US Perspective on the Iran - Israel / US War

Agreed.

Problem is, too many people hang their hats on Twitter posts based mostly on speculation or similar.

Even now, there seems to be some contradiction as to what is happening in the Strait. The President says vessels loaded with oil are now transiting the Strait while the UKTMO is reporting the blockade is still in effect until the agreement is signed on the 19th.

Which is it?
 
We've a lot of friends who live in FL. Scattered from Tallahassee all the way to the Keys.

I've not been to Tampa in 25 years.
Well in that case, its about time you show up for a tea and beach time, i guess your kids are all grown up, so no need for overpriced Disney trip.
 
Agreed.

Problem is, too many people hang their hats on Twitter posts based mostly on speculation or similar.

Even now, there seems to be some contradiction as to what is happening in the Strait. The President says vessels loaded with oil are now transiting the Strait while the UKTMO is reporting the blockade is still in effect until the agreement is signed on the 19th.

Which is it?

For me, it is best to see the damn thing finally signed, only then will I believe whatever the text of it actually says. By then, there will some clarity as to what is actually happening as well.

Till then, I am just dreading my next fill up. My last drive out to AZ half bankrupted me due to the gas alone (4500 miles). My next trip is coming up fast, so any drop in prices will be nice.
 
Yet Blas offers no analysis as to why.

He was also the same individual crowing that fertilizer prices are now back to pre-conflict levels. That doesn't help the US farmer now.
Raptor is talking almighty dollars and you are counting pennies.
 
Did Trump at least manage to extract a Guarantee from Iran that it recognises US claims Greenland 😊 , or was this war a complete loss?
 
What's interesting this time is that the United States and Iran simultaneously announced reaching an agreement.

Witch has intensified the debate about who won...the United States...or Iran.

So here is this series of analysis to break down the narrative away from the propaganda of both sides.

1-At the beginning, let me clarify for you what happened- Everyone was searching for an exit to end the war- The United States- Iran- The countries of the region" But everyone was going around in a closed circle..!." Why..!" Because trust is completely absent between the United States and Iran The matter is similar to two people between whom there is intense enmity and absolute lack of trust, and they want to exchange something precious One of them wants to recover the key to his house, and the other wants to recover his money If one of them asked the other: Give me the money first Then I will give you the key Both parties would refuse, the process would stop, and they would fail to reach an agreement Because trust between the two parties is extremely absent." For this reason, in order to establish trust between the two parties The mediating countries proposed signing a memorandum of understanding.

2-Well, how does a memorandum of understanding differ from a peace agreement?"." A memorandum of understanding is more like a non-binding paper legally Its primary goal is for the two parties to test each other and the extent of their seriousness about peace In other words, it's very quick and non-binding as well, whereas a comprehensive peace agreement requires months of complex technical negotiations A peace agreement needs approval and ratification by parliaments and congresses, and it's a political process that can sometimes be complicated and face objections As for a memorandum of understanding, it is signed immediately by the governments and enters into force directly.A memorandum of understanding is never legally binding Which gives each party the security that if they feel betrayed or that the other party is backing out.

3-Well, what are the conditions of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran...!." If you notice, there are those talking about Iran's victory..!" And there are those talking about the United States' victory and Iran's surrender..?.." But how do we reach the truth..!." When the negotiations between the United States and Iran were conducted through a Pakistani intermediary on the memorandum of understanding They made an interesting decision ... They stipulated to each other that the conditions be secret for the time being And they will not be displayed, at least for now And they may not be officially published until the official agreement is signed...!

4-Imagine when Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi conducted an interview with Iranian television.He refused to mention any of the conditions and said we will present them in due time.To the extent that it sparked protests where his name, Araghchi, was being chanted and they dubbed him a traitor.Even Trump, who can't stop blabbering, this time kept silent.And everything he leaked only talks about the nuclear deal and the mechanism for paying money to Iran.

