I mean, as much as I don’t like the Iranian government, put yourselves in their position. You have the US and Israel literally leveling the equivalent of Balfour or the White House and taking out other government officials in a decapitation strike that failed, but killed off all of the moderates. The government is then replaced by hardliners who see this attack as existential. You have little to lose at this point, so you go for broke.

Since the US seems unwilling to put boots on the ground, cannot form a coherent reason for any of this and is lead by a man who is unable to accept that he can commit errors, it degrades into a war of attrition and, in the case of Trump, influence peddling since it is clear that Israel and the Saudis would like to see Iran wiped off the map and all Trump cares about is how he can internalize it as yet another reason why he is a victim and entitled to the Nobel Peace Prize.

IMHO, I think there is tremendous pressure to, at the very least restore the Strait of Hormuz as an international waterway not subject to Iranian control or tolling, but that’s an after-the-fact thing. I think Trump simply thought it would be an easy win and play well on TV. I suspect what will happen is the US pays a massive indemnity/bribe to Iran, Iran agrees to not contest control of the Strait of Hormuz and the US looks like morons which Trump will internalize as a win that nobody will believe except himself.

Although, it seems like the markets have started to get a sense of this as well and are not so swaying.

For two weeks, you're going to have to consult with Iran to get through the straits.

What people say in either direction is not a reflection of what happens, it's what they want to say, and have some cohort believe happened.

This is for domestic consumption. As will the WH reports be, facing the US domestic audience.

Me either. Now one must ask who gains most from time. Israel, America or Iran.

1. U.S. commitment to ensure no further acts of aggression

2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz

3. Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights

4. Lifting of all primary sanctions

5. Lifting of all secondary sanctions

6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran

7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran

8. Payment of damages to Iran for loss in the war

9. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region

10. Cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon

Which is much different.

[0] https://english.news.cn/20260408/dd8df6148df94252aaa1d3fbb59...

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/joint-comprehensive-p...

Key Aspects of the JCPOA: Enrichment Limits: Iran capped uranium enrichment at 3.67% for 15 years.

Centrifuge Restrictions: Reduced operating centrifuges to 5,060 IR-1 machines for 10 years.

Stockpile Restrictions: Limited enriched uranium stockpile to 300 kg for 15 years.

Facility Redesign: Redesigned the Arak heavy water reactor to prevent plutonium production and converted Fordow into a research center.

Monitoring: The IAEA receives enhanced access and monitoring capabilities.

Sanctions Relief: UN, EU, and US nuclear-related sanctions were lifted, restoring Iranian oil sales and banking access.

My guess is that they know good and well all the marine landing craft are going to get smoked and are using a false peace to preposition the ground invasion. The ridiculous James Bond scheme they tried to pull off which resulted in us destroying a dozen of our own aircraft and, quite probably a few of our own operators was a Hail Mary inspired by too much television. That failure leaves the administration with quite the dilemma. Surrender and call it a victory, which Israel will not allow. Or repeat the Syracuse Expedition as farse.

It’s a bit depressing to think about, but my hope is that these catastrophic failures will get false allies out of the decision loop and we proceed as a more peaceful and wiser country.

Frankly if Iran get nothing more than a complete lifting of sanctions this would be a massive climb down for the US.

I do not see that happening.

Market manipulation and the media largely forgetting about a certain set of files that reference many people in powerful positions.

Missiles are still flying so it’s hard to say who has really agreed to what.

I’ve heard rumors that Iran has agreed to dilute its highly enriched uranium so maybe the US could count that as a win. Given they’ve demonstrated sufficient conventional deterrence they may feel that they don’t need the nukes, especially if they can get some sort of Chinese backed security guarantee. But that might be a trial balloon or wishful thinking.

The best steelman argument[1] is that it was a failed gamble. The protests of a few months back (also the improbable success in Venezuela) made them think they could topple the regime. They couldn't.

It's been clear for weeks now that the US has lost this war. The only question was how long it would take Trump to disengage and what the trigger would be.

And the answers appear to be "two more weeks" and "when one plausibly genocidal gaffe went too far and fractured his domestic coalition".

[1] Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.

"What Causes Wars: An Introduction to Crisis Bargaining Theory", by William Spaniel, PHD and professor, specializing in game-theory and specifically crisis bargaining theory: https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA

that's the price of "freedom".

both sides get to save face - Trump says they won, his cronies n himself got rich. Iran gets a better deal than before. Israel gets rid of US bases in the Middle East via Iran.

of course the poor and downtrodden get shifted - that never changes.

As far as the geopolitical consequences of all this, i think its still pretty unclear where the chips will fall, but whether a win or a loss for usa, i think the consequences of this war will be significant.

Fox News is still singing in chorus about the billion dollars payment to Iran by Obama.

It’s a bizarre situation in that US elections have such a huge impact on a world that has no say.

At that point, when J.D. Vance is inaugurated, he would be allowed to run and serve for 2 additional full terms (10 years total as president).

Before that, his partial term would count as a full term, and he could only run, win and serve one additional term.

This is all based on the 22nd Amendment, which established term limits.

JD is basically Peter Thiel's manchurian candidate, and some have claimed that it's the plan all along that Trump would probably not complete his term, leaving JD as the president and presumptive nominee for future terms.

Wait I think Trump dementia’d again

One could argue that this is a doing-something as opposed to a saying-something, and thus more substantive. Or perhaps people want some good news to believe in? I don't know - one can make up lots of just-so stories about these things (see paragraph 1).

If there are other good links, we can add them.

