranium, securing it for the future strikes me as the sound choice.
You’re right that they should spread it out over many locations.
Yeah they buried almost 1000 tons of it under rubble last year. Good luck digging that up easily. Some analyist suggests that 1000+ troops per location would be required: https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-enriched-uranium-nucle...
It looks like a face-saving effort rather than negotiations. Especially considering Vance arrived with his supervisors
> Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily
The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything. The Iranians have some missiles and drones left, but they are increasingly isolated and on their last legs economically. These "talks" have to be understood as a negotiated surrender that would leave what is left of the regime in place in exchange for complete disarmament.
Comments like this ignore all the lessons from Vietnam and, to a large extent, Afghanistan.
There's a reason "the U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily".
"History does not repeat itself, it rhymes"
BigWar and BigAI may install surprise on the storyline.
It is heavily speculated that the rescue op on the downed pilot was a cover for a failed op regarding HEU extraction in that area. The info available on it online makes no sense for it to have just been a rescue op.
What legitimate reports detail their military losses? Practically every single thing the US is pushing out is pure untrustworthy propaganda on the subject. Even if those specific elements are destroyed, it doesn't mean much. Planes and boats are for forward aggression. They have primarily been wrecking havoc with missiles and drones, which they supposedly have plenty more of.
Iran is China and Russia's pivot point into the West. China isn't going to let such a massive intelligence and military asset go to waste. I'd just about guarantee they were involved in strong arming Pakistan into pushing for peace talks last week to avoid the threatened total destruction. Short of a nuke being dropped or the entire country being bombed to shreds, Iran isn't going anywhere any time soon.
> Iran is China and Russia's pivot point into the West
Yeah, Iran is just front face, this is Russia and China’s war. Latter entity gets to test all their technology, ammunition without actually being in the war. They did the same thing by using Pakistan while they were fighting India.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/11/politics/us-intelligence-iran...
This is USAs war, nobody else wants it.
> When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything
If they can keep Hormuz closed, they are absolutely in a position to demand things from a president whose party will be toast if gas prices rise too much.
Insane reasoning after threatening genocide, the "no quarter" comment, previous bad faith negotiations, then further bombing the people trying to negotiate in previous attempts.
This isn't just about the current regime wanting to stay in power, do you think the average Iranian is going to trust the side that literally threatened to end their civilization overnight? That goes far beyond calling for regime change.
May I remind you the Iranian regime was locking down the internet and shooting protesters in the street in the weeks leading up to the attack.
How does that justify threatening genocide and the end of their civilization?
Having previously lived in Iran for 4 years, I know that the Iranian regime is very oppressive and cruel, but all the US has done is fuel them. They thought that bombing Iran and killing Khamenei would lead to civil war and a collapse of the regime. It did none of that and invited retaliation. In return, the US just made all of the regime's claims true by making the very threats the regime had been saying were the US's intentions for the Iranian people.
Being precise and consistent in messaging that the goal was regime change would've been the absolute bare minimum bar for lending credibility to this war.
Trump is not particularly intelligent.
Didn't americans/israelis admit recently they had mossad agents to incite the violence and supplied guns?
Hamfisted propaganda is not working as well as before
They still certainly are doing that. But the movement against the regime is organic going back years now. Iron fisted ultra conservative theocrats suck
LMAO ok, I mean that's bad but if we're referencing history to contextualize a situation let's start with the USA and UK deciding that "sovereign country" isn't a real thing if they vote to nationalize their oil industry. We're heading toward decade 8 of FAFO here with zero lessons learned.
Similar shit happening in North Korea. Should the US go there next?
Regime change was NOT the goal, right? Wasn't that the party line?
Regime change isn't the goal per se, but disarmament is. Angry mullahs without missiles and nukes are harmless.
Whoever told you this was lying to you. Trump released a statement on the first night of the war explicitly stating that regime change was the goal. Disarmament is the new goal he fabricated when the first one didn't work.
No one goes for NK because they have nuke. The exact situation the US/Israel try to prevent for Iran.
and N Korea is sidelined by the USA because N Korea does not have anything we 'want' i.e. oil gold silver rare earth......
Interesting. It seems like you're one of those persons that actually believe what Trump and Hegseth are saying regarding the war. Is that so?
Iran has showed it's neighbors something powerful which is US military can not protect you. The damage Iran did to us military bases is under reported.
