Quote:

---

How would you actually know if that goal was accomplished though, other than to trust the President is telling the truth?

---

Hmmm. Let me think. Maybe, I don't know, how about "Iran acknowledges it"?

Quote:

---

You seem to trust him implicitly,

---

Baseless.

Quote:

---

so if he said we won and we're going home, would you not believe him?

---

See above.

Trump responds to silly war powers act demands (ahem, as some of us predicted);

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL: President Trump informs Congress he does NOT NEED any war authorization for Iran under the War Powers Act which he considers unconstitutional because hostilities ended when the ceasefire began
Trump told Speaker Johnson and Sen. Grassley he will CONTINUE positioning forces in the region as needed for national security
The DEMOCRATS just don't want Trump negotiating from a position of strength!
They are AIDING OUR ENEMIES

---

The Left and the media are already enraged over this latest Trump maneuver, but we'll just have to see in the upcoming days if there's anything they can do about it besides posting angry tweets. For now, at least, the president is snubbing his nose at their interpretation of the Act and his responsibilities under it and he didn't sound like a man who would undergo a change of heart anytime soon, even if hostilities do resume.

---

More at the link.

Funny how that happens. Financial reckoning for all underway.

We are relaunching this thread with some reminders.

#1 - This thread is not about other users, so if a post is about another user, the thread is likely getting derailed. If posts are littered with pronouns, there might be an issue with the post. Tread carefully.

#2 - This thread is for current political developments and news surrounding the conflict with Iran, including diplomacy and the political maneuvering of various involved countries. It is not a thread intended for all of your grievances regarding the U.S.-Israel relationship or theories on foreign influence past and present.

While discussing the political aspects of U.S. involvement or expressing opposition to the conflict is fair game, the discussion and debate should center on unfolding current events. Rehashing history and debating domestic political influences has certainly been done earlier in this thread, but it should be considered outside the central topic and every user has had their say in this regard. It can certainly be a topic of a thread where that is the framed discussion, but consider this a final warning. This thread should be moving along with the ongoing news of the day surrounding the conflict with Iran from a political standpoint, users will be moderated for derailing this thread and if large groups of users continue to derail and engage in ad hominem attacks, we will lock this down for good.

#3 - The other primary thread on Iran is reserved for discussion regarding military decisions and tactical outcomes. Essentially, its the discussion on the news and outcomes of the descisions that military commanders make, not politicians and diplomats. We recognize there is a gray area between politics and military action, and the moderators will do our best to navigate that. However, the distinction between these two threads should be clear.

#4 - If you have questions, please email us directly rather than posting them in these threads.

Thanks and Gig 'Em!

-Moderator Team

Thx staff. Americans at least see through the MSM programming and perceive us to be winning.

Poll: Majority in U.S. Think America Winning in War With Iran (Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll) April 23-26, 2026

74% think the U.S. is winning in the war with Iran, including 60% of Democrats, 91% of Republicans, and 70% of Independents. pic.twitter.com/6jHng5NCnO

— Mark Dubowitz (@mdubowitz) May 3, 2026

Quasi-conflict related, more C-17's have arrived in Beijing in advance preparation/logistical work for the Presidential trip (planned for the 14-15th this month). Trump had put off this trip pending the conflict winding down, so I think all rhetoric aside the administration is not planning to go kinetic again, in reality as they want to execute the Beijing visit (and associated announcements surely). Fairly Chinese spin:

Quote:

---

The long-delayed summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping is finalised for 14-15 May 2026 when Trump travels to Beijing. The summit was originally scheduled in March 2026 but delayed because the US got embroiled in its war against Iran by aligning with Israel, thereby rattling the world energy market and the strategic chokepoint the Strait of Hormuz hogging the limelight. Trump wants to seek Beijing's cooperation to press Tehran to accept a ceasefire proposal. The President and first lady Melania Trump also plan to host Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, for a White House visit later this year. Despite confrontational statement, sometimes contradictory too, coming both from Washington and Tehran, Trump's visit could signal an endgame of the conflict before he embarks on his journey to Beijing.
...
China watchers see the visit as an opportunity to build on a fragile trade truce between the two superpowers. But the more important issue that has cropped up is how to arrive at a consensus to end the war on Iran. Trump has been putting pressure on China and other nations to send warships to secure access to Middle Eastern oil. NATO member states are divided on Trump's demands and some allies reluctantly oblige.

The world shall keenly watch what would transpire at the high-level Trump-Xi talks, particularly as it marks a pivotal diplomatic moment as global tensions intensify and bilateral relations remain strained. Trump's visit to Beijing is going to be the first by a sitting US President to China since 2017, highlighting how rapidly evolving geopolitical crises are reshaping international diplomacy.

