Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

[F.O.X]

Nope it is not. Your whole argument is just long and is completely out of the whole point of my topic. Sounds AI, but feel free to make it out however you want.

You frame your whole argument based on Iran, sticking on peace rather than engaging in further conflict.

You use the argument of Iran signing the MOU. But isn't that what Iran always was avoiding? Conflict? You frame it in such a way that Iran should remain quiet and accept its fate. Well unfortunately for you, Iran made a right choice because either way, US is going to use these time to rearm and restrategize. It's obvious.

Iran has always advocated for peace, but also put a disclaimer that it will retaliate. That is a smart way of balancing diplomacy and deterrence. Continue using deterrence and other people will starting hating you. That's international relations 101. So just because they are willing to negotiate, doesn't mean it's weak and accepting its position.

Oh. And to answer your final question. Iran will always have the leverage and it doesn't need time to lessen or increase it. Strait of Hormuz is just right by its side. It has a huge land. It has never squandered off any opportunity. In fact, they have avoided falling into US trap. They have done well. They also have time on their end, Trump and less than 2 months left to bring this war to a conclusion. Doesn't sound like Iran is in a disadvantageous position.

You are still arguing against a point I never made. I never said Iran should remain quiet or abandon deterrence. My point is that Iran failed to convert its strongest moment of leverage into a favourable political outcome.

And no, Iran’s leverage is not permanent just because the Strait of Hormuz is beside it. The US is now intercepting tankers and choking Iranian exports while Iran can do little but watch. So much for leverage that apparently never increases or decreases.

The US could use a ceasefire to rearm, but so could Iran. If negotiations were pointless, why did Iran sign the MoU, and why is Pezeshkian still offering reciprocal compliance?

Iran successfully avoided immediate surrender. The IRGC then mistook survival for superiority and squandered the advantage it had created.

 

[BananaRepublic]

You are still arguing against a point I never made. I never said Iran should remain quiet or abandon deterrence. My point is that Iran failed to convert its strongest moment of leverage into a favourable political outcome.

And no, Iran’s leverage is not permanent just because the Strait of Hormuz is beside it. The US is now intercepting tankers and choking Iranian exports while Iran can do little but watch. So much for leverage that apparently never increases or decreases.

The US could use a ceasefire to rearm, but so could Iran. If negotiations were pointless, why did Iran sign the MoU, and why is Pezeshkian still offering reciprocal compliance?

Iran successfully avoided immediate surrender. The IRGC then mistook survival for superiority and squandered the advantage it had created.

This “war” is proceeding exactly the way it can.

1. Iran has no choice but to take part in negotiations to keep Russia and China on side.

2. Trump doesn’t even honour treaties with allies so it’s naive to think he would against Iran. So, there’s no path to a negotiated settlement.

3. Iran’s only path is outlasting Trump. This may involve fake MoUs and cease fires to provide economic relief.

Those who think Iran should fight fire with fire don’t seem to understand the impact of massive disparities between military spending.

And Trump would not hesitate to use nukes if Iran escalated. He is a narcissist who doesn’t care about the long term impact on USA. His ego and self interest Trumps everything.

No other US leader would continue this war because they know the long term consequences on USA. And that’s why no leader even contemplated a war with Iran.

Hence Iran needs to find a way to outlast Trump.

 

[Hayabusa]

You are still arguing against a point I never made. I never said Iran should remain quiet or abandon deterrence. My point is that Iran failed to convert its strongest moment of leverage into a favourable political outcome.

And no, Iran’s leverage is not permanent just because the Strait of Hormuz is beside it. The US is now intercepting tankers and choking Iranian exports while Iran can do little but watch. So much for leverage that apparently never increases or decreases.

The US could use a ceasefire to rearm, but so could Iran. If negotiations were pointless, why did Iran sign the MoU, and why is Pezeshkian still offering reciprocal compliance?

Iran successfully avoided immediate surrender. The IRGC then mistook survival for superiority and squandered the advantage it had created.

Your argument is based on assumption that it will be the strongest leverage it will ever get. What you failed to see is that it is indirectly holding the world hostage through oil consumption.

Despite more than 6 months of fighting, US is still not able to break that leverage, either through economic sanctions or military actions. Another point that you also failed to see is that Iran has time on its side, while Trump does not.

If Iran could wait for Carter to leave before negotiating for the release of hostages between 79 to 81, I don't see why it cannot do it this time around again. History has a way of repeating itself, and as long as Iran has not surrendered, the opportunity to convert it into a favourable political outcome is always there.

Signing an MoU doesn't exactly means weakness, the way you are trying to frame it. Iran is utilising both diplomacy and deterrence to achieve its goals here. No country survives a conflict relying on just one method. The only difference is Iran was smart enough to know that US will never hold onto it's end of the deal, and will go back on it. Time in the end was right, and US did call off the negotiations.




So did Iran lost a lot of leverage? No because it was bound to happen with Trump at the helm. He is not trustworthy and eventually Nethanyahu would be the one advising him to call off.

 

[Immortals]

 

[Immortals]

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Wednesday that two oil tankers exploded after hitting mines in the Strait of Hormuz

Fake News. They said the same thing yesterday as well. Everytime IRGC has said a tanker hit a mine, it’s been a lie. Both sides are just lying randomly at this point.

 

[Immortals]

 

[Immortals]

 

[F.O.X]

Your argument is based on assumption that it will be the strongest leverage it will ever get. What you failed to see is that it is indirectly holding the world hostage through oil consumption.

Despite more than 6 months of fighting, US is still not able to break that leverage, either through economic sanctions or military actions. Another point that you also failed to see is that Iran has time on its side, while Trump does not.

If Iran could wait for Carter to leave before negotiating for the release of hostages between 79 to 81, I don't see why it cannot do it this time around again. History has a way of repeating itself, and as long as Iran has not surrendered, the opportunity to convert it into a favourable political outcome is always there.

Signing an MoU doesn't exactly means weakness, the way you are trying to frame it. Iran is utilising both diplomacy and deterrence to achieve its goals here. No country survives a conflict relying on just one method. The only difference is Iran was smart enough to know that US will never hold onto it's end of the deal, and will go back on it. Time in the end was right, and US did call off the negotiations.




So did Iran lost a lot of leverage? No because it was bound to happen with Trump at the helm. He is not trustworthy and eventually Nethanyahu would be the one advising him to call off.

No, my argument is not that this was the strongest leverage Iran could ever theoretically obtain. It is that Iran had usable leverage at that moment and failed to convert it into gains. Since then, its oil exports have collapsed, its tankers are being intercepted and the US is operating around Hormuz while Iran largely watches. That is a measurable loss of leverage, not an assumption.

The Strait allows Iran to hurt the world, but closing it also cuts Iran’s own economic lifeline. Geography is permanent, usable leverage is not.

I never said signing the MoU showed weakness. I said it proves Iran itself considers agreements and negotiations useful.

Iran may still eventually secure a favorable outcome, but “it has not surrendered” is not proof that it has lost nothing. Survival, leverage and victory are three different things.

 

[Immortals]

Another day….Another threat by Rezaei

 

[ShapurII]

The Iranian currency has depreciated against USD by another 20% in less than 2 weeks.

And nobody in Iran is saying anything. They want to make people angry

I am sure Iran will survive low intensity warfare for 2 years, but I am 100% sure Iran will not survive economically like this before Trump leaves the office.