5-Does this mean that no items from the Memorandum of Understanding have been leaked..!." Let us publish and explain to you what has been leaked up to this moment"" Up to this moment, the only Iranian leaks regarding the items are what Mehr News Agency leaked, which caused a commotion." So, what did Mehr News Agency leak regarding the items of the Memorandum of Understanding.- Mehr News Agency said in short-The United States will withdraw from Iran's surroundings and lift the naval blockade within 30 days And at the same time, the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened within 30 days In exchange for suspending the sanctions imposed on oil and petrochemical product sales, and granting Iran full access to its financial resources"Remember when this leak was published, Trump went mad and started cursing publicly And even Araghchi himself came out saying don't believe the leaks." So, what do the American leaks say about this matter." The United States says we originally imposed the blockade on Iran and that was because it closed Hormuz, so we blockaded it Therefore, when Iran opens Hormuz, we will lift the blockade, meaning for every step Iran takes, we will respond with a step." As for the issue of opening Hormuz within 30 days, the United States says this is a lie Hormuz, according to our agreement, will be opened on Friday after signing and for free and without fees" Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi said bluntly that Iran is not thinking of taking fees for passage in Hormuz But we will discuss imposing service fees with Oman." What does Araghchi's statement mean..!" From what can be understood, during the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, Iran will open the strait for free But before signing the peace agreement, service fees will be discussed on the strait with Oman, meaning it will not return to its previous state." As for the issue of paying money to Iran before signing.. the United States said we will not pay a penny before signing And we will return Iran's money in exchange for commitment.

6-Iranian leaks stated that the duration of the memorandum of understanding is sixty days. And this is what the United States actually confirmed.- Iranian leaks stated that the memorandum of understanding included an immediate cessation of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.- And this is what the United States confirmed - Iranian leaks stated - that the memorandum of understanding included a clause committing the United States to non-interference in Iran's internal affairs..?- American leaks say that this clause is as follows- Iran will stop funding violence in regional countries. And if Iran stops funding violence and halts its missiles and drones, Then America and its allies will respect its borders and sovereignty through an international monitoring mechanism.

7-Iranian leaks say -There is a clause that confirms the necessity for the United States and its allies to submit plans for the reconstruction of Iran valued at no less than 300 billion dollars..." The United States responded officially to this claim by saying that these are misleading news and that the memorandum of understanding does not originally include payments of money from Washington's treasury to Iran" And what the United States will do is as follows" In case Iran fulfills its nuclear commitments.The United States will allow Iran conditional access to its funds originally frozen abroad such as the 24 billion dollars. Additionally, the door will be opened in the future for international investments in Iran and its integration into the global economy.

8-Iranian leaks say The sanctions imposed on Iranian oil will be suspended, and the naval blockade will be lifted.The final agreement will exclusively address the fate of enriched materials and enrichment, easing of sanctions, and a plan to rebuild the Iranian economy..." The American leaks and the official narrative say- The United States will not grant Iran free access to its oil resources And everything is tied to Iran's performance That is, we will lift the naval blockade so your commercial ships can sail But your oil tankers will not be sold with full freedom, and your funds will not be released as cash,Unless we see concrete and tangible steps from you inside the nuclear reactors and through inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency within the 60-day period.

9-Well, what about the nuclear issue, which is the most important one?." According to the Iranian leaks, the discussion of the Iranian nuclear program will only take place in the final agreement, not in the memorandum of understanding.." For the United States, this issue is the most important.According to the public statements of U.S. officials,the memorandum of understanding included a clear and explicit clause in which Iran officially commits to not producing or possessing nuclear weapons or even purchasing them,and commits to stopping enrichment.And that lifting the sanctions and full access to Iranian funds will not happen absolutely upon signing the memorandum;rather, it will remain pending and conditional on the extent of Iran's progress in the technical negotiations,and its agreement to dismantle the infrastructure and dispose of the "nuclear dust."" Well, what about the missile dossier and the forces loyal to Iran in the region, or the axis of resistance?.." According to the Iranian leaks, this clause is not present in the memorandum of understanding. And according to the American leaks, these details are included in a clause of Iran's commitment to not supporting violence in the region in exchange for its territories and border integrity being respected."

10-Well, what is the American narrative presented by the leaks?"The American narrative states:Iran will immediately open the Strait of Hormuz. In exchange for lifting the imposed water blockade and returning trade movement to normal.Iran will stop funding violence to ensure the achievement of long-term peace,In exchange for everyone respecting its regional sovereignty as a long-term commitment protected by an international monitoring mechanism.So, Iran will do this... in exchange for the United States offering that." Iran will implement the commitments and actual steps in the field first,In exchange for the United States lifting the economic burdens, releasing the funds, and canceling the sanctions;The funds will not be granted merely upon signing the agreement, but only if it is actually implemented.As for the United States, Iran will dismantle its nuclear program and completely eliminate its infrastructure, in exchange for the removal of most economic pressures and its reintegration into the global economy.Iran will also officially hand over the enriched uranium to be destroyed on-site within its own territory first,Then shipped abroad, in exchange for Washington stopping treating it as a state sponsor of terrorism and starting to treat it as a normal country."Iran, regarding the nuclear file, says from the start that I am ready to dilute the enriched uranium, but inside From the start, I had no intention of making a nuclear weapon!I am enriching for civilian uses, and this is my natural right.I am enriching for civilian uses Because I need to use nuclear energy for power generation, agriculture, and medicine."The United States said to Iran:Since you do not intend to make a nuclear weapon and want Civilian uses, I have an idea, which is For you to end military use In exchange for the United States establishing a nuclear program for Iran under its supervision.