I foresee a possible relaxation of conditions on the strait by Iran while keeping their hand on the lever providing substantial leverage during any actual negotiations. I also note that it seems the US are considering Iranian demands - not the other way around. Even with that, Trumps' toughest negotiations may be with the Israelis.

The US used an order of magnitude more in Iraq, which had a third of the population, and a smaller and more geographically forgiving territory.

Ahh those titans of military stragegy.

Why is it hard map military targets while missiles are flying? Don't missile launches reveal targets? And I would assume that the mapping is mostly done via satellite, which aren't affected by missiles

Lol, under what definition?

Personally, I have a hard time seeing any good actors here.

But of all the actors, I kind of doubt Israel is in it for the money.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq had 500,000 troops, for a country smaller in area than Iran and with fewer people.

The current 50,000 US troops isn't going to do much against Iran as a whole.

The reality is making statements re. actions associated with committing war-crimes has left the US with no friends... except Israel.

The strait has been open for weeks for friendly countries' ships that pay Iran $2M per passage through their "toll booth", an unmined route through Iranian territorial waters.

This ceasefire appears legitimize that situation. If it holds, Iran is about to make huge amounts of money on top of sanctions relief.

How are they still firing missiles and downing aircraft?

Iran has more leverage at the end of this war than it did at the start. Iran has proven that it has the capability to catastrophically disrupt global economy.

Iran suffered a lot of losses in terms of people and widescale destruction of infrastructure.

But the US lost too, we come out of this war looking much weaker and more chaotic than we did going in, not to mention the amount of money we poured into it while accomplishing nothing (nothing we destroyed in Iran was a threat to us until we bombed them in the first place).

Win some lose some.

All the ships stuck in the Gulf probably didn't consider the threat impotent.

On the other side: what more can the US do? Target civilian infrastructure? There is no appetite for getting stuck with boots on the ground, and everyone (including Iran) knows this.

You're probably right that it won't a win for anyone. If some of the points includes removing sanctions from Iran, it might be a huge win -- for Iran, or at-least it's population.

You've been paying attention to what's happened over the last few weeks and you qualify that threat as impotent? That impotent threat basically brought the rest of the world to it's knees.

That's why it is crippling the entire world's economy and demanding concessions bigger than the status quo ante bellum, with the US powerless to stop it. Because it's no threat.

A nation can swarm an aircraft carrier with a 1000 drones, each costing about 40k USD. Only a few are needed to seriously damage the carrier. Not to mention ballistic missiles.

In this scenario, does a US massive, slow moving aircraft carrier possibly carrying hundreds of billions of assets really work ? Can the US meaningfully project power with these?

In this scenario, who holds more power or leverage ?

An aircraft carrier can project power within 500 miles. The idea is to use a few of these to knock out the air power of the opposing nation, basically airfields, missile stockpiles, factories, power infra, etc. And then drop in a ground invasion force.

Does this now work? I dont think so. 10 drones can be launched from the back of a truck.

* Which doesn't mean much nowadays: see Ukraine, and the perseverance of the Taliban who eventually got their way.

* Are you talking about now? Or last year when everyone was told that the nuclear program was obliterated? If it was then, why was there a second round of attacks in this year? And it's not like the existing stockpiles of enriched uranium vanished.

* As Ukraine has shown, you can have a defence industry in people's basements churning out 4M drones per year that can do a lot of damage.

* Yes, the past leadership was KIA. And new people were put in place who are more hardliner hawks than what was taken out. So how is a more hawk-ish regime a "win" for the US?

* An "impotent attack" that has kept several thousand ships sidelined in the Gulf? That has caused fuel (petrol, diesel, kerosene, LNG) prices skyrocket? That have caused helium (needed in chip manufacturing, MRIs, etc) prices to triple? If that's "impotent" I would hate to see effective.

They did everything they could in this war, didn't they, and apparently it didn't do too too much? (other than the economic damage of closing the strait, which seems to be what worked). But I think they could probably keep doing everything they've been doing still? (including controlling the strait).

2) Iran agrees to open the strait if they're not attacked.

What happened here is they caved under Trump's threat but they're going to make it look like they're opening the strait on their terms, while Trump will make it look like they're opening the strait on his terms (which actually makes more sense, because if they didn't open the strait we'd have probably started bombing them)

And Iran's military hasn't been destroyed, they still control the strait. How do you explain that if they don't have a military?

Their military capabilities are diminished in the short term, but if their ability to impose a toll on the Strait of Hormuz holds then that's a massive win for Iran in the medium/long term. A mere $2M per ship represents 10% of Iran's GDP. They would become the only country in the world to impose a toll on international waters, and they would have established a defensive deterrent almost as effective as having a nuclear bomb.

They took on the most powerful military ever seen and lived to tell the tale. It's hard to spin that as a loss for Iran.

2. Leadership KIA doesn't matter, IRAN has a decentralized leadership, not a top down one.

3. Military apparatus is intact, majority of missile cities are still operating, over 1M IRGC forces mobilized with many more men willing to sign up.

4. Strait of Hormuz is fully under control of IRAN, "impotent threat of attacking ships" (even though IRAN has much more power) is more than enough to control it.

6. No regime change, IRGC is stronger than ever

7. Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf

8. Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded (we'll see what the actual numbers are after CENTCOM releases them finally)

9. Sanctions lifted on Russia, helping them majorly profit. China is still collecting cheap oil.

10. Israel took heavy damage, losing many interceptors as well.

11. Brent 100$+ for 40 days, causing major global issues.

To be fair, US did manage to kill 170 kids on day 1 and bomb bridges, hospitals, universities and civilian areas.. so I guess that's a "win" for you?