Iran War

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I'm pretty sure Bibi is going to do whatever he can to sabotage the ceasefire with Iran.

And so is everyone else apparently.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Apparently Trump is saying the Iranian document being circulated is "not the agreement" they made, and it also appears the Farsi-only version contains a clause that the U.S. must accept Iranian uranium enrichment.

[Valmy]

Operation Eternal Darkness?

[The Minsky Moment]

Apparently Trump is saying the Iranian document being circulated is "not the agreement" they made, and it also appears the Farsi-only version contains a clause that the U.S. must accept Iranian uranium enrichment.

If ever there were two parties that deserved the other, it's Trump and these Iranians.  The mullahs may play at being austere guardians of Islam, but you could plug the lot of them into cutthroat New York commercial real estate and they'd fit right in.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Reports of explosions in Iranian cities of Isfahan and Kerman.

[Sheilbh]

Trump has now said in a public statement that Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire.

Iran has now said the Israeli strikes in Lebanon violate the ceasefire.

Yeah - as I say the Pakistanis who negotiated the ceasefire have said it covered Iran and the US plus their allies (so Hezbollah, Israel and the UAE) and Lebanon. And to Lapid's point Israel weren't in the room because Trump wants gas prices lowered.

Again interesting analysis from Hamidreza Azizi on the Iranian read. I think the fundamental point here is that the Iranians saw even agreeing to a ceasefire as a concession (under Chinese pressure), the US is not capable of forcing Hormuz open (or regime change or any of the other goals, American or Israeli) without signficantly more force being applied and Iran's goals are pretty maximalist given the leverage they have and are capable/willing to apply (including the hits they're willing to take):

Hamidreza Azizi
@HamidRezaAz
Will the ceasefire hold?

🔹Iranian state media and government-affiliated institutions continue to frame the ceasefire as a victory, arguing that the United States has effectively accepted Iran's terms. But developments since this morning have begun to challenge both the ceasefire and the broader narrative of success promoted by Tehran.

🔹Reactions inside Iran have not been uniform. A segment of pro-government experts – many aligned with the regime's core constituency – have expressed skepticism about whether the ceasefire actually serves Iran's interests.

🔹Their central concern is trust. These voices argue that the United States has demonstrated it is not a reliable interlocutor, and that the ceasefire may simply give Washington and Israel time to regroup before resuming military operations under more favorable conditions.

🔹This skepticism is reinforced by what they see as inconsistency in official messaging. Iranian leaders had repeatedly emphasized that there would be no ceasefire, only a decisive end to the war.

🔹The acceptance of a temporary ceasefire, without clarity on whether it leads to a definitive resolution, is therefore viewed as a reversal that raises questions about strategic coherence.

🔹Recent comments by Donald Trump have added to these concerns. His shift from referencing Iran's proposed 10-point plan to promoting a U.S. 15-point framework is interpreted as a sign that Washington may already be reconsidering its position.

🔹Particular attention has focused on the substance of these proposals. The emphasis on removing Iran's nuclear material in exchange for sanctions "relief" – rather than full "removal" – is seen as evidence that the U.S. is hardening, not softening, its stance.

🔹Beyond elite debates, some commentators warn of domestic repercussions. Public support during the war, they say, was sustained in part by trust in leadership decision-making.

🔹If that trust is perceived to have been undermined, especially through a ceasefire that appears uncertain or disadvantageous, future public mobilization may become more difficult.

🔹At the regional level, developments in Lebanon are placing additional pressure on the ceasefire. Israel's intensified air campaign there directly challenges Iran's insistence that any ceasefire must be region-wide.

🔹This creates pressure on Tehran to respond. From the outset, Iran's position was that the war could not be compartmentalized, and more recently, officials explicitly stated that Lebanon must be included in any ceasefire arrangement.

🔹As a result, pro-government analysts increasingly frame the situation as a strategic challenge: either Iran responds decisively to restore deterrence, or Israel succeeds in imposing a new regional equation.

🔹In that scenario, the so-called "resistance front" would become fragmented, with its different components effectively separated and weakened.

🔹This has direct implications for Iran's position in Lebanon, they say. Hezbollah entered the war in support of Iran and now expects reciprocal backing. If Hezbollah perceives abandonment, some analysts warn that Iran may struggle to rebuild its influence among Lebanon's Shiite community.

🔹More broadly, such an outcome would damage Iran's regional standing. It would reinforce a perception Tehran ultimately prioritizes its own interests over those of its allies.

🔹These concerns are also tied to Iran's national security calculus. Some analysts argue that Israel accepted the ceasefire with Iran primarily to neutralize the northern front. From this perspective, degrading Hezbollah's capabilities would remove a key pressure point, allowing Israel to refocus on Iran itself at a later stage.

🔹This leads to a more long-term concern: sequencing. If Iran does not act now to support Hezbollah, it may face a future confrontation with Israel without the same level of regional backing.

🔹In that sense, the ceasefire is not seen as an endpoint but as a transitional phase that could reshape the strategic environment in ways that are ultimately unfavorable to Iran.

