Iran War

[Grey Fox]

Support of Hezbolla is key. If Iran drops it, the war between Iran & USA will end faster.

But they won't.

[crazy canuck]

Support of Hezbolla is key. If Iran drops it, the war between Iran & USA will end faster.

But they won't.

What are you basing that on?  Granted it difficult to understand what the American demands actually are, but I've not read that that is one of the dealbreakers.

[Grey Fox]

Support of Hezbolla is key. If Iran drops it, the war between Iran & USA will end faster.

But they won't.

What are you basing that on?  Granted it difficult to understand what the American demands actually are, but I've not read that that is one of the dealbreakers.

I don't think Americans care much about it but Israel does and Iran has cared for the past 30+ years about it.
I agree with everyone else that Israel is not interested in ending the war. We've only talk about including Lebanon in the agreement between the USA and Iran. Not the alternative were Iran lets go of Hezbolla and Lebanon.

Iran will gain much by controlling the strait and decoupling it self from Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Let them fight each other while the USA only supports Israel and the Arab states have to choose between support from India or Pakistan.

[Sheilbh]

What are you basing that on?  Granted it difficult to understand what the American demands actually are, but I've not read that that is one of the dealbreakers.

It's Iran's position. But I think it's also tail wagging the dog and Israel's role.

From what I've read of Iranian commentators - the Iranian view is that any deal absolutely must cover the region, which is understandable. If they are relenting on their leverage on Hormuz that is not simply so Israel can shift their attacks North. It must cover Lebanon too. It cannot be purely in relation to Iran and they'll look at opening Hormuz/moving to a more open controlled position on Hormuz.

And the Israelis are, understandably, incredibly reluctant to see any "regional" deal that includes the US and Iran that could potentially constrain their freedom of action in Lebanon. E.g. before this war closing the Hormuz was an enormous escalation; in the context of a deal opening the Hormuz is subject to conditions which Iran wants to be regional, so if one America's regional proxies like Israel, breaks it by attacking Lebanon then Iran closing Hormuz isn't really an escalation but just the quid pro quo of a breach of the conditions for re-opening it.

I'd add I think Iran's forward defence/deterrent policy worked - expensively building up forces over there did help prevent attacks at home. Syria's gone. But I'd be surprised if Iran doesn't re-double efforts to build Hamas and Hezbollah back up and look for other opportunities. I think it's one of the uncomfortable realities exposed by this conflict: that the IRGC strategy was effective. It's one of the ways I think this has been a disaster for Israel's regional position - I think it will end up with far less freedom of action.

[grumbler]

I don't think Americans care much about it but Israel does and Iran has cared for the past 30+ years about it.
I agree with everyone else that Israel is not interested in ending the war. We've only talk about including Lebanon in the agreement between the USA and Iran. Not the alternative were Iran lets go of Hezbolla and Lebanon.

Iran will gain much by controlling the strait and decoupling it self from Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Let them fight each other while the USA only supports Israel and the Arab states have to choose between support from India or Pakistan.

A great deal of the legitimacy of the Iranian government's legitimacy comes from their role as the "protectors of Shia Islam." Abandoning Hezbollah would sacrifice that legitimacy. The situation seems analogous to Russia and Serbia in 1914.

[Sheilbh]

A great deal of the legitimacy of the Iranian government's legitimacy comes from their role as the "protectors of Shia Islam." Abandoning Hezbollah would sacrifice that legitimacy. The situation seems analogous to Russia and Serbia in 1914.

Also - it worked, right?

Syria, Hezbollah, Yemen and Hamas were not directly controlled proxies and occasionally loose cannons but aligned with, supported by and supporting the Iranian state was an effective way of deterring attacks on Iran because of how Iran could use those forces. As they were either knocked out or severely degraded that opened the possibility of an attack on Iran.

I think on legitimacy it slightly depends on where and who we're talking about. So I think in the Arab world it's more the broader Axis of Resistance positioning v Arab regimes perceived as supine to the West, plus Palestine - which served Iran's interests and, I think especially on Palestine, aligns with what they genuinely believe. Within Iran I'm not so sure on the Shia legitimacy - I think it's definitely in the mix - but I think that Axis of Resistance point and being perceived as fighting "for" Palestine is maybe more important, I also think historically the revolution and the Iran-Iraq wars were great sources of legitimacy - and I suspect this war will be a fairly lasting source of legitimacy too.

