flown-the-coop said:

---

Trump says Saudi and others joining the Abraham Accords may or may not be condition or working a deal with Iran. Just thinks its a good idea and they really really should do it, maybe it should be a demand of hours, but seems a bit uncommitted.

Says why regime change was not the goal, its happened with removal of previous regime, the replacement regime, and now working with the remnants of the 3rd regime that seem to be "smarter" and "more agreeable".

---

And who hold no power in Iran.

MagnumLoad said:

---

It is past time to give them a hard deadline to agree to our two main terms; no nukes and no control of the strait.
No conditionals and non negotiable, 72 hours or we destroy you. It is ridiculous that we have not already done that. Nothing else gets negotiated until those two terms are agreed to unconditionally. I am losing trust in Trump for letting this drag out while we pay high energy prices. Take their oil to pay our expenses.

---

Why?

The cost-benefit of slightly higher energy prices (historically) vs long term security for the ME region and SoH certainly seems to be worth the concept of playing this out for what we believe to be the best outcome.

But outside of internal American politics, there is really no pressing need for Trump to cut anything less than the most optimum deal. In fact, he said so today and that he is not concerned about the midterms.

MagnumLoad said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Trump says Saudi and others joining the Abraham Accords may or may not be condition or working a deal with Iran. Just thinks its a good idea and they really really should do it, maybe it should be a demand of hours, but seems a bit uncommitted.

Says why regime change was not the goal, its happened with removal of previous regime, the replacement regime, and now working with the remnants of the 3rd regime that seem to be "smarter" and "more agreeable".

---

And who hold no power in Iran.

---

Not sure I follow.

the "more agreeable" or moderates in Iran have zero power to make and enforce a deal we can accept. And we should not negotiate anything with Iran until we have the nuclear fuel and centrifuges, and the strait is open. Iran should not be given any incentives to implement that, other than to avoid destruction.

Iran is twice the size of Texas, it has a population of 90 million, and its leadership is intentionally decentralized to prevent just what you're describing (a decapitation campaign). We can blow up a lot of crap but destroying them is probably impossible

The deal is probably gonna suck, but honestly? That might be okay. This mini war 1) let us bomb the shiz out of Iran for 5 weeks, which legitimately set back their nuclear program, 2) is forcing the middle east to take more responsibility for Iran (they're all part of the talks), 3) is pressuring all the countries over there to build more underground pipelines and decouple from Hormuz (major power shift), and 4) does NOT have to be the end. We can go bomb Iran again in 18 months if we have to.

A halt under mediocre terms that nevertheless sets things on a better path for the USA is not as bad as it looks on its face.

It does not matter how large the country is geographically. It is small in infrastructure. We can destroy their highway and rail bridges, all airports and airfields, all fuel supply points for power generation, and all ports with air power in less than a week. Isolate them completely in the dark, and don't shrink due to misplaced compassion, which is what they have counted on.

Get this over with now, and don't just delay. We are there now. The last thing we should do is a "deal" where we have to go back in 18 months or 18 years.

MagnumLoad said:

---

It is past time to give them a hard deadline to agree to our two main terms; no nukes and no control of the strait.
No conditionals and non negotiable, 72 hours or we destroy you. It is ridiculous that we have not already done that. Nothing else gets negotiated until those two terms are agreed to unconditionally. I am losing trust in Trump for letting this drag out while we pay high energy prices. Take their oil to pay our expenses.

---

You don't think they thought of that already? It's obvious that the US is unable/unwilling to conduct larger scale operations which is what would be required to take all of their oil.

Do what I propose above, and taking their oil is easy. Just have the damn will to do it.

We can do it in phases, with each phase getting worse, until they capitulate unconditionally, which is what Trump originally called for.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Haleyscomet50 said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't care about Israel.

---

Then why do you talk about them in every post?

Quote:

---

Why are these countries who only issues is they are within Iranian missiles range have to bend knee to Isreal. In doing so throwing the Palestinians in the west bank under the bus.

---

Interesting that you think any possible resolution for Mideast violence is a bad thing. Wouldn't having a base agreement among all parties in the area make moving forward with cooperation be a positive thing, or are you more interested in keeping a possible path of war between at least someone in the area and Israel?

---

Any agreement under duress will not hold. Do you think making them sign so whatever gas or oil these countries produce won't be attacked by Iran is good faith negotiating? These other countries did nothing but exist in the middle east. They have never agreed to Accords before why should they have to now. They are sovereign nations they get to pick what they want. We don't control them.

It only opens up more extreme views from the populace and in each country will automatically create a enemy within. I don't think it's a good strategy for long term peace.

