Are Israeli concerns the axis around which the world must revolve? In any case they can keep busy ethnically cleansing south Lebanon and murdering Palestinian children.
Do you think only the Israelis are pissed about the Iranians funding the Houthis and Hezbollah?
The Saudis were at war with the Houthis for several years, Hezbollah assassinate Lebanese politicians and repeatedly starts wars that nobody else in Lebanon wants, which also includes intervening in the Syrian civil war on behalf of Assad and starving out Syrian villages. Ask the Syrians how they feel about Hezbollah.
Do you understand how escalation works? US policymakers have discussed this for literal decades at this point, I'm shocked that we have to reiterate this.
Neither America nor Israel are willing to put boots on the ground. The bombing campaign failed, the naval campaign did not secure the Strait of Hormuz, and the enriched nuclear material is not going anywhere. If the war continues to escalate, America and Israel will be directly blamed for the humanitarian consequences of desalinization, ammonia and nitrogen plants being attacked. They cannot alleviate these issues with a air war, so they have to sue for peace or commit to a real invasion. Thus, the escalation ladder entirely belongs to Iran, they decide what the US and Israel coalition bleed for.
It's why the US threatened civilian infrastructure; they ran out of leverage. The stated goals were not attained, the home front in Iran is not divided, the China/Russia support axis is not disrupted, and America's allies won't fight alongside them for Israel. It's over, this is the damage control phase for both sides.
Because it's becoming another Middle East quagmire which the American public has very little patience for, and it's bad for Wall Street, bad for prices at the pump, and bad for the global economy.
No, what I think it really tells you is that these just Iran's proposal. So far as I know, the US (and Israel) have not actually agreed to these.
I've seen several posts here saying that they have, but what I haven't seen is any evidence or links. Until I do, I reserve the right to believe that the US has not actually agreed to Iran's plan.
But my (grandparent) post was off. If these are Iran's proposed points, of course they're going to say that Israel stops attacking Hezbullah but that Iran is free to keep arming them.
If they would read the actual news the ceasefire is contingent on immediate opening of the strait. That’s the deal, open the strait and the bombing stops while we negotiate over the next two weeks.
By that logic, the US and Israel should have never offered a ceasefire and stuck to the regime change narrative. Accepting a ceasefire shows that America was never serious about controlling the Strait, and passes the initiative back to the Iran/China axis instead of straining it through a joint blockade. The tactics make zero sense, considering the objectives laid out at the start.
It's been weeks of war, America should have something to show for it. Right now, Iran has successfully used America's offer as a way to muzzle Israel in Lebanon and muster their own strength with Russia and China. Even from a Zionist perspective, this is a terrible result.
Every state involved here is a sponsor of terrorism. If we had a real global liberal order all of their leaders would be in the Hague . There's only one directly doing genocide with expansionist ambitions, so I'm going to root against that one.
Are Israeli concerns the axis around which the world must revolve? In any case they can keep busy ethnically cleansing south Lebanon and murdering Palestinian children.
Do you think only the Israelis are pissed about the Iranians funding the Houthis and Hezbollah?
The Saudis were at war with the Houthis for several years, Hezbollah assassinate Lebanese politicians and repeatedly starts wars that nobody else in Lebanon wants, which also includes intervening in the Syrian civil war on behalf of Assad and starving out Syrian villages. Ask the Syrians how they feel about Hezbollah.
The fact that none of these were considered critical discussion points tells you just how desperate the US/Israel coalition is for a ceasefire.
It really does feel like the rescue op was a failed raid on Isfahan, and this is the Plan B.
Why would the US be desperate for a ceasefire?
Do you understand how escalation works? US policymakers have discussed this for literal decades at this point, I'm shocked that we have to reiterate this.
Neither America nor Israel are willing to put boots on the ground. The bombing campaign failed, the naval campaign did not secure the Strait of Hormuz, and the enriched nuclear material is not going anywhere. If the war continues to escalate, America and Israel will be directly blamed for the humanitarian consequences of desalinization, ammonia and nitrogen plants being attacked. They cannot alleviate these issues with a air war, so they have to sue for peace or commit to a real invasion. Thus, the escalation ladder entirely belongs to Iran, they decide what the US and Israel coalition bleed for.
It's why the US threatened civilian infrastructure; they ran out of leverage. The stated goals were not attained, the home front in Iran is not divided, the China/Russia support axis is not disrupted, and America's allies won't fight alongside them for Israel. It's over, this is the damage control phase for both sides.
Upcoming midterm elections and lack of public support for the war.
Lack of domestic support, lack of international support
the requirement for congressional approval if the conflict persists longer than 90 days from the first “military operation”
potential for escalation by various allies into a much more involved conflict
downstream impacts of Hormuz being impassable
among I’m sure several other reasons I’m not informed enough to point out.
One preference the US public seems to reliably deliver via elections is the desire for lower prices.
All those ships are needed for an easy win in Cuba.
Because it's becoming another Middle East quagmire which the American public has very little patience for, and it's bad for Wall Street, bad for prices at the pump, and bad for the global economy.
No, what I think it really tells you is that these just Iran's proposal. So far as I know, the US (and Israel) have not actually agreed to these.
I've seen several posts here saying that they have, but what I haven't seen is any evidence or links. Until I do, I reserve the right to believe that the US has not actually agreed to Iran's plan.
But my (grandparent) post was off. If these are Iran's proposed points, of course they're going to say that Israel stops attacking Hezbullah but that Iran is free to keep arming them.
It’s amazing to me to see the amount of people willfully ignorant in this war, and having extremely short memory.
In June we had the 12th day war with Iran, it also ended with a ceasefire which continued to negotiations which collapsed and here we are.
Now, a ceasefire again, and people already claiming that Iran has won and trump accepted their demands.
I’ve seen people saying at first that Iran didnt agree to the ceasefire and then saying that they won’t open the strait. Completely oblivious people.
2 replies →
If they would read the actual news the ceasefire is contingent on immediate opening of the strait. That’s the deal, open the strait and the bombing stops while we negotiate over the next two weeks.
1 reply →
By that logic, the US and Israel should have never offered a ceasefire and stuck to the regime change narrative. Accepting a ceasefire shows that America was never serious about controlling the Strait, and passes the initiative back to the Iran/China axis instead of straining it through a joint blockade. The tactics make zero sense, considering the objectives laid out at the start.
It's been weeks of war, America should have something to show for it. Right now, Iran has successfully used America's offer as a way to muzzle Israel in Lebanon and muster their own strength with Russia and China. Even from a Zionist perspective, this is a terrible result.
2 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Iran funding terrorism across Europe
Provide strong evidence or retract your statement.
6 replies →
Every state involved here is a sponsor of terrorism. If we had a real global liberal order all of their leaders would be in the Hague . There's only one directly doing genocide with expansionist ambitions, so I'm going to root against that one.
2 replies →
[flagged]
So resistance against genocide is bad but the genocide is fine? There are clear good and bad guys here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Burgas_bus_bombing
Good ol genocidal Bulgaria I guess huh?
Strongly disagree with the attack of course but it claims the bus was full of Israelis so it's quite targeted and not against Bulgaria.
2 replies →
Why would Iran agree to any of this?
So they don't get destroyed