FWIW, the whole conflict is a study on how much wars have changed. Information was always a part of it, but I have never seen it at a point, where I am entirely unsure on what is actually happening. Granted, some of the confusion appears to be by design courtesy of our president, who considers flailing some sort of grand strategy ( which may well work in real estate, but is ill-suited for something like this ). I can only speak for myself, but I find myself hesitating hard. I have zero doubt everyone is lying, but I have never seen such a wide chasm between two versions of the world we all occupy.
With respect, I think it's extremely clear what's actually happening, and the idea that it's confusing is a defense mechanism. The US and Israel launched a series of decapitation strikes, with the explicit and repeatedly stated expectation that this would lead to the overthrow of the Iranian government.
Then it didn't work, so they started a strategic bombing campaign.
Then that campaign proved ineffective at keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, leading to a sustained oil crisis.
So now here we are, with the entire world in a worse position than the status quo, and yet neither the US nor Iran feeling so defeated that they're willing to accept a conclusion worse than the status quo.
> The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily.
That's true, but also irrelavent.
USA probably could do these things if they tried, given enough time and resources. It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so. Hence negotiations. Iran probably sees that the war is incredibly unpopular in USA and figures trump lacks the political capital to continue, so they are probably trying to drive a hard bargain. In turn, Trump might in turn decide continuing is cheaper than the onerous terms iran wants and continue the war.
I predict more war, since as much as this war is politically bad for trump, he also hates "losing".
> It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so.
Events so far suggest the opposite. This is the first president in decades that took decisive action against Iran. Iran is weaker than ever, and this is perhaps a once in a century opportunity to end the Islamic threat once and for all. If Iran folds, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will quickly follow and the region will be at peace.
What you say is absolutely ridiculous.
Israel would have been now at permanent peace if they had not murdered Yitzhak Rabin, or if Ariel Sharon had not succeeded to sabotage the government of Ehud Barak and to restart the hostilities with the Palestinians.
No matter how much they succeed to destroy in Iran, that will never bring peace any closer. By going on this path, there is only one way to achieve "peace": kill every Iranian, man, woman and child, and kill every descendant of Palestinians, man, woman and child and also kill any other Arabs or Muslims who may feel solidarity with genocide victims. Until the "final solution" is achieved, any human who is killed makes peace less likely, not more likely. Therefore any supporter of the idea that the Iran war means "progress towards peace" is a supporter of the "final solution".
The reason why there is no peace is because a part of the elites of Israel do not want peace, because the permanent state of war in Israel has been extremely profitable for them. In no other country is it possible to exploit the employees so hard as in Israel, because those who would attempt to have a better balance between work and personal life would be labeled as non-patriotic traitors, who want their country to be defeated by its enemies. This permanent war economy is perfect for Israeli business owners and for the Israeli government.
This is silly, plenty of wars, even vicious ones, have ended in peace without killing everyone on one of the sides.
> This permanent war economy is perfect for Israeli business owners and for the Israeli government.
This is obviously not true when the IDF is primarily a conscript army. Conscription is bad for business. It is very difficult to run a business when your employees are being conscripted.
Not to mention how much of a disaster all of this has been for Israel's reputation in the world. Trade, not to mention tourism is based on reputation, and other then the defense industry, Israel is not doing well PR wise at the moment.
I have worked for many years in Israel, so what I say is from first hand knowledge, not from hearsay.
You are right that conscription is bad for business.
Nevertheless, in most businesses the employees lost to conscription are a small fraction of the workforce. Much more is gained from the pressure that can be applied on all the other employees, due to the permanent war economy. I pitied my Israeli colleagues, most of whom were very nice people, but who were powerless against the system that exploited them.
You are right about the reputation, but it appears that the power is held by those who do not care about reputation.
I have lived in Israel both before and after Ariel Sharon and his accomplices seized the power. The differences in tourism were huge, because before that you could walk safely anywhere through Israel, while after that you had to avoid carefully any place inhabited by Arabs, unless you had appropriate weapons with you, for any emergency.
>this is perhaps a once in a century opportunity to end the Islamic threat once and for all. If Iran folds, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will quickly follow and the region will be at peace.
This is the exact same nonsense that Netanyahu said to the US Congress in 2002, when he insisted we invade Iraq. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PDpwL8kuY
And what is the "Islamic threat", exactly? Why would attacking Iran end that threat, when the perpetrators of 9/11, for example, were mostly Saudis?