Washington would like to see the visit as a strategic opportunity to stabilise relations between the world's two largest economies at a time of heightened uncertainty. When Trump launched his tariff war against all trade partners of the US, as major two trade partners, US-China ties experienced almost immediate strain due to (a) prolonged trade disputes and tariff measures; (b) technology restrictions and supply chain decoupling; and (c) strategic rivalry across the Indo-Pacific region.

---

More at the link...they may meet several more times this year.

Thx staff and thx Nortex for getting us rolling again on this thread with the updates.

President Trump on Iran:

"Do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever, or do we want to try and make a deal? Those are the options." pic.twitter.com/Ja041IIFoP

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) May 1, 2026

"Deal or Finish them forever". What about a 3rd option of ending war, then negotiating a deal with current IRGC? That seems more politically beneficial here at home, albeit not the preferred option for Israel. It avoids escalation to ground invasion, which has obvious political blowback here in US.

MarvZindler said:

---

President Trump on Iran:

"Do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever, or do we want to try and make a deal? Those are the options." pic.twitter.com/Ja041IIFoP

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) May 1, 2026

"Deal or Finish them forever". What about a 3rd option of ending war, then negotiating a deal with current IRGC? That seems more politically beneficial here at home, albeit not the preferred option for Israel. It avoids escalation to ground invasion, which has obvious political blowback here in US.

---

There is not much to negotiate. They either lose the nuclear material and agree they'll never have a weapon, or we destroy them.

Obama may not like it, but he's not on America's side.

MarvZindler said:

---

"Deal or Finish them forever". What about a 3rd option of ending war, then negotiating a deal with current IRGC? That seems more politically beneficial here at home, albeit not the preferred option for Israel. It avoids escalation to ground invasion, which has obvious political blowback here in US.

---

Why is there a need for a 3rd option when "deal" is already one of the 2 options Trump is offering.

Can you expound on what you mean by "current IRGC"? The IGRC is not the political leadership of the country. They have the supreme leader dude, his council, the parliament, the army and a who lot of other stakeholders beyond the IGRC.

But ignoring that, what are the terms of your 3rd option 'other deal' and why would Israel automatically not prefer it?

And why are you set on the only path forward without a deal is escalation to ground invasion?

I'm actually not sure Iran even has the capability to agree to anything. I think that's why breaking them is an interesting approach. Maybe the power issue over there can get worked out when all things go to hell economically.

I say this as someone who would not have chosen to go in at all. I find myself agreeing with the approach we've taken right now. It opens up some interesting possibilities.

flown-the-coop said:

---

And why are you set on the only path forward without a deal is escalation to ground invasion?

---

Trump clearly said deal OR escalation. He has never implied deal OR de-escalation then deal. I think a ground invasion is a much more probable escalation path, than "finishing them forever". Thats it. A pretty simple point.

This topic has been referred to as the "escalation trap". Kind of a one way path, where the off ramp to de-escalation gets increasingly harder.

MarvZindler said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

And why are you set on the only path forward without a deal is escalation to ground invasion?

---

Trump clearly said deal OR escalation. He has never implied deal OR de-escalation then deal. I think a ground invasion is a much more probable escalation path, than "finishing them forever". Thats it. A pretty simple point.

This topic has been referred to as the "escalation trap". Kind of a one way path, where the off ramp to de-escalation gets increasingly harder.

---

You can have the opinion that a ground invasion is more probable escalation path, but that ignores many other factors I have already covered.

And when you say "de-escalation then deal", you mean the cease fire we were in for the past 30 days. So we tried Fobs "behind door #3" and Iran just told us to **** off today.

MarvZindler said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There is not much to negotiate. They either lose the nuclear material and agree they'll never have a weapon, or we destroy them.

---

So the red line is now back to nuke weapon and not an enrichment program?

It think thats a very critical distinction. Iran has agreed many times to no nukes, so no reason why they wouldn't now. It's the enrichment that seems to be where Trump is pushing, where his predecessors haven't the same way.

---

An enrichment program is a nuclear weapon program at the levels that have always been discussed/enforced. There is no civilian reason for enrichment beyond a very low level.

flown-the-coop said:

---

You can have the opinion that a ground invasion is more probable escalation path, but that ignores many other factors I have already covered.

---

I think you keep ignoring that the only escalation path Trump has mentioned in last couple days is "finishing them forever". There is probably misalignment on what that means to you, and I.

I take that as the "ending of a civilization" type of action he referred to on Easter. Maybe you consider it something else. My point is that a ground invasion is a more probable outcome than "finishing them forever." Thats a rational non-partisan take.