11-What has Iran achieved with an agreement like this..!.- It was able to preserve its regime- It was able to maintain the safety of its territories- Remember, before the war started, there were protests that claimed thousands of lives due to the economic conditions in the country And even Bazishkian's speech yesterday was quite intriguing As he said that the Iranians who supported the regime will be deeply disappointed because of the economic situation- Meaning that if the normalization of the situation continues in its state of neither peace nor war And the siege continues... then the Iranians, even those who supported the regime, will feel frustrated
And this means that the Iranian government also needs an agreement that allows it to sell its oil and return its funds Of course, this doesn't mean that the United States isn't suffering On the contrary, what happened with the closure of Hormuz caused an energy price surge in the United States and sparked public anger against Trump.Meaning that the matter is akin to two people biting each other's fingers And these two people started screaming and stopping"- As the United States also gained from the agreement- According to Trump, it is a better deal than Obama's agreement- The United States will end Iran's nuclear dream project with this agreement And if the uranium is removed or destroyed and Iran's nuclear facilities are shut down, then this is a five-star agreement as far as Trump is concerned.- And who knows, perhaps Iran will transform into an allied state after being integrated into the global economy.

12-Who is the winner in the US-Iran agreement?.- In fact,in my opinion, an agreement like this was designed on the basis that each party should feel that they lost a little and gained a little"." That is, each party made concessions in exchange for gains"." The United States wants to stop the war, and Iran does too And the Gulf countries and the region want to stop this war for the sake of maintaining stability in the region. Turkey is shouting at the top of its voice for the war to stop The entire world is harmed by this war and wants to stop it, except for a few countries.

13_"There's a big loser if such an agreement happens who doesn't want the war to stop Look at what the Israeli opposition leader said To understand why Israel is seeking to sabotage the agreement Netanyahu sold the Americans a highly optimistic scenario Without presenting them with the real risk map Which has caused them to lose trust in him In the middle of the war, and he also failed to form a professional specialized team to deal with the various factions within the U.S. administration Netanyahu failed to convince the Americans to bomb Iranian oil and energy facilities And he didn't settle this file in advance, just as he completely failed to convince them to include the ballistic missiles file in the agreement Or even to bring it to the negotiating table He underestimated the importance of freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz For even though the possibility of closing the strait was raised before the war, he didn't conduct any serious discussion about it And similarly, he pushed the Kurdish plan without calculating the expected Turkish reaction and the extent of Erdoğan's influence in Washington And he didn't take into account the repercussions of rising oil prices in the United States Just a few months before the congressional elections As he completely ignored the danger of lifting sanctions and injecting tens of billions of dollars into the Iranian economy under the supervision of the Revolutionary Guard He overlooked the possibility of Iran bombing energy facilities in Gulf countries And failed to leverage Israel's relations with the Gulf states to draw them toward a joint military alliance In addition to his failure to rally global public opinion in support of a renewed war between democracies and fundamentalist dictatorship And on the Lebanese front, he appointed a negotiating team of extremely low-ranking officials to manage talks with the Lebanese government Which prompted the U.S. administration to pull the entire Lebanese file out of Israel's hands And in the midst of this war, he replaced the head of the National Security Council and the head of Mossad, while he didn't dare to replace Dermer as his chief advisor, reflecting the absence of a competent professional team capable of managing this crisis professionally He continues to repeat his famous phrase to everyone We have changed the face of the Middle East But the bitter truth is that because of neglect and arrogance and the absence of a professional team and personal calculations He has indeed changed it, but for the worse.This situation can be fixed and must be fixed, and Netanyahu Is no longer capable of doing so, but we are the ones who will do it and set things right.