I agree with most of what you wrote other than the first sentence. Iran is weak right now, relative to the past. That is probably why the war is happening now as opposed to in the past.
Nonetheless, Trump has been utterly incompetent on the political side of things. There is low support for the war in USA, which directly translates to being risk averse when it comes to casualities (or even short term oil prices!). Trump is happy to bomb iran from planes. He does not seem willing to put american soldiers at risk in a significant way or be in it for the long haul. I'm pretty sure Iran has noticed this and it informs their strategy.
But why hasn't the US come close to trying given their overwhelming advantages in firepower? To me, and I suspect to Iran, it seems clear that it's because the Trump regime fears the domestic costs of doing so. He's already feuding with formerly loyal cronies in the media over a dozen military deaths and $4 gas; can he really afford to risk what the response might be to hundreds or thousands of dead American soldiers with little to show for it but an extended oil crisis?
What leverage does US actually have here? Even Israel for that matter?
The only options left for US are large scale bombing, like in Vietnam or Cambodia OR putting soldiers on the ground. Going on for years. Or drop a nuke.
Bombing will be of limited use and extremely costly, because is Iran is too large. Its a geographical fortress, mostly large mountain ranges, or deserts.
Soldiers on the ground means a large scale logistics setup, bases, buildup, etc. Its costly and deadly. US soldiers will start dying from day 1.
And then, Iran has total control over the strait. It can decimate the livable conditions in the GCC countries. Mind you, Iran gets about 5% of its water from desalination plants. Almost all GCC countries get more than 50%, sometimes upto 85% of their water from desalination plants. Couple that with hits on their power infra, and the population will be left thirsty in the middle of the desert. None of them can survive without their Air conditioners and water supply. With those countries dying out, Iran emerges as the super power in the region.
To figure out the leverage just imagine 50 fighter jets over your head each with 6 heavy bombs where their goal is to blow you up. Now argue that those controlling those jets have no leverage.
Bombing has limits but can also do a lot of damage. It's true not every single IRGC member or leader can be bombed out of existence. But many can. It's also true that some infrastucture is buried. But a lot isn't. Specifically all the energy infrastructure that accounts for half of the country's revenue and about 25% of GDP is easily bombed.
There is leverage. That said your leverage over someone who is willing to die and not give anything up is always somewhat limited.
Iran also has leverage due to its control of the Strait of Hormuz and its remaining ability to fire missiles and drones across the region.
The GCC and their allies has no problem flying drinking water in if that's really needed. But it's true that Iran can hurt them some more. They are sitting on some extraordinarily large cash reserves and other investments so they may be willing to take some pain. Supposedly some of them were asking the US to keep attacking Iran. Also keep in mind none of these countries have actively joined the war yet and that may change if Iran keeps attacking. They have small but very well equipped armies.
The amount of suffering the regime in Iran and the US administration are willing to accept and can bear is probably wildly disproportionate and much higher on the side of Iran.
That also substantially weakens any leverage the US has.
A mere slight increase in gas prices and slight threat to the economy can already substantially weaken US will to fight …
> What leverage does US actually have here? Even Israel for that matter?
Arguably, in a continous war setting Iran eventually runs out of money to pay its soldiers or build new misiles. Especially if their oil facilities are bombed.
I dont think iran can physically keep this up long term. The counter balance to that is usa cannot keep this up politically even in the short term.
The money thing is true. But China and Russia will extend support.
Iran is collecting about 2 million USD from each vessel through the strait. And they are about 50 passing through them each day. That's 100 million USD per day. Or about 30 odd Bullion USD per year.
Plenty of money to spend on war and some more. Not to mention the money it earns from selling it's oil and blocking GCC oil.
Russia is in no position to support anyone. See their support of their friend Assad where they actually had military presence. They'll provide intelligence and targeting info like they've been doing.
China doesn't seem that interested to help the regime. They'll get their oil from any regime. They'll sell them stuff but I don't see them paying the salaries of the IRGC.
There are not 50 vessels passing per day and also the US is now threatening a blockade. If Iran's oil terminal is bombed as is the threat then it's unlikely Iran will allow other vessels through. Likely most of the few vessels that are passing today are carrying Iranian oil.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w39lg84w2o
19 ships since the ceasefire by 17:00 BST on 10 April.