[crazy canuck]

What are you basing that on?  Granted it difficult to understand what the American demands actually are, but I've not read that that is one of the dealbreakers.

It's Iran's position. But I think it's also tail wagging the dog and Israel's role.

From what I've read of Iranian commentators - the Iranian view is that any deal absolutely must cover the region, which is understandable. If they are relenting on their leverage on Hormuz that is not simply so Israel can shift their attacks North. It must cover Lebanon too. It cannot be purely in relation to Iran and they'll look at opening Hormuz/moving to a more open controlled position on Hormuz.

And the Israelis are, understandably, incredibly reluctant to see any "regional" deal that includes the US and Iran that could potentially constrain their freedom of action in Lebanon. E.g. before this war closing the Hormuz was an enormous escalation; in the context of a deal opening the Hormuz is subject to conditions which Iran wants to be regional, so if one America's regional proxies like Israel, breaks it by attacking Lebanon then Iran closing Hormuz isn't really an escalation but just the quid pro quo of a breach of the conditions for re-opening it.

I'd add I think Iran's forward defence/deterrent policy worked - expensively building up forces over there did help prevent attacks at home. Syria's gone. But I'd be surprised if Iran doesn't re-double efforts to build Hamas and Hezbollah back up and look for other opportunities. I think it's one of the uncomfortable realities exposed by this conflict: that the IRGC strategy was effective. It's one of the ways I think this has been a disaster for Israel's regional position - I think it will end up with far less freedom of action.

Yes, and those are broader concerns than just support for Hezbollah-which was GF's post.

The wider concern for Iran must be containing Israeli aggression.  That seems to be more of an Israel problem than an Iran problem. Given the fact that Israel is continuing it's war in Lebanon, occupation of the West Bank and occupation of Gaza.

So, one could say the war will go one because Israel won't stop being an aggressor in the region.

[Jacob]

A great deal of the legitimacy of the Iranian government's legitimacy comes from their role as the "protectors of Shia Islam." Abandoning Hezbollah would sacrifice that legitimacy. The situation seems analogous to Russia and Serbia in 1914.

Yes, and not only that, I think. There's also some real legitimacy from the "the ones who stand up to Israel" narrative as well.

[Grey Fox]

What are you basing that on?  Granted it difficult to understand what the American demands actually are, but I've not read that that is one of the dealbreakers.

It's Iran's position. But I think it's also tail wagging the dog and Israel's role.

From what I've read of Iranian commentators - the Iranian view is that any deal absolutely must cover the region, which is understandable. If they are relenting on their leverage on Hormuz that is not simply so Israel can shift their attacks North. It must cover Lebanon too. It cannot be purely in relation to Iran and they'll look at opening Hormuz/moving to a more open controlled position on Hormuz.

And the Israelis are, understandably, incredibly reluctant to see any "regional" deal that includes the US and Iran that could potentially constrain their freedom of action in Lebanon. E.g. before this war closing the Hormuz was an enormous escalation; in the context of a deal opening the Hormuz is subject to conditions which Iran wants to be regional, so if one America's regional proxies like Israel, breaks it by attacking Lebanon then Iran closing Hormuz isn't really an escalation but just the quid pro quo of a breach of the conditions for re-opening it.

I'd add I think Iran's forward defence/deterrent policy worked - expensively building up forces over there did help prevent attacks at home. Syria's gone. But I'd be surprised if Iran doesn't re-double efforts to build Hamas and Hezbollah back up and look for other opportunities. I think it's one of the uncomfortable realities exposed by this conflict: that the IRGC strategy was effective. It's one of the ways I think this has been a disaster for Israel's regional position - I think it will end up with far less freedom of action.

Yes, and those are broader concerns than just support for Hezbollah-which was GF's post.

The wider concern for Iran must be containing Israeli aggression.  That seems to be more of an Israel problem than an Iran problem. Given the fact that Israel is continuing it's war in Lebanon, occupation of the West Bank and occupation of Gaza.