*Edit-just saw there is another new "exit strategy" thread. Maybe thats a better place to continue this escalation/de-escalation topic.

Quote:

---

What about a 3rd option of ending war, then negotiating a deal with current IRGC?

---

Non-starter. There is nothing to negotiate.

Negotiation as you've put out this third option is how you get a defeat, which of course liberals will proclaim from the rooftops as the greatest thing ever, given their hatred of both Trump and the US.

No other option is worth discussion. The Iranian regime cannot be allowed to develop and possess nuclear weapons. The IRGC seems unwilling to accept this fact, so regardless of how it hits libs in the feels, that unwillingness should lead to their deaths. And if the United States has to go into Iran to retrieve the uranium, then so be it - no "deals" with Russia or any of that kind of obvious ploy to keep the uranium.

The Daily Telegraph editorial comes out in support of supporting the US:

Trump deserves our support on Hormuz

sts7049 said:

---

"finishing them forever" is not an actual viable option

---

Exactly, which is why war is no longer a thing that should happen.

When you do stuff like this Not a War in Iran, the ONLY outcome is the waste of billions/trillions of dollars, endless propaganda proclaiming victory by both sides, and a guarantee of terrorist attacks here in America. Warhawks ensure defeat either way yet again.

FWTXAg said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

"finishing them forever" is not an actual viable option

---

Exactly, which is why war is no longer a thing that should happen.

When you do stuff like this Not a War in Iran, the ONLY outcome is the waste of billions/trillions of dollars, endless propaganda proclaiming victory by both sides, and a guarantee of terrorist attacks here in America. Warhawks ensure defeat either way yet again.

---

Arguably, this particular war aside...this is a short-sighted comment to say the least.

NEW: Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is traveling to Beijing today to meet his Chinese counterpart. pic.twitter.com/IFe4wZeIVS

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 5, 2026

Reminder that Trump will be in Beijing in a week and a half.

Trump:

And I think it’s better to get along with China than it is to fight with China. And they feel the same thing.

And don’t kid yourself — they watch what happened in Venezuela. They watch what happened in Iran, because militarily Iran is essentially over. pic.twitter.com/n4gUM2OWk1

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 5, 2026

I have no prediction as to which way China will bend on this. They are dependent on ME oil/gas, but traditionally like the mullahs terrorizing the region at will. Aragchi has in the past two weeks gone to Oman, Moscow, Islamabad (repeatedly) and now Beijing, making clear the regime's desperation to maintain some semblance of alliances.

China's economy has been on the rocks for a year with tariffs/now this conflict and you'd think they would prefer all this to settle down.

The ongoing narrative that Iran's oil storage will fill up ASAP and cause production to shutter is wrong. If we look back to the Trump 1.0 era, Iran scaled back production to just under 2Mbpd. Fact is that they can refine that entire amount of oil just for domestic consumption. https://t.co/RPbuIBLaeF pic.twitter.com/56y0WEIOqX

— TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) May 5, 2026

I know some do, but I never trust Zeihan's analyses. He has an ability to sound extremely well informed/reasoned to reach conclusions others don't, but he's rarely right, imho.

The other issue is 'how are the Iranians going to keep their already-decrepit oil fields productive?' I'm not sure they are even pulling that off, but if they are, and can use/refine all of that production that remains domestically (which they can't as at least two of their larger refineries were struck), it doesn't pass the smell test anyway because why would they be towing 20-year-abandoned tankers to Kharg island if it's not needed?

Thread on some of their challenges;

4/9 Iran and Qatar share South Pars/North Dome, the single largest gas field on earth. Qatar produces 18.5 billion cubic feet per day from its side. Iran produces 2 billion cubic feet per day from the same field. Qatar’s cumulative extraction since 2008 has been 2x Iran’s, not…

— Miad Maleki (@miadmaleki) April 29, 2026

9/9 Iran’s own parliament said it plainly. MP Ahmad Bashesh Ast Ardastani: “Shutting down our oil wells is not as simple as turning off a water tap.”Restarting shuttered wells would require billions of dollars, money Tehran does not have.

Even if sanctions are fully lifted…

— Miad Maleki (@miadmaleki) April 29, 2026

More at the thread.

To political for the war thread so I'll post here. They fired on our navy yesterday they bombed uae how is this not ending the ceasefire. This war is unwinnable short of boots on the ground the whole reason not to start in the first place. I guess it will be over when Trump says we won which he has did many times already. In reality and in the eyes of the world it will be a loss for the good guys.

Are we stronger do we look stronger before or after this? The argument to begin with was this war only helps Israel and here we are now Israel doesn't look bad only Trump and the United States.