FWIW - horrible and dangers regime etc etc - I'm really not sure they're misreading Trump (or Netanyahu) here.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Netanyahu just got done giving a press briefing--he confirms Hezbollah is not part of the ceasefire and Israel will not cease its war on Hezbollah.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Unless some moves are made quickly I don't really see the ceasefire holding, there's too little of the "cease" and too much of the "fire."

In terms of Trump's strategy versus Iran--his biggest single weakness specific to Iran (ignoring his general weaknesses like low intelligence, poor emotional regulation etc), is his obsession and fear of gasoline prices.

You can go to war with Iran.

You cannot go to war with Iran, and not raise gas prices.

Given that reality, it is virtually impossible to wage a successful war against Iran if you have close to no tolerance for increased gas prices. In the past, when American Presidents have felt the need to wage wars that they knew would create unpopular domestic consequences, they made appeals to the American public, they built a case for the war, they convinced people this war justified some sacrifice.

Trump started the war in secret with little advance notice, certainly no public political debate. He has never meaningfully justified it to America, and he has certainly never tried to appeal to Americans patriotism to get them to tolerate self sacrifice. Instead he has consistently said the war would be over "very soon" and tried to create narrative that the war would solely be fun and winning, no pain at all.

Now, I'm not sure necessarily if Trump could ever achieve significant wins in Iran without ground troops. But I do know some figures like former Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, have openly said it is more or less "insane" that Trump hasn't shut down Iran's oil trade. That's out of line with basic military strategy for about as long a we've had navies--the idea that you let your enemy shut down trade vital to your country but take no effort to blockade its own trade is...weird. And it only makes sense because Trump feared even more gas price increases.

Montgomery (who was made infamous for his involvement in the "Fat Leonard" scandal, but let's assume he at least does know naval strategy better than Trump), noted that things like seizing Kharg Island are also unnecessary. Montgomery's opinion is if the Navy simply put out a warning that any oil tankers attempting to depart the region with Iranian oil would be subject to interdiction would likely shut down significantly the trade--with many unlikely to risk challenging the proclamation.

Anyway--I don't know that shutting down Iran's oil revenue gets you to a win, the reality is Iran is still a big country with a lot of people and IMO just won't be defeated by anything short of a ground invasion. But I do agree with the logic that it makes little sense to have allowed Iran to conduct a one sided blockade--it only makes sense in the context of a President unwilling to "pay the cost" of the war he started.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Al Jazeera is reporting the GCC countries may be looking for a "different security partnership" than the U.S., as they feel deeply screwed by the ceasefire (which hasn't apparently even stopped attacks on their infrastructure), and they also oppose any attempts to toll the Strait of Hormuz.

It actually isn't impossible the Gulf countries continue the war over this--from their perspective the time to hammer Iran is now, when it is at its military weakest, not months from now after it has rebuilt and can more strongly wage war to enforce its toll scheme. The GCC countries could also conceivably use some of their own leverage--for example doing their own embargo on oil exports which would put countries like China in a position of possibly needing to try to get Iran to drop its attempts at establishing a Strait toll.

Hard to say how it works out but just sounds like a further progression of the general clusterfuck that has been this whole situation.

[Syt]

The headlines from AP at the moment:

4 min ago
White House defends Trump's language threatening 'a whole civilization'
5 min ago
White House shrugs off NATO's pledge to ensure freedom of navigation through a reopened Strait of Hormuz
6 min ago
Israel's airport restarts full operations
7 min ago
JUST IN: White House says Trump is opposed to tolls for ship passage through the Strait of Hormuz
8 min ago
The White House defends Trump's threat that 'a whole civilization will die tonight
10 min ago
Vance will lead US delegation to Islamabad for talks with Iran
12 min ago
Flights gradually resume in Bahrain
13 min ago
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strikes victorious tone, praises Israel's resilience even as country remains hobbled from war
16 min ago
JUST IN: White House says VP JD Vance will lead US negotiating team in Islamabad talks aimed at finding permanent end to war
17 min ago
JUST IN: White House demands Iran reopen Strait of Hormuz immediately after Iran says it closed waterway
17 min ago
The White House says Iran presented a 'new, modified peace plan that it is able to 'align with our own, 15-point proposal
19 min ago
Iran closes Strait of Hormuz again in response to Israeli attacks in Lebanon, threatening ceasefire

[Syt]

Also (not sure how trustworthy Lebanese sources are?):

At least 112 killed in Israeli strikes over Lebanon, says health ministry
By KAREEM CHEHAYEB
The latest count for Wednesday includes widespread strikes across central Beirut that came without warning, also wounding at least 837, one of the deadliest days in this latest war between Israel and the Hezbollah militant group. It is not the final count.

More than 1,500 people have been killed in Lebanon during the past month, and over 1 million others have been displaced.

[Sheilbh]

Anyway--I don't know that shutting down Iran's oil revenue gets you to a win, the reality is Iran is still a big country with a lot of people and IMO just won't be defeated by anything short of a ground invasion. But I do agree with the logic that it makes little sense to have allowed Iran to conduct a one sided blockade--it only makes sense in the context of a President unwilling to "pay the cost" of the war he started.