> Iran is collecting about 2 million USD from each vessel through the strait.
No they aren’t. They’re collecting ¥14M.
Maybe nitpicking, but I believe this is the most important change to come out of Israel’s and USA’s war against Iran. The petrodollar is dead, and this will have severe long term consequences for the USA.
The US was banking on a revolution, which hasn't yet materialized.
A near term power vacuum and civil war might not be unlikely right now. This war started (on purpose) when Iran was the furthest thing from "united".
Presently we are seeing a rally around the flag in vogue in Iran.
They are a civilization going back centuries. No matter their internal fights, they will come together against a common enemy, an enemy for 45 years that is.
I am guessing the IRGC will also be careful enough to not rile up the populace until this war is over.
There is no rally around the flag. Those that hate and fear the regime are not going to join it.
From what I have heard from the ground, regular people are paralyzed with fear/uncertainty and people with power feel like they are dead no matter what.
Iran Newspapers and News Media Guide http://www.abyznewslinks.com/iran.htm
good book highly recommend Iran: A Modern History Charting the rise of modern Iran with Yale historian Abbas Amanat https://macmillan.yale.edu/middleeast/iran/publications/iran...
I think dropping a nuke is not out of question. We just have to watch the language of the U.S administration over the next weeks.
It's very hard to imagine nuclear weapons being used in this conflict.
It was hard to imaigne the United States sticking their nose in the middle east again
It was hard to imagine America kidnapping a head of state, the president of Venezuela
It was very hard to imagine Amercia threatening annexation of Canada and Greenland
Your difficult to imagine world is closer to reality than I think either of us would like
Is it? Israel is a rogue state at this point, and it has openly stated that were the US to withdraw, they would use "any means necessary".
They seem to not be satisfied by causing global economic harm, they want nuclear annihilation as well.
If they do, they will be exterminated.
There is no timeline where Israel comes out victorious if they start using nuclear weapons.
The US holds more leverage than you may expect. First, the US can/will reopen Hormuz by force without a sustained ground occupation. Here's the former CENTCOM commander in April 2026:
> GEN. MCKENZIE: Well, let me, let me say, first of all, we do have the ability to open the strait. Should we choose to do it in what you're seeing now are the- what I would call the precursor of the initial steps in such a campaign you want to reduce Iran's ability to fire short range rockets and missiles into the strait against warships. You want to take out their fast attack craft. Think of them as cigarette boats, large, powerful outboard engined boats that can race out and get among ships and cause direct damage that way. What we're doing is we're going after all those vessels. And that's where a 10s attack aircraft, attack helicopters and other slow moving, low altitude platforms are so very effective. So we're in the process of removing those right now. At the same time, we're working to get rid of Iran's mine stockpile. The mines are very dangerous. They had thousands when the war began. I have no doubt we significantly (UNINTELLIGIBLE) them, now. Of course, it doesn't take many mines to cause a significant blockage to world shipping. So all of that is underway right now, and you want to reduce those to a low level before you put your warships up there to actually sort of test the waters in that strait. I have no idea what Admiral Cooper's decision making process is going to be for that, but I think we're well on the way to achieving those goals.
Here's Admiral Cooper in 2025:
> "Senator Peters: So what is your assessment? How quickly could the U.S. and allied naval forces secure freedom of navigation if commercial shipping is indeed attacked in the straits?
> Admiral Cooper: Senator, the specifics of this are highly classified. But historically, in mine warfare, nothing happens quickly. I think we would think of this in terms of weeks and months, not days."
To an outside observer, it looks like nothing is happening. But what we currently see is a large concentration of fires around the coast, A-10s and Apaches, lots of reaper drones for ISR, attriting the USVs, anti-ship missiles, mines and mine-laying vessels. According to the former CENTCOM commander, you don't need to occupy this land to reopen Hormuz, at most you need fires and short raids. Only after this shaping process can the US Navy run escorts through the shallow and narrow littoral safely. It's a gradual process, a plan that multiple former commanders have commented on publicly going back decades, and this is what the first steps look like. And unlike public perception that the strait needs to be 100% safe beyond any doubt before commercial shipping resumes, the precedent during Operation Praying Mantis proves otherwise. The situation in the Red Sea is somewhat different only because there's an alternative route.