14-After the signing of the agreement, the Hebrew newspaper Maariv leaked news stating that Netanyahu informed U.S. President Trump that he will not withdraw the Israeli army from Lebanon.." Yesterday, the Turkish Foreign Minister and the Turkish President issued simultaneous statements in which they indirectly hinted that attention should be paid to Israel's role during the next sixty days, as it will seek to sabotage the agreement" And Netanyahu is trying to work on sabotaging such an agreement through the Lebanese front...!- He also has a line of defense or a last chance of defense, as he has significant influence in Congress, and if any agreement is passed there he may work to obstruct it through the Jewish lobby." But Netanyahu is not alone in seeking to thwart the memorandum of understanding as there is a faction and officials in Iran, most prominently Nabouyan Kharaj who came out publicly against the agreement, considering it a humiliating surrender.

15-And finally, we are faced with a memorandum of understanding lasting sixty days and not a peace agreement.No one knows what will happen during these sixty days.- Will Netanyahu succeed in bringing war back to the region?- Will the hard line faction in Iran sabotage the peace agreement?- Will disagreements between Iran and the United States resurface again during the peace agreement negotiations..?.." Up to this moment, no one knows the answer to these questions..." But what we know and hope for is that our region needs peace and needs to stop the wars..." For even the worst kinds of peace remain better than war..!..

" Here we reach the end, I leave the comment to you..!

@perde_arkasi1
 
US President Donald Trump said that many oil-laden ships have begun exiting the Strait of Hormuz

Trump wrote in a post on the Truth Social platform: "The ships, many of them loaded with oil, have begun moving to exit the Strait of Hormuz. The ships are taking a southern passage that enjoys a high level of safety and protection"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I don't know about the rest of the country but I don't think gas prices here in SoCal will ever go down to pre-war prices.
 
In-Depth Vision

Dennis Ross, the former U.S. envoy and one of Washington’s foremost Middle East experts, wrote an article titled “An Agreement That Could Leave Iran Fatally Weakened,” in which he argues that Iran may appear today capable of wresting some gains from the war, but the real challenge for the regime will begin after the war ends, not during it.

Ross believes that Iran discovered during the war two strategic pressure cards it had not previously used in this manner: disrupting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and targeting energy facilities in Gulf countries, which gave it the ability to influence the global economy and impose itself at the negotiating table despite the military strikes it endured.

In contrast, he emphasizes that Iran suffered massive losses in its military capabilities, its defensive system, and its military-industrial base, in addition to enormous economic damage at a time when the Iranian economy was already suffering from deep structural crises.

The article criticizes the Trump administration for not deciding from the outset whether its goal was regime change in Iran or merely weakening its military capabilities, considering that this hesitation contributed to giving Tehran room to maneuver and use pressure cards that were not on the table before.

It also notes that directly targeting the Iranian leadership pushed the regime to believe it was fighting for survival, making it more willing to use escalation tools it had previously avoided, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Ross warns that Iran may not return to the status quo even if an agreement is reached, but may continue to use Hormuz as a leverage card by imposing restrictions, fees, or obstacles on navigation whenever it needs to pressure its adversaries or improve its negotiating terms.

One of the article’s key points is that Iran’s future will not be determined by the nuclear file alone, but by the regime’s ability to deal with its internal crises. Rebuilding the army and defense industries will require massive financial resources, at a time when Iranians face high unemployment, economic decline, and chronic crises in electricity, water, and currency rates.

It points out that the war has resurfaced questions within Iranian society about the cost of regional policies and support for militias and external allies—questions that existed before the war but may become more prominent with increasing economic and social pressures.

Ross believes that the greatest threat the regime may face is not a new military strike, but the escalation of internal pressures resulting from the contradiction between the requirements of state rebuilding and the requirements of rebuilding military power—a contradiction that will be difficult for the regime to reconcile.

It also draws attention to the fact that any money or financial assets Iran may obtain after the agreement will face the dilemma of distribution: should they go toward rebuilding the economy and improving the living standards of Iranians, or toward rebuilding the Revolutionary Guard, the missile program, and regional influence networks?

The article reaches a striking conclusion: that the war did not topple the Iranian regime, but it may gradually push it toward internal transformation, through the rise of a current demanding a focus on development, the economy, and improving the lives of Iranians instead of continuing external conflicts.

In summary, the author does not see Iran as having emerged completely defeated or completely victorious, but believes that the real battle has now begun. The greatest challenge facing the Iranian regime will not be confronting the United States or Israel, but managing the war’s repercussions internally and convincing Iranians that the cost of the prolonged confrontation is worth the price the country has paid.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
12-Who is the winner in the US-Iran agreement?.- In fact,in my opinion, an agreement like this was designed on the basis that each party should feel that they lost a little and gained a little"." That is, each party made concessions in exchange for gains".

This is the key quote.

Whatever the exact terms, there will certainly be enough for both sides to be able to sell the agreement to their own respective audiences.