---

The previous signers of the Abraham Accords did not do so under duress. Saudi Arabia was very close to signing under Trump 1.0 and months ago they signaled their willingness to join on.

And no we don't control them, but we do influence them as they influence us. We even have a term for such interactions… it's called "diplomacy".

It takes an incredible bias or navet to believe we are making Arab countries bend a knee to Israel.

Question - Are you familiar with what the Abraham Accords are and how the first deal was negotiated? Are you aware these discussions have been ongoing for a long time and have progressed steadily long before we kicked up dust in Iran a few months ago?

---

Just basing it on Trump saying it's mandatory. It's not diplomacy when the choice is get bombed by Iran or sign the Accords.

MagnumLoad said:

---

the "more agreeable" or moderates in Iran have zero power to make and enforce a deal we can accept. And we should not negotiate anything with Iran until we have the nuclear fuel and centrifuges, and the strait is open. Iran should not be given any incentives to implement that, other than to avoid destruction.

---

And if they say "no"?

Haleyscomet50 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Haleyscomet50 said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't care about Israel.

---

Then why do you talk about them in every post?

Quote:

---

Why are these countries who only issues is they are within Iranian missiles range have to bend knee to Isreal. In doing so throwing the Palestinians in the west bank under the bus.

---

Interesting that you think any possible resolution for Mideast violence is a bad thing. Wouldn't having a base agreement among all parties in the area make moving forward with cooperation be a positive thing, or are you more interested in keeping a possible path of war between at least someone in the area and Israel?

---

Any agreement under duress will not hold. Do you think making them sign so whatever gas or oil these countries produce won't be attacked by Iran is good faith negotiating? These other countries did nothing but exist in the middle east. They have never agreed to Accords before why should they have to now. They are sovereign nations they get to pick what they want. We don't control them.

It only opens up more extreme views from the populace and in each country will automatically create a enemy within. I don't think it's a good strategy for long term peace.

---

The previous signers of the Abraham Accords did not do so under duress. Saudi Arabia was very close to signing under Trump 1.0 and months ago they signaled their willingness to join on.

And no we don't control them, but we do influence them as they influence us. We even have a term for such interactions… it's called "diplomacy".

It takes an incredible bias or navet to believe we are making Arab countries bend a knee to Israel.

Question - Are you familiar with what the Abraham Accords are and how the first deal was negotiated? Are you aware these discussions have been ongoing for a long time and have progressed steadily long before we kicked up dust in Iran a few months ago?

---

Just basing it on Trump saying it's mandatory. It's not diplomacy when the choice is get bombed by Iran or sign the Accords.

---

He was very open minded on this during the cabinet meeting this morning. You should find a clip and watch it.

And it most certainly is diplomacy to offer a demand and a consequence if demand is not met.

For this, Trump is saying he is doing them a massive, multi-generational favor and in return they should strongly consider joining the Abraham Accords - which are beneficial for ALL parties.

MagnumLoad said:

---

the "more agreeable" or moderates in Iran have zero power to make and enforce a deal we can accept. And we should not negotiate anything with Iran until we have the nuclear fuel and centrifuges, and the strait is open. Iran should not be given any incentives to implement that, other than to avoid destruction.

---

Its not like they have anything close to a government right now, no leadership councils, no real division of responsibility anymore. People really, really need to understand that.

Heck, they have to use goat and camel couriers to sneak notes to the remnants of the Gay Ayatollah.

Trump, Rubio, Hegseth and Vance all in the cabinet meeting say nothing will be given to Iran. They have to give up the dust and their program before anything to them is provided.

Quote:

---

A halt under mediocre terms that nevertheless sets things on a better path for the USA is not as bad as it looks on its face.

---

Perhaps. But there are people in this country, heck, on this site, that will loudly proclaim that to be a complete failure

DeschutesAg said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

the "more agreeable" or moderates in Iran have zero power to make and enforce a deal we can accept. And we should not negotiate anything with Iran until we have the nuclear fuel and centrifuges, and the strait is open. Iran should not be given any incentives to implement that, other than to avoid destruction.

---

And if they say "no"?

---

I already gave that answer.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Quote:

---

A halt under mediocre terms that nevertheless sets things on a better path for the USA is not as bad as it looks on its face.

---

Perhaps. But there are people in this country, heck, on this site, that will loudly proclaim that to be a complete failure

---

Trump covered that yesterday. And he's absolutely right. As you point out, even people here that would cheer for Iran over Trump. Truly deranged.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Haleyscomet50 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Haleyscomet50 said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't care about Israel.