Secondly, the assumption that GCC are deterred is not right. The GCC desire escalation, see for example:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-saudi-arabia-mbs-gulf-...
> Gulf allies of the United States, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are urging President Donald Trump to continue prosecuting the war against Iran, arguing that Tehran hasn’t been weakened enough by the monthlong U.S.-led bombing campaign, according to U.S., Gulf and Israeli officials.
This is despite the threats to their critical infrastructure. To know why they want this, you need to understand the regional history in some detail. It can be summarized like so:
- UAE has a territorial dispute with Iran and stands to gain sovereignty over a number of islands in Hormuz.
- Saudi Arabia stands to gain control over Yemen and therefore over Bab al-Mandab if support for the Houthis is cut off.
- Saudi Arabia has a history going back over 10 years of asking the US to bomb Iran despite threats to their infrastructure, such as in 2015, and in 2019 when Soleimani organized attacks on Saudi oil and gas infrastructure.
- Iran is a competing imperial power and wants to obtain suzerainty over Arab states through satellites, to export the revolution. This is why Saddam invaded Iran in the 1980s. The fear among Iran's Arab neighbors is still there, and they won't accept the US just declaring victory and walking away. It's hard for people outside of the region to understand this because the facts that create this perception don't enter the news cycle in the West.
Even though the cost to the GCC is incredibly large, Iran does not have escalation dominance in this situation, because the political will among the GCC is commensurately larger.
The third aspect here is that Iran's defense industrial base is gone, which means their current stockpiles are all they have. Various estimates have been thrown around about their remaining missile stockpile from experts: "1/3 left", "30% left", "over 1000 left". But the common denominator is that they cannot sustain the current tempo (~1200 missiles/month) forever. This is not like the Ukraine war (or most other wars) where both sides have an active industrial base pumping out material to replace the lost material. This puts a hard ceiling on what Iran can achieve against the Gulf states, certainly below total destruction of all their critical facilities. If this wasn't true, the Gulf states wouldn't be pushing the US to escalate.
The fourth aspect is that Iran still has much to lose, and the US can easily deliver those losses to Iran. Their oil exports are the most obvious next step, 10% of their economy can be temporarily removed with a naval blockade of Kharg or equivalent reversible means, which is revenue they use to pay IRGC wages and stave off civil unrest like what we saw last year.
Finally, as committed as the IRGC is (or as committed as they portray themselves to be through a concerted information warfare campaign via their centrally controlled media), there is historical precedent of hardline regimes "surrendering" when faced with a belligerent that has the combination of political will and capabilities. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Khomeini's "drinking from the poisoned chalice" in the 1980s, the one-sided ceasefire agreement that Hezbollah agreed to in 2024, the Japanese surrender in WW2. If the IRGC feels it needs to commit to zero enrichment to preserve the revolution, they probably will.
[flagged]
“The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America,” Vance said.
“So we go back to the United States having not come to an agreement. We’ve made very clear what our red lines are.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/12/jd-vance-says-...
--------------
It was clear the U.S. was not serious about these negotiations when they sent Vance. It's also clear the U.S. doesn't have the cards to end this conflict by force. They can use drones to clear the straight of Hormuz of mines, but that won't address all the other methods Iran has to threaten shipping. Any military measure short of the full occupation of Iran will likely fail to reopen the straight. The U.S. plainly lacks the resources to occupy a country four times the size of Iraq without allies, and the Iranians know it. The U.S. is going to have to bend on some of its red lines and actually negotiate in order to reach a deal.
Many countries are standing back and waiting for the Americans to fix their own mess, but for how long will they wait? At what point do these nations lose patience with the constant economic disruption and look for coercive measures to force the U.S. back to the table?
> when they sent Vance
It was Iran's demand that they will not speak to Witkoff or Kushner, who were the original morons in this fiasco. They wanted only Vance on the table, most likely because he was against this war and has kept himself away from the whole thing.
> They can use drones to clear the straight of Hormuz of mines, but that won't address all the other methods Iran has to threaten shipping
Iran does not have to even mine or bomb the strait. Them just declaring that they will hit is enough to stop traffic.
> Any military measure short of the full occupation of Iran will likely fail to reopen the straight
I highly doubt even this. Iranian drones have a range of about 1000 km. They can continue to block the strait, even with a ground force. Not to mention that ground forces blitzing through the whole territory will take at-least a year, if not more. That is enough time to plunge the whole world into a recession.