That is how the best negotiations work.
 
Reality:

- Iran has been relegated to a failed state. It’s economy in ruins. Its military industrial base cratered. Its entire navy, outside speed boats, sunk. Half its leaders dead, and the other half hiding in bunkers like rats to the point where it takes days just to communicate simple messages.
- Irans nuclear industrial base destroyed, the HEU buried
- Irans Hormuz gambit a total failure. Nearly half of prewar shipping now being escorted out by the US military. Brent crude at $83 this morning, Iran totally blockaded, and total American energy hegemony as a result
- US economy booming, gas prices dropping towards $3, stocks flying, strong employment etc


The US is graded on the anti curve relative to Iran. The US cratered Irans economy, military, and industrial base in 5 weeks, with almost no cost to itself. The US has total and absolute hegemony.
Ow i see why you have earned a well earned break from the thread
 
It actually is stronger. Growth is booming, stocks are higher today than before the war, energy exports at record highs. $1.5T defense budget submitted with critical munitions production going orbital. Hell, we sent humans around the Moon while Iranian ships were getting smashed to the ocean floor. The US is graded on the anti curve 100%.
Indeed you put comical Ali to shame
 
In-Depth Vision

Dennis Ross, the former U.S. envoy and one of Washington’s foremost Middle East experts, wrote an article titled “An Agreement That Could Leave Iran Fatally Weakened,” in which he argues that Iran may appear today capable of wresting some gains from the war, but the real challenge for the regime will begin after the war ends, not during it.

Ross believes that Iran discovered during the war two strategic pressure cards it had not previously used in this manner: disrupting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and targeting energy facilities in Gulf countries, which gave it the ability to influence the global economy and impose itself at the negotiating table despite the military strikes it endured.

In contrast, he emphasizes that Iran suffered massive losses in its military capabilities, its defensive system, and its military-industrial base, in addition to enormous economic damage at a time when the Iranian economy was already suffering from deep structural crises.

The article criticizes the Trump administration for not deciding from the outset whether its goal was regime change in Iran or merely weakening its military capabilities, considering that this hesitation contributed to giving Tehran room to maneuver and use pressure cards that were not on the table before.

It also notes that directly targeting the Iranian leadership pushed the regime to believe it was fighting for survival, making it more willing to use escalation tools it had previously avoided, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Ross warns that Iran may not return to the status quo even if an agreement is reached, but may continue to use Hormuz as a leverage card by imposing restrictions, fees, or obstacles on navigation whenever it needs to pressure its adversaries or improve its negotiating terms.

One of the article’s key points is that Iran’s future will not be determined by the nuclear file alone, but by the regime’s ability to deal with its internal crises. Rebuilding the army and defense industries will require massive financial resources, at a time when Iranians face high unemployment, economic decline, and chronic crises in electricity, water, and currency rates.

It points out that the war has resurfaced questions within Iranian society about the cost of regional policies and support for militias and external allies—questions that existed before the war but may become more prominent with increasing economic and social pressures.

Ross believes that the greatest threat the regime may face is not a new military strike, but the escalation of internal pressures resulting from the contradiction between the requirements of state rebuilding and the requirements of rebuilding military power—a contradiction that will be difficult for the regime to reconcile.

It also draws attention to the fact that any money or financial assets Iran may obtain after the agreement will face the dilemma of distribution: should they go toward rebuilding the economy and improving the living standards of Iranians, or toward rebuilding the Revolutionary Guard, the missile program, and regional influence networks?

The article reaches a striking conclusion: that the war did not topple the Iranian regime, but it may gradually push it toward internal transformation, through the rise of a current demanding a focus on development, the economy, and improving the lives of Iranians instead of continuing external conflicts.

In summary, the author does not see Iran as having emerged completely defeated or completely victorious, but believes that the real battle has now begun. The greatest challenge facing the Iranian regime will not be confronting the United States or Israel, but managing the war’s repercussions internally and convincing Iranians that the cost of the prolonged confrontation is worth the price the country has paid.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Copium by an Israel Firster. Dennis Ross is notorious for sabotaging the Oslo Accords while serving in government and then was rewarded by the Israeli lobby with a plum post in the many think-tanks that form the pro-Israel lobby. This template has been followed by many American govt officials who put Israel first.

I have also seen this "after the war the Iran regime will have to face its people" line in other publications, including by GCC puppets. It's frankly remarkable how once the Israel lobby puts out a script, all of them read from it at the same time across news, TV channels, social media, radio, you name it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Back
Top