So, one could say the war will go one because Israel won't stop being an aggressor in the region.

but for Iran itself, does it need to? Israel won't stop but it will stop attacking Iran, if Iran stops wanting it to be destroyed. A temporary situation for sure but Israel is undefeatable as we speak and it's going to be reinforced in the near future, not weakened.

Trump's USA gave the IRGC a chance to turn Iran into the next Egypt where they can control everything.

[crazy canuck]

What are you basing that on?  Granted it difficult to understand what the American demands actually are, but I've not read that that is one of the dealbreakers.

It's Iran's position. But I think it's also tail wagging the dog and Israel's role.

From what I've read of Iranian commentators - the Iranian view is that any deal absolutely must cover the region, which is understandable. If they are relenting on their leverage on Hormuz that is not simply so Israel can shift their attacks North. It must cover Lebanon too. It cannot be purely in relation to Iran and they'll look at opening Hormuz/moving to a more open controlled position on Hormuz.

And the Israelis are, understandably, incredibly reluctant to see any "regional" deal that includes the US and Iran that could potentially constrain their freedom of action in Lebanon. E.g. before this war closing the Hormuz was an enormous escalation; in the context of a deal opening the Hormuz is subject to conditions which Iran wants to be regional, so if one America's regional proxies like Israel, breaks it by attacking Lebanon then Iran closing Hormuz isn't really an escalation but just the quid pro quo of a breach of the conditions for re-opening it.

I'd add I think Iran's forward defence/deterrent policy worked - expensively building up forces over there did help prevent attacks at home. Syria's gone. But I'd be surprised if Iran doesn't re-double efforts to build Hamas and Hezbollah back up and look for other opportunities. I think it's one of the uncomfortable realities exposed by this conflict: that the IRGC strategy was effective. It's one of the ways I think this has been a disaster for Israel's regional position - I think it will end up with far less freedom of action.

Yes, and those are broader concerns than just support for Hezbollah-which was GF's post.

The wider concern for Iran must be containing Israeli aggression.  That seems to be more of an Israel problem than an Iran problem. Given the fact that Israel is continuing it's war in Lebanon, occupation of the West Bank and occupation of Gaza.

So, one could say the war will go one because Israel won't stop being an aggressor in the region.

but for Iran itself, does it need to? Israel won't stop but it will stop attacking Iran, if Iran stops wanting it to be destroyed. A temporary situation for sure but Israel is undefeatable as we speak and it's going to be reinforced in the near future, not weakened.

Trump's USA gave the IRGC a chance to turn Iran into the next Egypt where they can control everything.

Yes, I think it does. It would only be a matter of time before Israel attacks Iran again.  The most reasonable position Iran can take in its own self interest is to get American agreement to stop Israeli aggression.

That may not be achievable, but that is a separate issue.

[Zanza]

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump sought to downplay the potential collapse of peace talks with Iran, saying the negotiations "started to get very boring" and that he "couldn't care less" if the talks are over.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/01/trump-iran-peace-talks-over-israel-lebanon/90356859007/

I guess the Iranians have enough attention span to eventually win this war by outlasting Trump's interest.

[Valmy]

WTF kind of response is that?

Ending the war? BORING.

[crazy canuck]

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump sought to downplay the potential collapse of peace talks with Iran, saying the negotiations "started to get very boring" and that he "couldn't care less" if the talks are over.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/01/trump-iran-peace-talks-over-israel-lebanon/90356859007/

I guess the Iranians have enough attention span to eventually win this war by outlasting Trump's interest.

The people serving in the American Armed Forces must be thrilled that their lives are being put in danger because their president is too bored to discuss peace terms.

[Darth Wagtaros]

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump sought to downplay the potential collapse of peace talks with Iran, saying the negotiations "started to get very boring" and that he "couldn't care less" if the talks are over.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/01/trump-iran-peace-talks-over-israel-lebanon/90356859007/

I guess the Iranians have enough attention span to eventually win this war by outlasting Trump's interest.

The people serving in the American Armed Forces must be thrilled that their lives are being put in danger because their president is too bored to discuss peace terms.

The ongoing purges of the officer corps will make sure their pleasure is irrelevant. 

[Grey Fox]

It seems Iran has chosen to double down on Hezbollah. A poor choice.