---

Then why do you talk about them in every post?

Quote:

---

Why are these countries who only issues is they are within Iranian missiles range have to bend knee to Isreal. In doing so throwing the Palestinians in the west bank under the bus.

---

Interesting that you think any possible resolution for Mideast violence is a bad thing. Wouldn't having a base agreement among all parties in the area make moving forward with cooperation be a positive thing, or are you more interested in keeping a possible path of war between at least someone in the area and Israel?

---

Any agreement under duress will not hold. Do you think making them sign so whatever gas or oil these countries produce won't be attacked by Iran is good faith negotiating? These other countries did nothing but exist in the middle east. They have never agreed to Accords before why should they have to now. They are sovereign nations they get to pick what they want. We don't control them.

It only opens up more extreme views from the populace and in each country will automatically create a enemy within. I don't think it's a good strategy for long term peace.

---

The previous signers of the Abraham Accords did not do so under duress. Saudi Arabia was very close to signing under Trump 1.0 and months ago they signaled their willingness to join on.

And no we don't control them, but we do influence them as they influence us. We even have a term for such interactions… it's called "diplomacy".

It takes an incredible bias or navet to believe we are making Arab countries bend a knee to Israel.

Question - Are you familiar with what the Abraham Accords are and how the first deal was negotiated? Are you aware these discussions have been ongoing for a long time and have progressed steadily long before we kicked up dust in Iran a few months ago?

---

Just basing it on Trump saying it's mandatory. It's not diplomacy when the choice is get bombed by Iran or sign the Accords.

---

He was very open minded on this during the cabinet meeting this morning. You should find a clip and watch it.

And it most certainly is diplomacy to offer a demand and a consequence if demand is not met.

For this, Trump is saying he is doing them a massive, multi-generational favor and in return they should strongly consider joining the Abraham Accords - which are beneficial for ALL parties.

---

Which is it the mandatory you have to join or the diplomatic approach of today? The we don't need the strait or open the strait. You can't flip and flop this is big boy foreign policy he isn't buying a hotel. We spend 950 billion on defense to look strong not weak. Iran controls the strait they didn't before we attacked they are winning. They are holding the line they haven't changed Trump continues to change daily.

He has made more misteps in 2 months then he has in his first term combine. He has been caught lying and contradicting himself over and over just because the media hasn't held him accountable because they want action on Isreals behave eventually he will be held to task for this.

Haleyscomet50 said:

---

Which is it the mandatory you have to join or the diplomatic approach of today? The we don't need the strait or open the strait. You can't flip and flop this is big boy foreign policy he isn't buying a hotel. We spend 950 billion on defense to look strong not weak. Iran controls the strait they didn't before we attacked they are winning. They are holding the line they haven't changed Trump continues to change daily.

He has made more misteps in 2 months then he has in his first term combine. He has been caught lying and contradicting himself over and over just because the media hasn't held him accountable because they want action on Isreals behave eventually he will be held to task for this.

---

They do not control the strait and did not before. Or if they control if now, then they did before. Nothing we did provided them control of the strait. Not sure where that nonsense even comes from. Its not true and it makes no sense whatsoever.

What missteps? What lying and contradicting? The message from Trump on Iran has been the same for decades.

Oh, and of course Israel.

[Debating the political fallout of the Iran war is one thing. Spreading false information and trolling the board is another. Keep it to the former and avoid the latter when you return -- Staff]

A simple contradiction would be we don't need the strait then days later open the strait with a string of curse words. So he meant it. Which one did he mean? We don't care or open it? Is that not a contradiction?

Trump, with the assist from the Israelis, has taken out at least the top two levels of of the Islamic regime, destroyed their Air Force, destroyed their Navy, and taken out their nuclear program and most of their ballistic missile capability.

But the Islamists are good at propaganda. The left wing American media is the most powerful weapon they have left, and they are currently using it to good effect. It's sad but true.

Iranian president reportedly out, citing interference of IRGC military commanders.

The defeatists have concluded we are in a stalemate because "Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz."

What options are available to open the Strait of Hormuz?

bobbranco said:

---

The defeatists have concluded we are in a stalemate because "Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz."

---

Opening the SoH is important. The clock is ticking.

Quote:

---

What options are available to open the Strait of Hormuz?

---

Afaik, there are only 3 options: either open it by military force, or by negotiation, or by continuing the blockade and sanctions squeeze until things get so desperate it causes the regime to agree to our demands or the army and the populace rise up and overthrow the regime.

Options 2 & 3 are being tried. For now.

Maybe their food supply and no incoming money situation is dire.