> At what point do these nations lose patience with the constant economic disruption and look for coercive measures to force the U.S. back to the table?
Most nations cannot coerce the US, at least not Trump. What they will most likely do is have secret or open deals with Iran to let their oil through, with a toll tax of course.
Who would they have sent if they were serious?
Marco Rubio, who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate with a pretty explicit expectation that he would be the adult in the room for this kind of crisis. But he was too busy watching UFC with the President to attend or even monitor the negotiations.
To the surprise of no one.
https://archive.is/gWW5N
The negotiatons can be considered a big success because Israeli leaders did not order the murder of the negotiators this time. This will open doors for more realistic negotiations in the future.
Not really surprising to me. Neither side had really backed down from their conflicting demands, at least publicly (albeit keeping track of what trumps public position is, is basically impossible). Maybe something different was being said privately, but it really seemed unlikely a deal would be reached.
Not to mention the constraints US is under from its partners. Even if US wants to wrap things up and is willing to give Iran whatever it wants to get that, i can't imagine that gulf countries would be thrilled by iran essentially taxing their oil exports, and Israel seems pretty intent on finishing off Hezbollah. USA might have significant influence among its partners, but they aren't its puppets and are unlikely to go along with plans significantly against their own interests just because america said so.
JD Vance will find himself under the proverbial bus in 3, 2, …
Why? You think Iran will assassinate him? Trump obviously didn't have high expectation about the agreement in the first place. The US has been sending more troops and ships to ME nonstop. They didn't go to Pakistan in good faith (neither did Iran, I guess.)
Because by not getting a deal he made Trump look bad - and Trump would thus fire him(in the US to throw someone under the bus means to assign blame and punish someone else)
But Vance is the vice president and Trump can't fire him? He is not Secretary of State.
And I really don't think Trump looks worse than before. If they reached an agreement that allows Iran to take tolls for all the tankers passing, that would look really bad.
He’s the one guy Trump can’t fire though
He doesn't want to fire him. He wants to scapegoat him and make him unelectable in 28.
Genuinely interested: why not? Thanks!
VP is an elected official, not appointed by the president.
President could sideline him, but his role in the senate cannot be removed except by impeachment.
Because he is the elected vice president, he answers to the people, not the president.
Some say he answers to Pete Thiel
The Vice President is an elected official just like the President. He doesn’t work for the President and he’s not subordinate, he just has almost no power.
The only way to remove a VP is death or impeachment. I suppose the President could induce death, but that’s not really firing per se.
https://archive.is/gWW5N
Hope yall are ready for the decade of terrorist attacks against US.
That was expected. The previous article in the NYT about internal opposition against Trump's war policies, which specifically protected Vance, was a farce and probably a deliberate fake leak.
Vance has a big mouth about isolationism, but will follow the permanent bureaucracy like anyone else. The Iran war was on the agenda since 1979, they just needed someone crazy enough to do it when Russia is weakened.
The agenda 2025 wants to hurt Europe and China, so that goal is reached by a prolonged war. The EU leaders are children who are too stupid to negotiate on their own. The EU press is owned by pro-US corporations, like Springer in Germany that makes journalists sign an agreement that "Atlanticism" is one of the core values of "Die Welt" and "Bild". Previously Green party anti-war magazines like TAZ have gone neocon. Unfortunately, "Atlanticism" is a one way street.
We are now in the situation that the US threatens the EU to withdraw from NATO when it cannot even protect the Gulf States. The EU "leaders" nod fearfully and isolate themselves from all of Asia and the Middle East instead of negotiating on their own.
Negotiation was just a pretext for preparing ground troops. Netanjahu is calling the shots here. Not Trump who sent (his son in law) Kushner and Wittkoff to „negotiate“, Kushner, whose parents have hosted Netanyahu whenever he visited the US. And he doesn’t want the war to end. He wants to destroy Iran‘s industrial infrastructure. And while this war is not over, he and Israeli figures are hinting at their next target: Türkiye.
Why would you even agree to talks if your starting negotiation position is going to be so unreasonable, its pointless.
Attempting to deny a country security in the form of controlling their own water ways, controlling their own energy independence or holding a deterrent to prevent genocidal neighbours from attacking is simply wrong.
Gaza is the reservation for Arabs and Aryans
[flagged]
[flagged]
Are you talking about the US or Iran?