Agree with the rest of your post - but I'd add there's also the cost Iran is willing to pay.

I think with Trump personally I can't help but think the relative lack of response to assassinating Soleimani and the twelve day war is that Iran's a bit of a paper tiger. I also think more broadly that (as in the NYT today) Netanyahu seems to have very much oversold this. Additionally - I've mentioned it before but killing the leadership of a country in your opening strike really doesn't leave much space for escalation.

I'd add that I don't think bombing Iran would necessarily have helped but I think one of the most morally disgraceful things Trump's done was telling protestors in Iran that "help is on its way" and then did nothing, wile tens of thousands of protestors were gunned down.

On the GCC I think it seems like there's a divide - or basically the UAE are far, far more hawkish than everyone else. I mentioned before but I think they're in a very tough position - I'm not sure there's a solution.

[Valmy]

The headlines from AP at the moment:

4 min ago
White House defends Trump's language threatening 'a whole civilization'
5 min ago
White House shrugs off NATO's pledge to ensure freedom of navigation through a reopened Strait of Hormuz
6 min ago
Israel's airport restarts full operations
7 min ago
JUST IN: White House says Trump is opposed to tolls for ship passage through the Strait of Hormuz
8 min ago
The White House defends Trump's threat that 'a whole civilization will die tonight
10 min ago
Vance will lead US delegation to Islamabad for talks with Iran
12 min ago
Flights gradually resume in Bahrain
13 min ago
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strikes victorious tone, praises Israel's resilience even as country remains hobbled from war
16 min ago
JUST IN: White House says VP JD Vance will lead US negotiating team in Islamabad talks aimed at finding permanent end to war
17 min ago
JUST IN: White House demands Iran reopen Strait of Hormuz immediately after Iran says it closed waterway
17 min ago
The White House says Iran presented a 'new, modified peace plan that it is able to 'align with our own, 15-point proposal
19 min ago
Iran closes Strait of Hormuz again in response to Israeli attacks in Lebanon, threatening ceasefire

[OttoVonBismarck]

Anyway--I don't know that shutting down Iran's oil revenue gets you to a win, the reality is Iran is still a big country with a lot of people and IMO just won't be defeated by anything short of a ground invasion. But I do agree with the logic that it makes little sense to have allowed Iran to conduct a one sided blockade--it only makes sense in the context of a President unwilling to "pay the cost" of the war he started.

Agree with the rest of your post - but I'd add there's also the cost Iran is willing to pay.

I think with Trump personally I can't help but think the relative lack of response to assassinating Soleimani and the twelve day war is that Iran's a bit of a paper tiger. I also think more broadly that (as in the NYT today) Netanyahu seems to have very much oversold this. Additionally - I've mentioned it before but killing the leadership of a country in your opening strike really doesn't leave much space for escalation.

I'd add that I don't think bombing Iran would necessarily have helped but I think one of the most morally disgraceful things Trump's done was telling protestors in Iran that "help is on its way" and then did nothing, wile tens of thousands of protestors were gunned down.

On the GCC I think it seems like there's a divide - or basically the UAE are far, far more hawkish than everyone else. I mentioned before but I think they're in a very tough position - I'm not sure there's a solution.

Which I think Trump, again--if he didn't have the many defects that make him Trump, may have realized there's a grave difference between "bloodying Iran's nose", which is what the 12 day war was, and attempting to kill Iran. And the IRGC/Clerical regime almost certainly equate their removal from power as synonymous with "death" of themselves and their country.

A person who agrees to not fight after receiving a bloody nose, out of fear of a worse beating is very different than a man fearful for his death who has been backed into a corner. The latter has only one viable option--to fight.

[OttoVonBismarck]

White House / Kommissar Leavitt:

She says Iran's 10-point plan was "fundamentally unserious", claiming that the country "put forward a more reasonable" plan that Washington deemed could be "a workable basis" for talks.

The Trump administration will engage in negotiations over the next two weeks "so long as the Strait of Hormuz remains open, with no limitations or delays".

Trump "was made aware" of reports in Iranian media about the Strait of Hormuz being closed amid Israel's attacks on Lebanon, but Leavitt says the US president expects the strait to be reopened "immediately, quickly and safely".

"Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire. That has been relayed to all parties involved in the ceasefire."

She claims Iran has indicated that it would turn over its enriched uranium, without providing further details.

"That is a red line that the president is not going to back away from and he's committed to ensuring that takes place. We hope it will be through diplomacy."

So we have here a very unambiguous set of claims, almost totally inconsistent with what the Iranians have said they agreed to for the ceasefire. In this situation I can only guess who is lying--and it may be both of them are lying, to each other and to the public in their respective countries.

The fact they are reiterating Lebanon is not involved, and Netanyahu just gave a press conference where he made the same statement, makes me suspect Trump probably tried to get Bibi to agree to ceasefire in Lebanon and was rebuffed / couldn't be strong armed into it.