Houston Lee said:

---

---

Hegseth says Project Freedom is separate and distinct from Epic Fury. So far, the Iranian attacks have been insignificant and under the threshold to violate the Epic Fury ceasefire.

Hegseth says Project Freedom is a "defensive" operation and is a temporary operation. Soon, the US will end Project Freedom and hand over to the international community to take over.

The "War Powers Act" clock is stopped. Epic Fury is on hold. Project Freedom is a separate operation and defensive in nature and does not start any War Powers clock.

Houston Lee said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

---

Hegseth says Project Freedom is separate and distinct from Epic Fury. So far, the Iranian attacks have been insignificant and under the threshold to violate the Epic Fury ceasefire.

Hegseth says Project Freedom is a "defensive" operation and is a temporary operation. Soon, the US will end Project Freedom and hand over to the international community to take over.

The "War Powers Act" clock is stopped. Epic Fury is on hold. Project Freedom is a separate operation and defensive in nature and does not start any War Powers clock.

---

What exactly is this "threshold"?

For the record.

Iran’s Historic Mistake

Carl von Clausewitz wrote that war is “the continuation of politics by other means.” President Trump grasped this from the start: Operation Epic Fury exists to stop Iran’s nuclear march and restore deterrence, not to pursue the familiar… pic.twitter.com/lFxlSIfsST

— James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) May 5, 2026

Great post. I don't want to paste the whole thing here, but here are 3 key paragraphs:

Quote:

---

Iran's mistake is that once Hormuz becomes structurally unreliable, the world builds around it. That means bypass corridors, revived pipeline politics, and urgent planning for routes linking Aqaba to Mediterranean outlets near Gaza and the long-stalled Basra-to-Aqaba pipeline. The old energy order is cracking. The UAE's OPEC exit signals cartel discipline giving way to national advantage under pressure.

Trump deserves credit, not European scolding. Operation Epic Fury struck thousands of targets, degraded Iran's offensive capabilities, and shattered assumptions that the West would absorb escalation without response. The administration acted while others lectured. It restored deterrence in the only language Tehran understands.

The larger lesson matters more. Secure natural-resource hard power is what the Western Hemisphere possesses in abundance. The United States, Canada, and the Americas command hydrocarbons, LNG, farmland, freshwater, critical minerals, and strategic depth on a scale import-dependent Europe and Asia cannot match. This crisis clarified, not weakened, the Americas structural position.

---

It's obvious we are winning which is why Democrats in DC are so apoplectic, even most of their adherents agree.

🚨 74% of Americans, which includes 91% of Republicans and 70% of Independents, say the U.S. is winning against Iran. 40% of Democrats said Iran is winning... pic.twitter.com/JC1Q8WDnSu

— Raylan Givens (@JewishWarrior13) May 4, 2026

It's all of it. But you know that.

Excellent post! I'm just amazed at how many politicians & think tank types hadn't grasped this from the very beginning. It's like the truly believed in "The End of History" lie.

I loved the ending!

Quote:

---

Quote: That is Epic Fury's real significance. Clausewitz wrote that "the political view is the object, war is the means." Trump understood that. Iran tried to weaponize geography, Trump turned the confrontation into a demonstration of who is exposed and who is not.

The Trump administration deserves far more praise than it has received, and history will likely judge that Iran's greatest miscalculation was not merely closing Hormuz, but revealing which powers still command the real sources of strength.

---

FWTXAg said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

"finishing them forever" is not an actual viable option

---

Exactly, which is why war is no longer a thing that should happen.

When you do stuff like this Not a War in Iran, the ONLY outcome is the waste of billions/trillions of dollars, endless propaganda proclaiming victory by both sides, and a guarantee of terrorist attacks here in America. Warhawks ensure defeat either way yet again.

---

Riight.... I am afraid we still have massively different worldviews at play around the world all backed by militaries. Until the world all sings kumbaya while beating bongo drums by the collective bonfire, war is going to happen. The reality is, the US flexing its muscles is one of the only things bringing stability (AKA less war) to the world.

FWTXAg said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

"finishing them forever" is not an actual viable option

---

Exactly, which is why war is no longer a thing that should happen.

When you do stuff like this Not a War in Iran, the ONLY outcome is the waste of billions/trillions of dollars, endless propaganda proclaiming victory by both sides, and a guarantee of terrorist attacks here in America. Warhawks ensure defeat either way yet again.

---

Welp you solved it. We just need to ask the psychos in charge of countries that want the US destroyed to pretty please not try and attack us. Brilliant strategy.

Quote:

---

why war is no longer a thing that should happen.

---

Given that war has been a constant in the course of human history, I believe this applies: